$NAT the second subsidy

A market-funded second subsidy for Bitcoin — $NAT.

$NAT is a Bitcoin meta-protocol token. Since block 885,588 (Feb 25 2025), every Bitcoin block automatically credits a fixed amount of NAT to that block's own coinbase address — a per-block reward decoded from the block header's bits field and auto-credited. It does not halve. The campaign frame: NAT is one proposed market answer to Bitcoin's long-term security-budget problem — a reward that miners earn on top of the block subsidy.

This is the honest version. NAT is one option being tried — not "the solution," not "the fix," and not financial advice.

How it works (and how to check)

Read the block header's bits field as a number

Every Bitcoin block carries a 4-byte bits field (the difficulty target). Read as an integer it decodes to a NAT amount via NAT = s×2²⁴ + c — currently ~386,021,021 NAT per block.

That NAT is auto-credited to the block's own coinbase address

Since block 885,588, an open TAP Protocol indexer applies this rule to every block and credits the amount to the address that mined it. No claim transaction, no opt-in — the credit is computed from data already on Bitcoin.

It is not merged mining and nothing the miner runs

It is decoded from each block's own bits field and auto-credited to the coinbase address — not a second chain or sidechain, and nothing the miner has to run. An open TAP indexer computes it off-chain from the existing Bitcoin block data.

Verify it yourself

Open any recent block on mempool.space (or any explorer), take its bits value, and run the decode above. Cross-check the per-block amount and the crediting start at block 885,588 — don't take our word for it.

Estimated

NAT credited this block ~386,021,021

Cumulative since launch —

tokens only · no USD, no price · verify tip

What $NAT is NOT

×Not merged mining

Miners don't point hashpower at a second chain. The reward is read from Bitcoin's own block data.

×Not a new chain, sidechain, or L2

There is no separate blockchain. NAT is an accounting layer (a meta-protocol) computed from Bitcoin itself.

×Nothing the miner has to run

No new software, no opt-in, no extra work for miners. The credit lands at the coinbase address automatically.

×Not a consensus or Bitcoin change

No fork, no BIP, no change to Bitcoin's rules. Bitcoin nodes neither know nor care that NAT exists.

×Not a claim that it "fixes" security

NAT is one market-funded experiment among several proposals — not a proven or complete solution.

×Not a dollar-denominated guarantee

NAT does not "secure $X of Bitcoin." Its security contribution is whatever miners can sell it for — and that is not guaranteed.

Why it might matter

Bitcoin pays for its security with the block subsidy (currently 3.125 BTC/block), which halves roughly every four years toward ~0 by about 2140. The intended replacement is transaction fees — but today fees are only about 0.65% of the block reward and are volatile and unreliable. That long-run gap is the security-budget problem: an open question, not a settled disaster.

$NAT is one market-funded answer: a perpetual, non-halving reward that miners earn alongside the subsidy, paid for by whoever values NAT in the market. It sits alongside other proposals — not instead of them. These are competing and complementary ideas, and none has a monopoly on the answer:

Higher transaction fees Tail emission Merged mining Other external rewards $NAT (a market-funded reward)

Whether any of these — including NAT — meaningfully closes the gap is unproven. NAT's case is that a market is already willing to pay miners something extra, today, with no change to Bitcoin.

