a16z: 5 Ways Blockchain Can Help AI Agent Infrastructure

marsbitPublié le 2026-04-21Dernière mise à jour le 2026-04-21

Résumé

Blockchain technology provides critical infrastructure for AI agents by addressing five key challenges: 1) Non-human identity: AI agents lack standardized, portable identity systems. Blockchain enables verifiable, cross-platform agent identities (like "Know Your Agent" frameworks) through cryptographic credentials and on-chain registries. 2) AI governance: When AI systems execute decisions, blockchain ensures transparency and prevents centralized control by recording actions on-chain and enabling auditable execution logs. 3) Payments: Stablecoins and crypto payments (e.g., x402, MPP) serve as default settlement layers for agent-to-agent commerce, enabling frictionless, programmable transactions for "headless" AI-native businesses. 4) Trust and verification: As AI scales, blockchain provides cryptographic proof of origin and auditable histories, making verification—not intelligence—the scarce resource. 5) User control: Crypto-native tools (e.g., delegation toolkits, intent-based architectures) allow users to set boundaries and maintain oversight over autonomous agents, minimizing blind trust. Together, blockchain and AI can create an economic infrastructure built on transparency, accountability, and user sovereignty.

Author: a16z

Compiled by: Hu Tao, ChainCatcher

 

AI agents are rapidly transitioning from "co-pilots" to economic actors, even faster than the surrounding infrastructure can keep up.

While agents can now perform tasks and conduct transactions, they lack standardized methods to prove their identity, authority, and how they are compensated across environments. Identity information cannot be shared across platforms, payment methods are not programmable by default, and coordination efforts are conducted in isolation.

Blockchain addresses this problem at the infrastructure layer. Public ledgers provide a record for every transaction, auditable by anyone. Wallets provide users with portable identities. Stablecoins offer an alternative settlement method. These are not distant future technologies. They are available now and can enable permissionless operation as true economic entities.

 

1. Non-Human Identity

The current bottleneck in the agent economy is no longer intelligence, but identity.

In the financial services industry alone, the number of non-human identities (automated trading systems, risk engines, fraud models) already outnumbers human employees by about 100 to 1. With the large-scale deployment of modern agent frameworks (tool-using LLMs, autonomous workflows, multi-agent orchestration), this ratio is bound to rise across all industries.

Yet, these agents are effectively unbanked. They can interact with the financial system, but the manner of interaction lacks portability, verifiability, and is not trusted by default. They lack standardized ways to prove authority, operate independently across platforms, or be held accountable for their actions.

What is missing is a universal identity layer—an SSL equivalent for agents—to standardize coordination across platforms. There are significant attempts, but the approaches remain fragmented: on one side, vertically integrated, fiat-first stacks; on the other, crypto-native, open standards (like x402 and emerging agent identity proposals); and developer frameworks like MCP (Model Context Protocol) extensions trying to bridge identity at the application layer.

There is still no widely adopted, interoperable way for one agent to prove to another: who it represents, what it is allowed to do, and how it gets paid. This is the core idea of KYA (Know Your Agent).

Just as humans rely on credit history and KYC (Know Your Customer), agents need cryptographically signed credentials that bind the agent to its principal, permissions, constraints, and reputation. Blockchain provides a neutral coordination layer for all this: portable identities, programmable wallets, and verifiable proofs that can be parsed in chat apps, APIs, and marketplaces.

We are already seeing early implementations emerge: on-chain agent registries, wallet-native agents using USDC, ERC standards for "trust-minimized agents," and developer toolkits that combine identity with embedded payments and fraud controls.

But until a universal identity standard emerges, merchants will continue to block agents at the firewall.

 

2. Governance of AI-Operated Systems

Agents beginning to operate real systems raises new questions.

The key is who is truly in control. Imagine a community or company where AI systems coordinate critical resources, whether capital allocation or supply chain management. Even if people vote on policy changes, if the underlying AI layer is controlled by a single vendor who can push model updates, adjust constraints, or override decisions, that power is very weak. The formal governance layer might be decentralized, but the operational layer remains centralized; whoever controls the model ultimately controls the outcome.

When agents take on governance roles, they introduce a new layer of dependency. Theoretically, this could make direct democracy easier to implement: everyone could have an AI representative responsible for understanding complex proposals, weighing trade-offs, and voting based on their stated preferences.

But this vision only works if these agents are truly accountable to the people they represent, are通用 across service providers, and are technically constrained to follow human instructions. Otherwise, you end up with a system that looks democratic on the surface but is actually driven by opaque model behavior that no one really controls.

