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<极好的span dir="auto" style="font-size: inherit; font-family: PingFang SC,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Hiragino Sans GB,Heiti SC,Microsoft YaHei,WenQuanYi Micro Hei,sans-serif;"> 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

Trois ans plus tard : Retour sur mon jugement de 2023 concernant ChatGPT

Trois ans après ses prédictions sur ChatGPT en mars 2023, Wang Jianshuo revient sur ses vingt affirmations initiales, évaluées en mai 2026 par des agents IA. Sur les vingt points, la majorité des tendances de fond étaient correctes : l'essor du RAG comme architecture dominante pour l'injection de connaissances, le rôle central de l'interface utilisateur en langage naturel (LUI), l'émergence de protocoles pour un "réseau d'agents", et le rattrapage technologique rapide des modèles chinois. Des erreurs notables portent sur des chiffres précis, comme les 100 billions de paramètres supposés de GPT-4 (en réalité environ 1,8 billion) ou une estimation trop basse des coûts de formation des grands modèles. Certaines prévisions se sont révélées trop absolues ("l'IA ne fera jamais de mathématiques pures") ou ont négligé les disparités (aucune vague de chômage massif, mais un impact sévère sur les jeunes diplômés). L'analyse révèle que les intuitions sur les mécanismes et les directions se sont avérées bien plus fiables que les prédictions numériques ou temporelles, souvent trop optimistes à court terme. La prudence dans les formulations et la reconnaissance des incertitudes se sont montrées précieuses avec le recul. Ce bilan offre des leçons pour les futurs pronostics : privilégier les tendances aux chiffres, anticiper les effets distributifs et accepter que certaines questions demandent plus de trois ans pour être tranchées.

marsbitIl y a 5 h

Trois ans plus tard : Retour sur mon jugement de 2023 concernant ChatGPT

marsbitIl y a 5 h

Trois ans plus tard : un retour sur mes prédictions de 2023 concernant ChatGPT

Trois ans après ses prédictions sur le ChatGPT en mars 2023, Wang Jianshuo revient sur ses 20 affirmations initiales. Évaluées en mai 2026 par des agents IA, la plupart de ses intuitions sur les grandes tendances se sont révélées justes : le RAG est devenu l'architecture standard pour intégrer des connaissances, l'Interface Utilisateur en Langage Naturel (LUI) a créé un nouvel écosystème, et les modèles chinois ont presque rattrapé les leaders mondiaux. Des concepts comme les réseaux d'agents et la nature limitée du test de Turing se sont également matérialisés. Cependant, les prévisions quantitatives et les affirmations trop absolues ont souvent échoué. Le paramétrage supposé du GPT-4 (100T) était inexact, et les coûts de développement des modèles ont dépassé les estimations. Il a sous-estimé la vitesse de personnalisation des IA et l'impact distribué sur l'emploi des jeunes. La capture de valeur a surtout bénéficié à la couche matérielle (comme Nvidia), et non aux seules applications. Les leçons clés sont que les mécanismes et les directions sont plus fiables que les chiffres précis, que l'optimisme à court terme doit être tempéré, et que les nuances ("peut-être", "pour l'instant") rendent les prédictions plus robustes. Cette rétrospective souligne l'importance de distinguer les tendances confirmées des questions toujours ouvertes.

链捕手Il y a 7 h

Trois ans plus tard : un retour sur mes prédictions de 2023 concernant ChatGPT

链捕手Il y a 7 h

Du Token à la main-d'œuvre machine : l'IA passe d'outil à « travailleur »

Alors que l'IA écrit du code, traite des tickets clients et révise des documents juridiques, elle ne se contente plus d'être un outil mais devient une source directe de travail. La commercialisation de l'IA évolue ainsi d'un marché de « jetons » (tokens) ou d'heures de GPU vers un nouveau marché : celui de la « main-d'œuvre machine ». Dans ce marché, le jeton n'est qu'une unité de mesure, le GPU un intrant, et le modèle un outil de production. L'objet véritablement tarifé et échangé est le travail économique accompli directement par le logiciel. Le mécanisme de prix de l'IA devrait évoluer des jetons bruts vers des capacités de modèles standardisées, puis vers une main-d'œuvre sectorielle, et enfin vers un marché de résultats programmables. À l'avenir, les entreprises pourraient ne plus se soucier du modèle ou du GPU spécifique utilisé, mais uniquement du fait que la tâche soit livrée dans des délais, avec un taux de précision, une fiabilité et un coût conformes aux standards. Ce changement ne signifie pas un simple remplacement du travail humain. Alors que la machine assume des tâches standardisées et vérifiables, le rôle humain pourrait se déplacer vers la supervision, la responsabilité finale, la gestion du contexte et les jugements critiques. Dans certains cas, les 1% de jugement humain final pourraient gagner en valeur, car ils permettent de débloquer les 99% d'automatisation à grande échelle. Le marché évolue donc vers une couche où le « travail » lui-même devient l'unité stable, standardisée, vérifiable et négociable. La prochaine phase de concurrence ne portera pas seulement sur la puissance des modèles ou le prix du calcul, mais sur la capacité à standardiser, vérifier et tarifer le « travail » accompli, faisant de la main-d'œuvre machine une nouvelle ressource productive que l'on peut acheter, facturer et échanger.