Proposed fix	No hard fork?	No holder dilution?	$Market-funded?	Preserves decentralization?	Preserves user experience?	Available today?	Worst case
Fee-Reliancethe failing status quo — not a fix	✓no protocol change	✓no new issuance	✓fees are bid & paid by the market	✓no central operator	✗high fees → congestion; prices out small txns & mints	✗already here & failing — fees <1% of rewards	Bitcoinsecurity budget slowly bleeds
On-chain Scalingbigger / faster blocks → stronger fee market	✗block-size / block-time limits → hard fork	✓no new issuance	✓still market-paid fees	~bigger blocks raise node costs → centralizes	✓more capacity → lower fees, less congestion	✗contentious, not deployed	Bitcoinprotocol permanently changed
Consensus ShiftPoW → PoS or PoA	✗replaces consensus → hardest fork	✗PoS staking rewards = new issuance → dilutes	—stake / authority, not a market subsidy	✗paper: raises centralization & trust concerns	✗new security model → erodes store-of-value trust	✗not deployed on Bitcoin	Bitcoinno longer Bitcoin
Tail Emissionmonetary-policy bucket — also demurrage / burn-dormant	✗breaks 21M cap · needs fork	✗prints new BTC → dilutes	—protocol-minted, not market	~keeps miners, alters issuance	✗breaks the 21M cap → erodes store-of-value trust	✗not deployed	Bitcointhe 21M cap is broken
Nation-State Subsidy“who foots the bill” — a government funds security	✓no protocol change	✓no new issuance	✗state-funded, not market	✗a state controls hashrate	✗state-funded security → erodes store-of-value trust	~plausible, not committed	Bitcoincaptured by a state
NATall ✓market-priced second subsidy	✓no fork · uses existing consensus	✓21M cap untouched	✓priced & paid by the market	✓pay-per-block · no controller	✓scales infinitely · no fee pressure on users	✓live since block 885,588	$NATjust doesn’t go up — Bitcoin untouched

✓ meets the requirement

✗ fails the requirement

~ partial / conditional

— not applicable

Why NAT is the only all-green row

Every alternative the paper surveys fails at least one non-negotiable.

✗Fee-reliance is the failing baseline, not a fix — it's already here, with fees under 1% of miner rewards.
✗On-chain scaling (bigger / faster blocks) needs a consensus-rule hard fork and pushes node costs up, squeezing decentralization.
✗A consensus shift to PoS or PoA is the most contentious fork of all; the paper says it “raises centralization and trust concerns,” and its PoS staking rewards are new issuance that dilutes holders.
✗Tail emission — standing in for the whole monetary-policy bucket (demurrage, burning dormant coins) — breaks the 21M cap and dilutes holders.
✗A nation-state subsidy answers “who foots the bill” by trading the funding problem for a control problem: it isn't market-funded and it kills decentralization.
✓NAT alone is no-fork, dilutes no holders, market-funded, preserves decentralization (pay-per-block, no central operator), and scales with no fee pressure on users — already live since block 885,588.

The non-negotiables: the 21M supply cap (tail emission breaks it → requires a hard fork); funding that comes from the market, not a state; preserved decentralization (no single controller of hashrate); and a fix that exists today, not in proposal form. · NAT is no-fork, market-funded, and live (since block 885,588, Feb 2025). · Sources: NATpaper — the alternatives it surveys (on-chain scaling enhancements; consensus shifts to PoS / PoA; monetary-policy alterations: tail emission, demurrage, burning dormant coins) plus the nation-state “who foots the bill” scenario and the failing fee-reliance status quo, vs. the NAT it proposes.
Cell judgments are an editorial reading of the paper's argument for this concept mock.

提议方案	无需硬分叉？	不稀释持有者？	$市场资助？	保全去中心化？	保全用户体验？	当前可用？	最坏情况
依赖手续费正在失败的现状——并非修复方案	✓无协议变更	✓无新增发行	✓手续费由市场竞价并支付	✓无中央运营者	✗高手续费 → 拥堵；挤出小额交易与铸造	✗已在此且正在失败——手续费 <1% 的奖励	比特币安全预算缓慢失血
链上扩容更大 / 更快的区块 → 更强的手续费市场	✗区块大小 / 出块时间限制 → 硬分叉	✓无新增发行	✓仍是市场支付的手续费	~更大的区块抬高节点成本 → 趋于中心化	✓更多容量 → 更低手续费、更少拥堵	✗存在争议，尚未部署	比特币协议被永久改变
共识切换PoW → PoS 或 PoA	✗替换共识 → 最艰难的分叉	✗PoS 质押奖励 = 新增发行 → 稀释	—质押 / 权威，而非市场补贴	✗论文：引发中心化与信任顾虑	✗新的安全模型 → 侵蚀价值存储信任	✗未在比特币上部署	比特币不再是比特币
尾部发行货币政策类——亦含滞币费 / 销毁休眠币	✗突破 21M 上限 · 需要分叉	✗印发新 BTC → 稀释	—协议铸造，而非市场	~保留矿工，但改变发行	✗突破 21M 上限 → 侵蚀价值存储信任	✗尚未部署	比特币21M 上限被打破
国家级补贴“谁来买单”——由政府出资保障安全	✓无协议变更	✓无新增发行	✗国家出资，而非市场	✗由国家控制算力	✗国家出资的安全 → 侵蚀价值存储信任	~看似可行，但未作承诺	比特币被国家俱获
NAT全 ✓按市场定价的“第二补贴”	✓无分叉 · 沿用现有共识	✓21M 上限不受触动	✓由市场定价并支付	✓按区块支付 · 无控制者	✓无限扩展 · 不向用户施加手续费压力	✓自区块 885,588 起已上线	$NAT只是不上涨 — 比特币毫发无损