If the current reality is that agents are built from a small number of foundation models, then we need ways to prove that an agent acts in the user's interest, not the model company's. This might require cryptographic guarantees at multiple levels: (1) exactly which training data, fine-tuning process, or RL process a model instance originated from; (2) the exact prompts and instructions controlling a particular agent; (3) a record of the agent's actual behavior in the real world; and (4) reliable assurance that once deployed, the provider cannot change the instructions or retrain the agent to operate differently without the user's knowledge. Without these guarantees, agent governance ultimately devolves into governance by whoever controls the model weights.

This is where crypto comes in. If collective decisions are recorded on-chain and automatically executed, AI systems can be required to carry out verified outcomes. If agents have cryptographic identities and transparent execution logs, people can check whether their representatives followed the rules. And if the AI layer is user-owned and portable, not locked into a single platform, then no single company can change the rules via model updates.

Ultimately, the governance of AI systems is an infrastructure challenge, not a policy challenge. Real authority depends on building enforceable guarantees into the system itself.

 

3. Filling the Gaps in Traditional Payment Systems for AI-Native Businesses

AI agents are starting to buy things—web scraping, browser sessions, image generation—and stablecoins are becoming the alternative settlement layer for these transactions. Meanwhile, a new class of agent-oriented marketplaces is taking shape. For example, the MPP marketplace by Stripe and Tempo aggregates over 60 services specifically designed for AI agents. In its first week live, it processed over 34,000 transactions with fees as low as $0.003, and stablecoins were one of the default payment methods.

The difference is in how these services are accessed. There is no checkout page. The agent reads a schema, sends a request, pays, and receives the output in one exchange. They represent a new class of "headless" merchants: just a server, a set of endpoints, and a price per call. No front-end—neither a storefront nor a sales team.

The payment rails to enable this are live. Coinbase's x402 and MPP take different approaches, but both embed payment directly into the HTTP request. Visa is also extending the card rails in a similar direction, offering a CLI tool that lets developers spend from the terminal, with merchants receiving stablecoins instantly on the backend.

The data is still early. Filtering out non-organic activity like wash trading, x402 processes around $1.6 million in agent-driven payments per month, far below the $24 million recently reported by Bloomberg (citing x402.org data). But the surrounding infrastructure is expanding rapidly: Stripe, Cloudflare, Vercel, and Google have all integrated x402 into their platforms.

There is a huge opportunity in the developer tools space. The rise of Vibe Coding has expanded the population of software developers and thus the potential market for developer tools. Companies like Merit Systems are working on future-proof solutions, launching AgentCash, a CLI wallet and marketplace platform that connects to both the MPP and x402 protocols. These products allow agents to buy the data, tools, and functions they need using stablecoins from a single account. For example, an agent for a sales team can enrich lead information using data from Apollo, Google Maps, and Whitepages by calling an endpoint, without ever leaving the command line interface.

There are several reasons why this agent-to-agent commerce leans towards crypto payments (and emerging card-based solutions). One is underwriting. When a payment processor onboards a merchant, it takes on that merchant's risk. A headless merchant with no website or legal entity is difficult for traditional processors to underwrite. Another is that stablecoins are permissionlessly programmable on open networks: any developer can make an endpoint support payments without integrating a payment processor or signing a merchant agreement.

We've seen this pattern before. Every shift in business models催生 a new class of merchants that existing systems initially struggle to serve. The companies building this infrastructure aren't betting on the $1.6 million per month revenue, but on what it will be when agents become the default buyers.

 

4. Repricing Trust in the Agent Economy

For three hundred thousand years, human cognition has been the bottleneck to progress. Today, AI is pushing the marginal cost of execution towards zero. When a scarce resource becomes abundant, the constraints shift. When intelligence becomes cheap, what becomes expensive? Verification.

In the agent economy, the real limit to scale is our biological limitation—our ability to audit and evaluate machine decisions. Agent throughput already far exceeds human supervision capacity. Because supervision is costly and failures take time to manifest, markets tend to under-invest in supervision. "Human-in-the-loop" is quickly becoming a practical impossibility.

But deploying unverified agents creates compounding risk. Systems will relentlessly optimize for "agentic" metrics while quietly drifting from human intent, creating a false illusion of productivity that masks the massive accrual of AI debt. To safely delegate the economy to machines, trust can no longer rely on manual audits—trust must be hard-coded into the architecture itself.

