Hardware DePIN vs Liquid Machines

The first side-by-side comparator of hardware DePIN nodes vs tokenized Machine RWAs (peaqOS V1). Last verified 2026-05-21.

TL;DR

We don't invent baselines. The hardware side reuses DePINly's already-audited "average user" scenarios from comparator.ts (networkBaseline). The Liquid side reuses liquid-machines-calc.ts. The two are not 1:1, so every metric is labeled with its meaning and we never recommend Liquid as a buy-today action — its IMOs are in peaqOS V1 testing.

Inputs

capitalUsd (default $1000) · holdMonths (3/6/12/24/36) · riskTolerance (conservative/balanced/aggressive) · effortLevel (none/some/significant).

How the hardware pick is chosen

Deterministic by risk × effort, then an affordability guard:

Affordability guard: if capital < device cost, the hardware side falls back to Grass (zero-hardware bandwidth) with an explicit note — you can't fund a node, and Liquid IMOs aren't open yet.

How the Liquid pick is chosen

Scenario by risk (conservative 8% / balanced 15% / aggressive 20%, the last anchored to the DualMint robo-farm reference), MCR fixed at BBB (mid-tier), full capital deployed. Uses calculateLiquidMachines.

Metrics & why they're labeled distinctly

• Annual return is NOT one shared metric. Hardware = return on device cost (the device wears out toward $0). Liquid = yield on capital (the asset may resell). We label each so they aren't falsely equated. (Senior-review fix.)
• Monthly range: hardware ±25% illustrative band (baselines are point values); Liquid uses its MCR-derived band.
• Liquidity: hardware 2/10 (reselling a used miner is slow), Liquid 6/10 (KYC-gated secondary market — better than hardware, worse than stocks).
• Risk: hardware from the audited RISK_LEVEL (low 3 / medium 5 / high 7); Liquid from its MCR+scenario risk, floored at 5/10 for the experimental/illiquid premium so an unproven product never looks safer than a low-risk node.
• Effort: from the matched network's setup difficulty (Liquid = 0).
• Tax: hardware Medium, Liquid High (RWA). Not tax advice.

Recommendation engine (transparent, ordered rules)

First rule that fires wins; the card always shows the reasoning and the trade-off, plus a buyability note.

1. capital < $200 → Hardware (zero-hardware start; Liquid not open)
2. effort = none → Liquid (passive) — but leads with "not buyable yet; closest buyable = [hardware]"
3. aggressive + significant → Hardware (GPU upside, hands-on)
4. capital > $5000 → Liquid (diversification + liquidity)
5. hold > 24m → Hardware (capex amortizes)
6. else → neutral

Liquid is always flagged "not buyable today (V1 testing)"; hardware is buyable now.

Confidence rating

🟡 — Hardware baselines are audited (mix of 🟢/🟡); the Liquid side inherits the Liquid Machines calculator's 🟡 (opaque machine economics, V1 preview). The comparator's scores (liquidity 2/6, risk mapping, effort hours) are DePINly heuristics, labeled as such.

NOT modeled

Hardware depreciation curve; Liquid secondary-market liquidity (could be ~0); operator/regulatory risk; the unpublished Liquid revenue split/fees; demand volatility for compute networks. Not financial advice.

Sources (verified 2026-05-21)

• Hardware baselines: the per-network audited calculators (src/lib/calculators/*, docs/calculators/*).
• Liquid model: docs/calculators/liquid-machines.md + peaqOS.

Code

• Engine: src/lib/compare/hardware-vs-liquid.ts (reuses comparator.ts + liquid-machines-calc.ts)
• UI: src/components/compare/HardwareVsLiquidCompare.tsx
• Page: src/app/compare/hardware-vs-liquid/page.tsx