✓ 满足要求

✗ 不满足要求

~ 部分 / 有条件

— 不适用

为何只有 NAT 这一行全绿

论文考察的每个备选方案都至少在一条不可让步的标准上失败。

✗依赖手续费是正在失败的基线，并非修复方案——它已身处此地，手续费不足矿工奖励的 1%。
✗链上扩容（更大 / 更快的区块）需要一次共识规则硬分叉，并推高节点成本，挤压去中心化。
✗共识切换至 PoS 或 PoA 是其中争议最大的一次分叉，且如论文所言，”引发中心化与信任顾虑”；其 PoS 质押奖励属于新增发行，会稀释持有者。
✗尾部发行——代表整个货币政策类（滞币费、销毁休眠币）——突破 21M 上限并稀释持有者。
✗国家级补贴对”谁来买单”作出的回答，是用一个控制问题换掉了出资问题：它并非由市场资助，而且会扼杀去中心化。
✓唯有 NAT 无需分叉、不稀释任何持有者、由市场资助、保全去中心化（按区块支付，无中央运营者），无限扩展且不向用户施加手续费压力，且已经上线——自区块 885,588起运行。

不可让步的几条：21M 供应上限（尾部发行会突破它 → 需要硬分叉）；来自市场而非国家的出资；保全的去中心化（无单一算力控制者）；以及一个当前就存在、而非停留在提案阶段的修复方案。 · NAT 无需分叉、由市场资助、已上线（自区块 885,588，2025 年 2 月起）。 · 数据来源：NAT 白皮书——它考察的备选方案（链上扩容增强；共识切换至 PoS / PoA；货币政策变更：尾部发行、滞币费、销毁休眠币）加上国家级“谁来买单”情景与正在失败的“依赖手续费”现状，对比它所提议的 NAT。
各单元格的判定，是为本概念示意图对该论文论点所作的编辑性解读。

セキュリティ予算の解決策メニュー

NAT ホワイトペーパーは、失敗しつつある「手数料依存」の現状を、そこで検討される解決策——オンチェーンスケーリング、コンセンサスの切り替え、テールエミッションのような通貨政策の変更——さらに国家による「誰が費用を負担するのか」のシナリオと一つずつ比較します。それぞれが六つの譲れない基準で採点されます。ある解決策がビットコインの本質を変えずに機能するには、六つすべてを満たさなければなりません。最初から最後まで緑である行はただ一つだけです。