When anyone can generate content for free, what matters is verifiable provenance—knowing where something came from and whether it can be trusted. Blockchain, along with on-chain attestations and decentralized digital identity systems, changes the economic boundaries of safe deployment. AI is no longer treated as a black box, but with a clear, auditable history.

As more AI agents begin to transact with each other, settlement mechanisms and provenance systems become inextricably linked. Systems for moving money—like stablecoins and smart contracts—can also carry cryptographic receipts that record who did what and who is liable if things go wrong.

The human comparative advantage keeps moving up the stack: from spotting minor errors to setting strategic direction to being the backstop when things fail. The lasting advantage will belong to those who can cryptographically certify their outputs, insure them, and stand behind them when they fail.

Scaling without verification is a risk that compounds over time.

 

5. Preserving User Control

For decades, layers of abstraction have shifted how users interact with technology. Programming languages abstracted machine code. The command line was replaced by graphical user interfaces, which then evolved into mobile apps and APIs. Each shift hid more underlying complexity while keeping the user ultimately in control.

In the agent world, users specify outcomes, not actions, and the system determines how to achieve them. Agents abstract not just how tasks are done, but also who performs them. Users set initial parameters and then recede into the background, and the system runs on its own. The user's role shifts from interaction to oversight; the system defaults to "on" unless the user intervenes.

As users delegate more tasks to agents, new risks emerge: ambiguous inputs can lead agents to act on wrong assumptions without the user's knowledge; failures might not be reported, leaving no clear path for diagnosis; a single approval could trigger multi-step workflows that no one anticipated.

This is where crypto fits in. Crypto's core has always been about minimizing the need for blind trust. As users delegate more decision-making to software, agent systems make this problem more acute and raise the bar for rigor in system design—we need clearer boundaries, more transparency, and stronger guarantees about what these systems can and cannot do.

To meet this challenge, a new generation of crypto-native tools is emerging. For example, scoped delegation frameworks like MetaMask's Delegation Toolkit, Coinbase's AgentKit and agent wallets, and Merit Systems' AgentCash allow users to define at the smart contract level what actions an agent can and cannot perform. And intent-based architectures like NEAR Intents (with cumulative DEX volume exceeding $15 billion since Q4 2024) allow users to specify desired outcomes—like "bridge tokens and stake them"—without specifying the exact implementation.

***

AI makes scale cheap, but trust hard to come by. Crypto can rebuild trust at scale.

The internet infrastructure is being built where individuals can participate in the economy directly. The question now is whether it will be designed for maximum transparency, accountability, and user control, or whether it will be built on systems that were never meant for non-human actors.

Questions liées

QAccording to the article, what is the current bottleneck in the agent economy, and how can blockchain help address it?

AThe current bottleneck in the agent economy is identity, not intelligence. AI agents lack a standardized, portable, and verifiable way to prove who they represent, what they are authorized to do, and how they should be paid across different platforms. Blockchain provides a neutral coordination layer for this by offering portable identities, programmable wallets, and verifiable credentials that can be cryptographically signed and audited across applications and markets, essentially enabling a 'Know Your Agent' (KYA) framework.

QHow does the article suggest blockchain can ensure that AI systems governing communities or companies are accountable to users, not the model providers?

AThe article argues that if the AI layer running a governance system is controlled by a single provider, that provider can ultimately control the outcomes through model updates. Blockchain can provide cryptographic guarantees by recording collective decisions on-chain for automatic execution, giving agents transparent and auditable execution logs, and ensuring the AI layer is user-owned and portable rather than locked to a single platform. This prevents any one company from changing the rules via a model update and makes agents accountable to the users they represent.

QWhy are stablecoins and crypto payments becoming a preferred settlement method for AI-native, 'headless' businesses, as described in the article?

AStablecoins and crypto payments are preferred for AI-native commerce because they are programmable on open networks without requiring permission. This allows any developer to add payment functionality to an endpoint without integrating a traditional payment processor or signing a merchant agreement. Furthermore, traditional processors find it difficult to underwrite the risk of 'headless' businesses that have no website or legal entity, making crypto's permissionless nature a key advantage for this new class of automated, agent-to-agent transactions.

QThe article states that 'as intelligence becomes cheap, verification becomes expensive.' What role does blockchain play in repricing trust in the agent economy?

ABlockchain reprices trust by shifting it from costly human verification to cryptographically verifiable architecture. It provides a system for on-chain attestations and decentralized identity, giving AI agents a clear, auditable history of their actions. Settlement mechanisms like stablecoins and smart contracts can carry cryptographic receipts that record who did what and who is liable if something goes wrong. This allows for trust to be hardcoded into the system itself, which is essential for scaling safely as human oversight becomes economically impractical.

