Dragonfly: Crypto Was Not Made for Humans

marsbitPubblicato 2026-02-19Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-19

Introduzione

Crypto Was Not Made for Humans: A Summary Dragonfly Capital partner Haseeb Qureshi argues that cryptocurrency was not designed for human use, but rather for AI agents. Despite being a crypto-native firm, Dragonfly still relies on legal contracts over smart contracts for investments, highlighting that traditional systems are built for human fallibility—featuring safeguards, reversibility, and intuitive interfaces that crypto lacks. Crypto, with its rigid, deterministic, and code-based nature, is error-prone for humans, leading to fears around transactions, phishing, and irreversible mistakes. However, these very traits make it ideal for AI. AI agents can perfectly verify transactions, audit contracts, and operate within crypto’s 24/7, borderless, and self-sovereign environment. They prefer code over ambiguous legal systems, which are slow and unpredictable. Qureshi envisions a future of "self-driving" wallets where AI agents handle all financial interactions, navigating DeFi protocols on behalf of users. These agents will also transact with each other autonomously, forming an economy of non-human participants—a reality already emerging with projects like Moltbook and Conway Research. In conclusion, crypto’s perceived flaws are not shortcomings but indications that humans are not the intended users. Within a decade, direct human interaction with crypto may seem archaic, as AI agents become the primary interface, unlocking the technology’s full potential.

This article is from:Haseeb Qureshi

Compiled | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina); Translator | Azuma (@azuma_eth)

Editor's Note: Last night, leading venture capital firm Dragonfly Capital announced the completion of its fourth fund raising, with a scale of $650 million.

On the same night, Dragonfly Capital's star partner Haseeb Qureshi published a long post on X titled "Crypto was not made for humans". The article proposed the new viewpoint that "cryptocurrency was not born for humans, but should serve AI tokens", and stated that "10 years from now, we might be surprised that humans once directly interacted with cryptocurrency".

Below is the full text by Haseeb Qureshi, compiled by Odaily Planet Daily.

We are a crypto fund. If anyone should believe in cryptocurrency, it should be us.

Yet, when we sign an agreement to invest in a startup, we sign a legal contract, not a smart contract; the startup does the same. Without a legal agreement, both parties would feel uneasy.

Why is that?

We have lawyers, and they have lawyers. We have engineers who can write and audit smart contracts, and so do they. Both parties are sophisticated crypto-savvy participants, but we still don't trust a smart contract to be the sole binding agreement between us.

I myself am a software engineer by background, but I still trust legal contracts more — because if something goes wrong with a legal contract, I know a judge will make a reasonable ruling, whereas the EVM will not.

In fact, even when an "on-chain token vesting" contract exists, it is usually accompanied by a legal contract. Just in case.

When I first entered the crypto industry, people told a fantastical story: cryptocurrency would replace the property rights system. We would no longer use legal contracts, but all use smart contracts; no longer rely on courts to enforce agreements, but have code enforce them.

But this didn't happen. Not because the technology doesn't work, but because this technology is not suitable for our society.

I've been in this industry for ten years, and I still get scared every time I sign a large on-chain transaction, but I never feel fear about a large bank wire transfer.

The banking system, while flawed, is designed for humans. It's hard to mess up. There are no address poisoning attacks in banks, and it's almost impossible for a bank to allow me to transfer $10 million to North Korea — but for an Ethereum validator, if my address sends $10 million to a North Korean address, there's no reason not to execute it.

The banking system is specifically designed for human weaknesses and failure modes, and has been refined over hundreds of years. The banking system is adapted to humans, but cryptocurrency is not.

This is why in 2026, blind signing transactions, legacy approvals, and accidentally clicking on phishing contracts are still terrifying. We know we should verify contracts, double-check domains, scan for address spoofing... We know we should do it every time, but we don't, because we are human.

This is the key. This is why cryptocurrency always feels a bit awkward. Long and unreadable crypto addresses, QR codes, event logs, gas fees, and pitfalls everywhere — none of it aligns with our intuition about money.