提案された解決策	ハードフォーク不要？	保有者の希釈なし？	$市場が資金負担？	分散性を維持？	ユーザー体験を維持？	現在利用可能？	最悪の場合
手数料依存失敗しつつある現状——解決策ではない	✓プロトコル変更なし	✓新規発行なし	✓手数料は市場が入札して支払う	✓中央運営者なし	✗高い手数料 → 混雑；少額取引や発行を締め出す	✗すでにここにあり失敗中——手数料は報酬の <1%	ビットコインセキュリティ予算がじわじわ出血
オンチェーンスケーリングより大きい / 速いブロック → より強い手数料市場	✗ブロックサイズ / ブロック時間の制限 → ハードフォーク	✓新規発行なし	✓依然として市場が払う手数料	~より大きいブロックはノード費用を上げる → 中央集権化	✓容量増 → 手数料低下、混雑減少	✗論争的で、未導入	ビットコインプロトコルが恒久的に変わる
コンセンサスの切り替えPoW → PoS または PoA	✗コンセンサスを置き換える → 最も困難なフォーク	✗PoS のステーキング報酬 = 新規発行 → 希釈	—ステーク / 権威であり、市場の補助金ではない	✗論文：中央集権化と信頼の懸念を高める	✗新たな安全モデル → 価値保存の信頼を損なう	✗ビットコインに未導入	ビットコインもはやビットコインではない
テールエミッション通貨政策の枠——デマレッジ / 休眠コイン焼却も含む	✗21M 上限を破る · フォークが必要	✗新規 BTC を発行 → 希釈	—プロトコルが発行、市場ではない	~マイナーは保つが発行を変える	✗21M 上限を破る → 価値保存の信頼を損なう	✗未導入	ビットコイン21M 上限が壊れる
国家による補助金「誰が費用を負担するのか」——政府がセキュリティに資金を出す	✓プロトコル変更なし	✓新規発行なし	✗国家が資金を出す、市場ではない	✗国家がハッシュレートを支配	✗国家が資金を出す安全 → 価値保存の信頼を損なう	~もっともらしいが、確約されていない	ビットコイン国家に捕捉される
NATすべて ✓市場価格が付く第二の補助金	✓フォークなし · 既存のコンセンサスを使用	✓21M 上限は不変	✓市場が価格を付け支払う	✓ブロックごとに支払い · 支配者なし	✓無限に拡張 · ユーザーへの手数料圧力なし	✓ブロック 885,588 から稼働中	$NATただ上がらないだけ — ビットコインは無傷

✓ 要件を満たす

✗ 要件を満たさない

~ 部分的 / 条件付き

— 該当なし

なぜ NAT だけが全行緑の唯一の行なのか

論文が検討する代替案はいずれも、譲れない基準の少なくとも一つで失敗します。

✗手数料依存は失敗しつつあるベースラインであって解決策ではありません——すでにここにあり、手数料はマイナー報酬の 1% 未満です。
✗オンチェーンスケーリング（より大きい / 速いブロック）はコンセンサスルールのハードフォークを必要とし、ノード費用を押し上げて分散性を圧迫します。
✗PoS や PoA へのコンセンサスの切り替えはその中で最も論争的なフォークであり、論文の言葉を借りれば「中央集権化と信頼の懸念を高め」、さらにその PoS のステーキング報酬は新規発行であって保有者を希釈します。
✗テールエミッション——通貨政策の枠全体（デマレッジ、休眠コインの焼却）を代表する——は 21M 上限を破り、保有者を希釈します。
✗国家による補助金は「誰が費用を負担するのか」に答える一方で、資金の問題を支配の問題に置き換えます：市場が資金を負担せず、分散性を殺します。
✓NAT だけが、フォークなし、いかなる保有者も希釈せず、市場が資金を負担し、分散性を維持し（ブロックごとに支払い、中央運営者なし）、無限に拡張しユーザーへの手数料圧力もなく、すでに稼働中です——ブロック 885,588から運行しています。

譲れない条件： 21M の供給上限（テールエミッションはこれを破る → ハードフォークが必要）；国家ではなく市場から来る資金；維持された分散性（単一のハッシュレート支配者なし）；そして提案段階ではなく現在存在する解決策。 · NAT はフォークなし、市場が資金負担、稼働中（ブロック 885,588、2025 年 2 月から）。 · 出典：NAT ホワイトペーパー——そこで検討される代替案（オンチェーンスケーリングの強化；PoS / PoA へのコンセンサス切り替え；通貨政策の変更：テールエミッション、デマレッジ、休眠コインの焼却）に加え、国家による「誰が費用を負担するのか」のシナリオと失敗しつつある「手数料依存」の現状を、そこで提案される NAT と対比。
各セルの判定は、このコンセプトモックのために論文の論旨を編集上解釈したものです。

보안 예산 해결책 메뉴

NAT 백서는 실패하고 있는 "수수료 의존" 현상을, 그것이 검토하는 해결책들 — 온체인 확장, 합의 전환, 테일 이미션 같은 통화정책 변경 — 그리고 국가 차원의 "누가 비용을 내는가" 시나리오와 하나씩 견줍니다. 각각은 여섯 가지 양보 불가 기준으로 채점됩니다. 어떤 해결책이든 비트코인의 본질을 바꾸지 않고 작동하려면 여섯 가지 모두를 통과해야 합니다. 처음부터 끝까지 초록인 행은 단 하나뿐입니다.