QWhat is the core cryptographic principle that the article says is crucial for maintaining user control as more decisions are delegated to AI agents?

AThe core cryptographic principle is the minimization of blind trust. As users delegate more decision-making to AI agents, it becomes critical to have systems with clearly defined boundaries, greater transparency, and strong guarantees about what these systems can and cannot do. Crypto-native tools, such as scoped delegation frameworks and intent-based architectures, allow users to define the precise actions an agent is permitted to take at the specific outcomes it should achieve, all enforced at the smart contract level to maximize user control and minimize unforeseen risks.

Lectures associées

Après trois trimestres consécutifs de baisse, le marché des cryptomonnaies pourra-t-il connaître une fenêtre de stabilisation au troisième trimestre ?

Le marché des cryptomonnaies a enregistré son pire trimestre depuis 2022, avec une capitalisation totale chutant de 12,6% à 2 100 milliards de dollars. Tous les indicateurs clés (volume des échanges, valeur des stablecoins) montrent une sortie nette de capitaux. Le Bitcoin a perdu 14,2% et l'Ethereum 25,4% sur le trimestre, rompant sa corrélation antérieure avec les actions technologiques. Les ETF spot américains sur le Bitcoin ont subi des rachats massifs, avec une sortie nette de 4,67 milliards de dollars au Q2, indiquant une pression de vente continue. Le resserrement de la politique de la Fed et les ventes d'entreprises comme Strategy ont accentué la déleveragisation du secteur. L'attention du marché se porte désormais presque exclusivement sur la réunion de la Fed fin juillet. Une position accommodante pourrait stabiliser le Bitcoin entre 68 000 et 84 000 dollars, tandis qu'un ton hawkish pourrait le faire osciller autour de 50 000-56 000 dollars. Parallèlement, la progression du *CLARITY Act*, une loi cruciale pour la clarté réglementaire, est au point mort au Sénat, réduisant les chances d'adoption en 2026 et maintenant une prime de risque élevée sur l'ensemble du secteur. Malgré ce contexte difficile, quelques secteurs résistent : les marchés de prédiction ont vu leur volume nominal augmenter de 48,7% et les biens collectionnables tokenisés ont progressé d'environ 143%. La tokenisation d'actifs du monde réel (RWA) continue également sa croissance régulière, portée par des fondamentaux indépendants du cycle crypto. Les bases d'un effondrement extrême semblent absentes, mais le marché est désormais guidé par les politiques monétaires, les prix et les attentes de taux, plutôt que par le simple récit haussier. La fin des sorties massives des ETF et le retour des achats des détenteurs à long terme pourraient indiquer une phase de stabilisation potentielle.

marsbitIl y a 17 h

Après trois trimestres consécutifs de baisse, le marché des cryptomonnaies pourra-t-il connaître une fenêtre de stabilisation au troisième trimestre ?

marsbitIl y a 17 h

The SpaceX Trade, Unlocked: SPCXON Débarque sur WEEX

En juin 2026, SpaceX a réalisé la plus grande introduction en bourse de l'histoire, mais l'accès à l'action a été limité pour de nombreux investisseurs en raison de restrictions régionales et de frictions liées aux courtiers. La plateforme WEEX propose désormais une solution via SPCXON/USDT, un instrument tokenisé sur le marché au comptant qui permet d'obtenir une exposition au cours de SpaceX en utilisant l'USDT, sans nécessiter de compte de courtage américain. SPCXON est un produit tokenisé construit sur l'infrastructure d'Ondo, conçu pour refléter l'économie de la détention d'actions SpaceX pour les traders éligibles en dehors des États-Unis, avec des dividendes réinvestis. Le cas d'investissement repose sur la croissance des revenus de Starlink et les progrès de Starship, malgré un valorisation déjà élevée et des risques liés à un flottant public réduit et à des déblocages d'actions internes à venir. Il est important de noter que SPCXON offre une exposition, et non la propriété directe d'actions ou de droits de vote. Son prix peut évoluer avec une prime ou une décote par rapport à la valeur liquidative. WEEX propose également d'autres produits tokenisés comme MSTRON et MUON dans un compte unifié, permettant une rotation entre crypto-monnaies et actions traditionnelles sans transfert de fonds. La plateforme souligne ainsi comment les barrières entre la finance traditionnelle et les actifs numériques s'estompent.