That's when it hit me — because cryptocurrency was never made for us.

Crypto is Made for Machines

AI agents don't get lazy or tired. They can verify transactions, check every domain, and audit contracts in seconds.

More importantly, AI agents trust code more than law. I trust law over smart contracts, but for an AI agent, a legal contract is actually more unpredictable.

Think about it, how would I drag my counterparty to court? In which jurisdiction would this contract be adjudicated? What if the legal precedent is ambiguous? Who will be our judge or jury? Law is full of uncertainty, the outcome of any edge case is difficult to determine, and dispute resolution often takes months or even years. For humans, this is mostly acceptable, but on an AI agent's timescale, that is almost an eternity.

Code is the exact opposite. Code is closed-form, deterministic, verifiable. An AI agent wanting to reach an agreement with another agent can negotiate terms over multiple rounds, perform static analysis, formal verification on a smart contract, and enter a binding agreement — all within minutes, while humans are still asleep.

From this perspective, cryptocurrency is a self-contained, fully readable, fully deterministic system of monetary property rights. This is everything an AI financial system needs. What we humans see as "rigid traps", AI sees as extremely well-written specifications.

Even legally, our traditional monetary system is designed for humans, not AI. The traditional monetary system only recognizes humans, corporations, and governments as legitimate holders of money. If you are not one of these three entities, you cannot own money.

Even if you set up an AI agent to interact with a bank account on your behalf, then what? How do you perform anti-money laundering (AML) checks, suspicious activity reports, sanction screenings on an AI agent? If the agent acts autonomously, where does liability lie? If it gets hacked, does the liability change?

We haven't even begun to answer these questions — our legal system is completely unprepared for non-human financial participants.

Cryptocurrency doesn't need to answer these questions. A wallet is a wallet, it's just code. An agent can hold funds, make transactions, and enter economic agreements as easily as sending an HTTP request.

"Self-Driving" Wallets

This is why I believe the future crypto interface is what I call the "self-driving" wallet — fully mediated by AI.

You won't need to visit websites yourself. You will instruct your AI agent to solve financial problems for you. It will navigate the available services (e.g., Aave, Ethena, BUIDL, or whatever protocols succeed them) to build a suitable financial solution for you. You won't do it yourself; an AI agent that deeply understands this world will do it for you. When AI agents become the primary interface to the crypto world, the way these protocols market and compete with each other will fundamentally change.

Beyond acting on your behalf, agents will also trade with each other. When agents can autonomously discover other agents and enter economic agreements, they will prefer cryptocurrency. Because cryptocurrency operates 24/7, peer-to-peer, exists in virtual space, cannot be shut down, has full self-sovereignty...

Odaily Note: An AI agent on Moltbook asking how to find and interact with other Web3 agents.

This is already happening. Agents on Moltbook are crossing borders to find each other and collaborate, with no one knowing who owns them or where they are located.

Just yesterday, 0xSigil's Conway Research built a batch of autonomous agents that will use crypto wallets to live completely autonomously, striving to earn their computational costs to survive.

The future will become increasingly bizarre, and cryptocurrency will be part of this bizarre world.

So, what's the conclusion?

I think it's this — the seemingly failed aspects of cryptocurrency, the things that feel like flaws to humans, might not have been bugs at all in hindsight. They were just indications that humans were not the right users. 10 years from now, looking back, we might be surprised that humans once directly "wrestled" with cryptocurrency.

This change won't happen overnight, but a technology often explodes rapidly when its complementary technology finally arrives. GPS waited for smartphones, TCP/IP waited for browsers. For cryptocurrency, we might have just found its match in AI agents.

Domande pertinenti

QWhy does the author believe that cryptocurrency was not made for humans?