제안된 해결책	하드포크 불필요?	보유자 희석 없음?	$시장 자금?	탈중앙화 보전?	사용자 경험 보전?	현재 이용 가능?	최악의 경우
수수료 의존실패하고 있는 현상 — 해결책이 아님	✓프로토콜 변경 없음	✓신규 발행 없음	✓수수료는 시장이 입찰해 지불	✓중앙 운영자 없음	✗높은 수수료 → 혼잡; 소액 거래와 발행을 밀어냄	✗이미 여기 있고 실패 중 — 수수료가 보상의 <1%	비트코인보안 예산이 서서히 출혈
온체인 확장더 크고 / 빠른 블록 → 더 강한 수수료 시장	✗블록 크기 / 블록 시간 제한 → 하드포크	✓신규 발행 없음	✓여전히 시장이 내는 수수료	~더 큰 블록은 노드 비용을 높임 → 중앙화	✓용량 증가 → 낮은 수수료, 혼잡 감소	✗논쟁적이며 미배포	비트코인프로토콜이 영구히 변경됨
합의 전환PoW → PoS 또는 PoA	✗합의를 교체 → 가장 어려운 포크	✗PoS 스테이킹 보상 = 신규 발행 → 희석	—지분 / 권위, 시장 보조금이 아님	✗백서: 중앙화와 신뢰 우려를 키움	✗새로운 보안 모델 → 가치 저장 신뢰를 약화	✗비트코인에 미배포	비트코인더 이상 비트코인이 아님
테일 이미션통화정책 범주 — 디머리지 / 휴면 코인 소각 포함	✗21M 한도를 깸 · 포크 필요	✗신규 BTC 발행 → 희석	—프로토콜이 발행, 시장이 아님	~마이너는 유지하되 발행을 바꿈	✗21M 한도를 깸 → 가치 저장 신뢰를 약화	✗미배포	비트코인21M 한도가 깨짐
국가 차원의 보조금"누가 비용을 내는가" — 정부가 보안에 자금을 댐	✓프로토콜 변경 없음	✓신규 발행 없음	✗국가가 자금을 댐, 시장이 아님	✗국가가 해시파워를 통제	✗국가가 자금을 댄 보안 → 가치 저장 신뢰를 약화	~그럴듯하나 확약되지 않음	비트코인국가에 포획됨
NAT전부 ✓시장 가격이 매겨지는 두 번째 보조금	✓포크 없음 · 기존 합의를 사용	✓21M 한도 그대로	✓시장이 가격을 매기고 지불	✓블록당 지불 · 통제자 없음	✓무한히 확장 · 사용자에게 수수료 압박 없음	✓블록 885,588부터 가동 중	$NAT그저 오르지 않을 뿐 — 비트코인은 그대로

✓ 요건 충족

✗ 요건 미충족

~ 부분 / 조건부

— 해당 없음

왜 NAT만 전부 초록인 유일한 행인가

백서가 검토하는 모든 대안은 양보 불가 기준 중 적어도 하나에서 실패합니다.

✗수수료 의존은 실패하고 있는 기준선이지 해결책이 아닙니다 — 이미 여기 있고, 수수료는 마이너 보상의 1% 미만입니다.
✗온체인 확장(더 크고 / 빠른 블록)은 합의 규칙 하드포크가 필요하며 노드 비용을 끌어올려 탈중앙화를 압박합니다.
✗PoS나 PoA로의 합의 전환은 그중 가장 논쟁적인 포크이며, 백서의 표현대로 “중앙화와 신뢰 우려를 키우는” 데다, 그 PoS 스테이킹 보상은 신규 발행이어서 보유자를 희석합니다.
✗테일 이미션 — 통화정책 범주 전체(디머리지, 휴면 코인 소각)를 대표하는 — 은 21M 한도를 깨고 보유자를 희석합니다.
✗국가 차원의 보조금은 “누가 비용을 내는가”에 답하면서 자금 문제를 통제 문제로 맞바꿉니다: 시장이 자금을 대지 않으며 탈중앙화를 죽입니다.
✓오직 NAT만이 포크가 없고, 어떤 보유자도 희석하지 않으며, 시장이 자금을 대고, 탈중앙화를 보전하며(블록당 지불, 중앙 운영자 없음), 무한히 확장하고 사용자에게 수수료 압박을 주지 않으며, 이미 가동 중입니다 — 블록 885,588부터 운행하고 있습니다.