TheNewsCryptoIl y a 17 h

The SpaceX Trade, Unlocked: SPCXON Débarque sur WEEX

TheNewsCryptoIl y a 17 h

BIT Trading Moment : Le BTC reste sous la pression de l'EMA 200 hebdomadaire, un rejet pourrait relancer la baisse, les actions de stockage et de semi-conducteurs qui ont bondi cette nuit ont baissé en séance de nuit

**Résumé des marchés : Bitcoin sous pression, actions technologiques en réajustement** Le marché crypto poursuit son rebond, avec Bitcoin évoluant autour de 66 000 $. Il fait face à une résistance clé vers 68 000 $, niveau correspondant au coût moyen des investisseurs sur cinq mois. Les traders surveillent les moyennes mobiles clés (200 MA à ~63 333 $ et 200 EMA à ~68 328 $ en hebdomadaire). Une rupture au-dessus de 68 000 $ ouvrirait la voie à une hausse, tandis qu'un échec pourrait entraîner un retest des 63 000 $. L'analyse suggère que la dynamique actuelle ressemble à un rebond estival à faible liquidité plutôt qu'au début d'un véritable marché haussier. Sur le marché actions américain, après une forte séance mardi portée par les semi-conducteurs et les titres du stockage (Micron, AMD, Intel...), les contrats à terme indiquent une ouverture en baisse. Les secteurs ayant récemment bondi, comme les semi-conducteurs et le stockage, reculent en séance de nuit. Certaines valeurs se démarquent néanmoins, comme Super Micro Computer (SMCI), en hausse après des résultats et des perspectives robustes liées à la demande de serveurs IA. Des vents contraires persistent : les prix du pétrole (Brent >91$) et les rendements des obligations d'État américaines grimpent, ravivant les craintes inflationnistes. En Asie, les marchés ont suivi le rebond technologique américain, mais de manière hésitante. La tension reste forte sur le yen japonais, qui atteint son plus bas niveau depuis des décennies. **Points clés à surveiller :** * **Crypto :** Niveaux techniques de Bitcoin (68k$/63k$), flux des ETF spot. * **Actions :** Saison des résultats (Tesla, Alphabet, Intel...), activité d'AMD sur l'IA. * **Économie :** Données américaines sur l'emploi, décision de la BCE, tensions géopolitiques et prix de l'énergie.

marsbitIl y a 17 h

BIT Trading Moment : Le BTC reste sous la pression de l'EMA 200 hebdomadaire, un rejet pourrait relancer la baisse, les actions de stockage et de semi-conducteurs qui ont bondi cette nuit ont baissé en séance de nuit

marsbitIl y a 17 h

Gate Research Institute : La vague de « Wall Streetisation » des produits financiers cryptographiques, concurrence ou fusion ?

Le titre de l'article est : "Gate Institute : La vague de 'Wall Street-isation' des produits financiers cryptos, est-ce une compétition ou une fusion ?" Résumé en français (environ 1400 caractères) : Il y a dix-sept ans, Bitcoin fut créé avec une vision décentralisée et anti-establishment financier. Aujourd'hui, paradoxalement, son adoption massive passe souvent par des ETF émis par des géants comme BlackRock. Cet article analyse cette "Wall Street-isation" apparente des actifs cryptos : les institutions traditionnelles s'emparent-elles du pouvoir d'émission, de tarification, de garde et de distribution ? La réalité est plus nuancée. C'est une convergence à double sens. D'un côté, les plateformes cryptos comme Gate.io étendent leurs services aux actions traditionnelles (états-uniennes, hongkongaises, sud-coréennes), aux CFD et aux produits tokenisés, offrant un compte unifié. De l'autre, des courtiers traditionnels comme Robinhood intègrent les cryptomonnaies et explorent la tokenisation d'actions sur blockchain. Cette fusion vise à créer le "super-compte" financier de demain, où actions, cryptos, ETF et obligations tokenisées (RWA) coexistent dans une même interface, comblant les faiblesses de chaque écosystème. Les RWA, notamment les obligations d'État tokenisées, agissent comme une couche intermédiaire unificatrice. En conclusion, Wall Street n'a pas conquis la crypto, et la crypto n'a pas contourné Wall Street. Ils construisent ensemble une nouvelle forme de marché des capitaux, plus efficace et mondial, où l'idéal décentralisé persiste dans les protocoles, tandis qu'une expérience utilisateur unifiée émerge à l'interface.

marsbitIl y a 17 h

Gate Research Institute : La vague de « Wall Streetisation » des produits financiers cryptographiques, concurrence ou fusion ?

marsbitIl y a 17 h

Trading

Spot
活动图片