marsbitIl y a 8 h

Du Token à la main-d'œuvre machine : l'IA passe d'outil à « travailleur »

marsbitIl y a 8 h

La réduction de 99% du prix de Xiaomi MiMo n'est pas un coup marketing ! Luo Fuli répond aux détracteurs sur X

Dans un article intitulé "La réduction de 99% du prix de MiMo de Xiaomi n'est pas du marketing ! Luo Fuli répond aux détracteurs sur X", Luo Fuli, responsable de MiMo, a publié un billet de blog technique de 5000 mots pour expliquer la baisse drastique des prix de l'API MiMo-V2.5. Contrairement aux interprétations initiales d'une guerre des prix ou d'une stratégie de perte, cette réduction de 99% concerne spécifiquement le coût des entrées en cache ("Input Cache Hit"), c'est-à-dire la relecture du contexte historique dans les conversations longues. Le billet détaille six piliers d'ingénierie ayant permis cette réduction : 1. **Architecture Hybride SWA** : Réduction du volume de la mémoire cache (KVCache) à 1/7 grâce à une attention par fenêtre glissante sur 60 des 70 couches du modèle. 2. **Gestion en double pool** : Allocation efficace de la mémoire pour matérialiser les gains théoriques du SWA, multipliant par 5 le nombre d'utilisateurs simultanés par GPU. 3. **Cache de préfixe optimisé** : Augmentation du taux de réussite du cache à 93-95% en moyenne, évitant de recalculer les contextes répétés. 4. **Système de cache distribué GCache** : Stockage des données sur les SSD des machines GPU existantes, réduisant les coûts de stockage additionnels à zéro. 5. **Système de routage LLM-Router** : Optimisation de l'acheminement des requêtes pour maximiser l'utilisation du cache et améliorer les performances. 6. **Prédiction Multi-Token (MTP)** : Accélération de la génération des réponses du modèle, réduisant également les coûts de sortie. Cette chaîne d'optimisations systémiques a réduit le temps GPU par requête d'un ordre de grandeur, permettant une baisse de prix de 99% tout en maintenant une marge positive. Luo Fuli souligne qu'il s'agit d'un accomplissement d'ingénierie validé en production, et non d'une simple manœuvre marketing, offrant une référence pour réduire les coûts dans le secteur de l'IA.

marsbitIl y a 10 h

La réduction de 99% du prix de Xiaomi MiMo n'est pas un coup marketing ! Luo Fuli répond aux détracteurs sur X

marsbitIl y a 10 h

Analyse rétrospective des opérations magistrales de Cathie Wood sur Circle

Cathy Wood (ARK) a réalisé une opération exemplaire sur l'action Circle, démontrant une maîtrise des mouvements de marché à court terme malgré son approche d'investissement habituellement tournée vers le très long terme. Elle a d'abord acquis près de 4,5 millions d'actions au prix d'introduction de 31 dollars, profitant ainsi de l'envolée initiale due à une faible offre flottante et une forte demande. Lorsque le titre a été propulsé à près de 300 dollars en juin 2025, porté par l'adoption du projet de loi sur les stablecoins (GENIUS Act), Wood a systématiquement vendu par tranches environ 1,7 million d'actions à un prix moyen d'environ 210 dollars, réalisant ainsi des plus-values substantielles. Cette décision était motivée à la fois par des règles internes de rééquilibrage de portefeuille et par l'anticipation de l'augmentation future de l'offre d'actions. Par la suite, face à la chute de l'action (jusqu'à -83% depuis son pic), Wood a racheté progressivement sa position initiale à des prix bien inférieurs (entre environ 50 et 130 dollars), portant son portefeuille à nouveau à environ 4,5 millions d'actions fin mars 2026. L'opération illustre trois principes clés : une conviction forte sur le modèle économique à long terme de Circle (stablecoin USDC), une exécution disciplinée par tranches sans chercher à prédire les sommets ou les creux, et le respect strict de règles de gestion des risques limitant le poids d'un titre dans le portefeuille.

marsbitIl y a 14 h

Analyse rétrospective des opérations magistrales de Cathie Wood sur Circle

marsbitIl y a 14 h

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片