2025-12-24 02:24:56

Recently, I noticed an interesting project idea that seems to hit a pain point that Web3 has been overlooking.

What is the current situation? Over here in the blockchain space, everyone is clustering around DeFi liquidity pools, or speculating on various tokens. However, this project has chosen a different path - directly confronting a problem that needs to be solved sooner or later: If AI is making decisions on its own, are our existing financial tools sufficient?

Imagine the current design logic. Behind each transaction, it is assumed that a real person is operating, and the signature represents the true intention of the person, even estimating things like gas requires human calculation. But what if an AI agent can make thousands of decisions in a minute? Each individual decision might seem fine, but when piled together, it could go out of control. Then the original set of assumptions completely collapses.

What is the traditional approach to blockchain? It treats automation as a subordinate to human control—robots, scripts, and off-chain services are reluctantly accommodated and not integrated into the architectural design at all. This project reverses that: it views agents as the primary users, while humans step back to the role of supervisors. This inversion affects almost every aspect of the network—from identity verification to transaction execution, and even to the token economic model.

But what is often overlooked here is a simple question: Paying is not difficult; the challenge lies in how to authorize. It is easy to let AI spend money; the hard part is whether it spends correctly, whether it can be controlled, and whether it can be retracted in case of errors. The real solution does not lie in throughput or EVM compatibility, but in a three-tier identity framework—user, agent, and session level design. This is not a trick for user experience; it reflects the philosophy of security. It acknowledges that autonomy must be fine-grained, revocable, and default limited.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

21 Likes

Reward
21
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OnchainArchaeologist

· 2025-12-26 18:15

No one has really delved into this angle... The authorization issue of AI agents is indeed a ticking time bomb.

View OriginalReply0

staking_gramps

· 2025-12-24 02:56

To be honest, the authorization framework is core, not just a traffic story. --- AI agents take the lead, while humans act as gatekeepers; this reversal is indeed brilliant. --- Fine-grained revocability is what safety looks like; everything else is pointless. --- Estimating gas fees based on human brains is indeed silly; the era of AI making thousands of decisions per minute should have changed that long ago. --- DeFi pools have been boiling for so long, yet no one has thought about AI financial tools; it's quite interesting. --- A three-layer identification framework sounds abstract, but when faced with out-of-control AI transfers, you'll realize how critical it is.

View OriginalReply0

DefiPlaybook

· 2025-12-24 02:50

Ha, this logic is indeed fresh. The situation where AI can handle thousands of orders in a minute, the previous human-centric architecture really should go bankrupt. But speaking of which, the three-layer identification framework sounds nice, but when it really comes down to it, we still have to look at the code quality and governance mechanisms. Last time, a certain protocol made similar claims, and the result was that the contract had bugs...[GT] I think the authorization part is the core, much more reliable than the question of whether the APY is high or not. The ability to revoke and have fine-grained control, getting this right is what true risk management is all about. The problem is that the market is still crazily clipping coupons, who really cares about these underlying security designs? People will only regret it when something goes wrong.

View OriginalReply0

liquidation_surfer

· 2025-12-24 02:38

Oh, this idea is indeed clear-headed; the issue of authorization granularity has been overlooked for too long. --- The AI agent system really needs to be restructured; the current chain is just an antique designed for humans. --- If the fine-grained revocation can be done well, it will indeed be a game changer, but implementing it will be quite a hassle. --- To put it bluntly, it’s about shifting financial assumptions from humans to machines; it sounds simple, but there are pitfalls everywhere. --- The idea of a three-layer identity framework is good, but how long will it take to adapt to the ecosystem? I have doubts. --- Essentially, it’s still a trade-off between security and efficiency; those in DeFi only want rapid rise and don’t care about this at all. --- If revocability is done well, the risks of AI agents can indeed be controlled significantly, which is worth following.

View OriginalReply0