양보 불가 항목: 21M 공급 한도(테일 이미션은 이를 깸 → 하드포크 필요). 국가가 아니라 시장에서 나오는 자금. 보전된 탈중앙화(단일 해시파워 통제자 없음). 그리고 제안 단계가 아니라 현재 존재하는 해결책. · NAT는 포크 없음, 시장 자금, 가동 중(블록 885,588, 2025년 2월부터). · 출처: NAT 백서 — 그것이 검토하는 대안들(온체인 확장 강화, PoS / PoA로의 합의 전환, 통화정책 변경: 테일 이미션, 디머리지, 휴면 코인 소각)과 국가 차원의 "누가 비용을 내는가" 시나리오 및 실패하고 있는 "수수료 의존" 현상을, 그것이 제안하는 NAT와 대비.
각 셀의 판정은 이 콘셉트 목업을 위해 백서의 논거를 편집상 해석한 것입니다.

The honest risks

!Reflexivity (the big one)

NAT's security contribution is proportional to its market price, which is reflexive and procyclical — it tends to be high when Bitcoin is already secure and low exactly when extra security would matter most.

!Depends on continued BTC adoption

The whole premise rests on Bitcoin's ongoing adoption and the diffusion of meta-protocols like TAP. If that stalls, so does the demand that funds the reward.

!Winner-take-most risk

Meta-protocols may consolidate around one or two survivors. There is no guarantee NAT is the one that endures.

!Early & unproven

This launched in 2025. It has not been tested across a full market cycle or a real security stress event.

!Adoption is partial (just over half)

Just over half of pool hashrate currently mines blocks that actively move NAT — it is not universal, and the rest accrues unclaimed.

!Not a dollar security guarantee

NAT amounts are denominated in tokens, not dollars. We make no claim about how many dollars of security it provides — that depends entirely on the market.

FAQ

Is this just merged mining?

No. Merged mining means pointing hashpower at a second proof-of-work chain. NAT has no second chain — the reward is decoded from each Bitcoin block's own bits field and credited to that block's coinbase address by an open TAP Protocol indexer. The miner does nothing extra and runs nothing new.

Does it change Bitcoin / need a fork?

No. There is no soft fork, hard fork, or BIP. Bitcoin's consensus rules are untouched and Bitcoin nodes are entirely unaware of NAT. It is an off-chain accounting layer (a meta-protocol) that interprets data already on Bitcoin.

Do miners have to do anything?

No. The NAT credit is computed automatically from each block's header and assigned to the coinbase address that mined it. There is no opt-in, no claim transaction, and no software to install. A miner can ignore NAT entirely and still accrue it.

Is NAT "securing $X of Bitcoin"?

No — and we deliberately won't say that. NAT amounts are denominated in tokens, not dollars. Any dollar figure would depend on NAT's market price, which is reflexive and not guaranteed. The honest claim is narrow: a market is currently willing to pay miners an additional, perpetual, non-halving reward denominated in NAT — how much that is worth in dollars is up to the market, and we make no guarantee.

Who made it?

The creators are doxxed, not anonymous: Will and Iman (TheBlockRunner), working with the Digital Matter Theory framing, and BennyTheDev (the developer behind TAP Protocol), which is the indexing layer NAT is built on.

How do I verify the per-block amount?

Open any recent block on mempool.space or another explorer and read its bits field. Decode it as an integer using NAT = s×2²⁴ + c (with s the high byte and c the remaining value). Today that yields ~386,021,021 NAT — constant this difficulty epoch (blocks 957,600–959,615) and resetting at block 959,616 (≈ Jul 26), so re-read it after each retarget. The amount drifts up only slowly (~1.3%/yr) as difficulty rises — it never halves. Crediting began at block 885,588.

Is this financial advice?

No. This page is an explainer, not advice. There are no price targets, no projections, and nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold anything. NAT is an experiment; it could fail. Do your own research and verify every claim independently.