ALPHEA Web3-Festival首秀:从生成到执行,AI Agent基础设施逐步成形

marsbitPublished on 2026-04-28Last updated on 2026-04-28

新的去中心化运行环境旨在运行具有长记忆、可验证执行和基于使用经济模型的自主 AI 代理。

[Dee Lee,ALPHEA 首席出版官兼阿联酋办公室负责人,介绍公司及其愿景]

香港,2026 年 4 月 24 日—ALPHEA,一个专注于 AI 基础设施的新型 Layer 1 区块链项目,在当日发布了专为自主 AI 代理构建的去中心化执行环境。该平台在 2026 年香港 Web3 节上首次公开亮相,与很多追求宏大叙事的项目不同,ALPHEA 试图解决的是一个非常具体甚至略显枯燥的问题:如何为这些 AI 代理构建一个具备「持久记忆」和「原生执行能力」的底层环境。

此次发布会由 ALPHEA 首席出版官兼阿联酋办公室负责人 Dee Lee 主持,他没有急于展示复杂的图表,而是先聊到了一个观念的转变:AI 正在从一种「被动工具」转变为「主动操作者」。

在当今 AI 基础设施中,尽管 AI 模型在生成输出方面已变得非常强大,但它们赖以实际运行的系统,云计算、存储、计费和协调仍然是围绕人类用户和集中控制设计的。随着自主代理从生成输出转向独立执行任务,现有基础设施将无法支持这些系统所需的持续、自主的 Agent 对 Agent 操作。

ALPHEA 创始人兼首席执行官 Henry Park 表示:「今天的 AI 几乎可以生成任何东西,但它仍然需要人类的参与才能部署、运行并保持运行。我们正在构建一个层,让 AI 不仅仅是生产工作,而是生活和运作。这意味着执行、内存和经济模型都必须从头开始重新思考。」

为 AI Agent 经济体创造家园

ALPHEA 架构的核心是其核心架构 Delta,这是一种将 AI 生成的输出转换为自包含可执行单元的打包格式。Delta 包无需手动部署、授权和资源分配,就能够在网络中携带自主执行所需的所有上下文。

同时 ALPHEA 上的存储是动态操作的,活跃数据存储在执行环境附近,而使用频率较低的数据则会被移动到更可持续的层。每个工作负载都会附带一个执行证明,既能够验证任务是否已执行,还可以验证其执行方式以及消耗了哪些资源。这也让这个网络能够在不依赖单一信任点的情况下验证去中心化执行。

在 ALPHEA 平台上,经济模型将代币活动直接与资源使用挂钩。运行计算、存储数据或消耗带宽的代理根据其消耗的基础设施都会按照比例付费,这也意味着 ALPHEA 具有运营基础设施市场的特征,而不是投机性代币经济。

团队背景

ALPHEA 由一支在运营大规模消费者平台方面拥有丰富经验的团队领导。Henry Park 曾担任 Gala Lab 首席执行官,负责管理数十个国际市场的游戏运营。David Bae 负责合作关系和资本战略。Kevin Oh 专注于长期可持续性和资本结构。技术和产品由 James Lee 和 Dee Lee 领导,他们带来了传统游戏、实时运营和 Web3 基础设施方面的综合经验。

ALPHEA 战略与合作负责人 David Bae 表示:「我们在 ALPHEA 解决的问题是运营性的,而非理论性的。我们的团队多年来一直在全球范围内运行真实的系统。这种运营纪律正是这类新型 AI 基础设施真正需要的。」

战略和后续发展目标

ALPHEA 在 2026 年香港 Web3 节上的首次亮相标志着该项目的第一个公共亮相里程碑。该公司计划在未来几个月内发布更多技术文档和路线图详情。有兴趣早期合作的开发者和合作伙伴可以通过公司网站来建联。

关于 ALPHEA

ALPHEA 是一个 Layer 1 区块链项目,致力于为自主 AI 代理开发去中心化操作环境。该平台将原生执行、动态存储、执行证明和基于使用经济模型整合到一个基础设施层中,旨在支持大规模的 Agent 对 Agent 操作。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit7m ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit7m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit24m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit24m ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit2h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of AI (AI) are presented below.

活动图片