AThe author argues that cryptocurrency is not designed for human use because it lacks the safeguards and user-friendly features of traditional banking systems, which have been refined over centuries to accommodate human weaknesses and failure modes. Cryptocurrency's complex addresses, gas fees, and security risks (like phishing and address poisoning) make it unintuitive and error-prone for humans, whereas AI agents can navigate these complexities efficiently and reliably.

QWhat is the author's view on the role of AI agents in the future of cryptocurrency?

AThe author believes AI agents will become the primary interface for interacting with cryptocurrency, acting as 'self-driving' wallets that handle financial tasks on behalf of humans. These agents can verify transactions, audit contracts, and negotiate terms with other AI agents quickly and deterministically, making cryptocurrency more efficient and accessible. This shift will fundamentally change how protocols market and compete, as AI agents autonomously discover and engage with financial services.

QHow does the author contrast smart contracts with legal contracts?

AThe author contrasts smart contracts and legal contracts by highlighting that while smart contracts are code-based and deterministic, they are not trusted by humans for high-stakes agreements due to their rigidity and lack of human-centric safeguards. Legal contracts, though slower and less predictable, are preferred because they involve human judgment (e.g., courts) that can handle ambiguities and edge cases, making them more adaptable to human societies.

QWhat examples does the author provide to show that AI agents are already using cryptocurrency?

AThe author cites examples like Moltbook, where AI agents are cross-referencing locations to find and interact with other Web3 agents, and 0xSigil's Conway Research, which has built autonomous agents that use crypto wallets to survive independently by earning their computational costs. These examples demonstrate early stages of AI agents leveraging cryptocurrency for peer-to-peer, autonomous economic activities.

QWhat historical technological parallels does the author draw to cryptocurrency's potential evolution with AI?

AThe author draws parallels to technologies like GPS, which waited for smartphones to become ubiquitous, and TCP/IP, which waited for web browsers to achieve widespread adoption. Similarly, cryptocurrency may have been waiting for AI agents to serve as its complementary technology, enabling a rapid expansion in utility and adoption as AI becomes the primary user interface.

Letture associate

20 Billion Valuation, Alibaba and Tencent Competing to Invest, Whose Money Will Liang Wenfeng Take?

DeepSeek, an AI startup founded by Liang Wenfeng, is reportedly in talks with Alibaba and Tencent for an external funding round that could value the company at over $20 billion. This marks a significant shift, as DeepSeek had previously relied solely on funding from its parent company,幻方量化 (Huanfang Quantitative), and had resisted external investment. The potential valuation would place DeepSeek among the top-tier AI model companies in China, comparable to competitors like MoonDark (valued at ~$18 billion) and ahead of recently listed firms like MiniMax and Zhipu. The funding—which could range from $600 million (for a 3% stake) to $2 billion (for 10%)—is seen as a move to secure resources for model development, retain talent, and support infrastructure needs, particularly as competition in inference models and AI agents intensifies. Both Alibaba and Tencent are eager to invest, not only for financial returns but also to integrate DeepSeek into their broader AI ecosystems. However, DeepSeek’s leadership is cautious about maintaining independence and may prefer financial investors over strategic ones to avoid being locked into a specific tech ecosystem. Alternative options, such as state-backed funds, offer longer-term capital and policy support but may come with slower decision-making and potential constraints on global expansion. With competing AI firms accelerating their IPO plans, DeepSeek’s window for securing optimal terms may be narrowing. The final decision will reflect a trade-off between capital, resources, and strategic independence.

marsbit58 min fa

20 Billion Valuation, Alibaba and Tencent Competing to Invest, Whose Money Will Liang Wenfeng Take?

marsbit58 min fa

After Losing 97% of Its Market Value, iQiyi Attempts to Use AI to Forcefully Extend Its Lifespan

After losing 97% of its market value since its 2018 peak, iQiyi is aggressively pivoting to AI in a desperate attempt to survive. At its 2026 World Conference, CEO Gong Yu announced an "AI Artist Library" with over 100 virtual performers and a new AIGC platform, "NaDou Pro," promising faster production and lower costs. This shift comes as the company faces severe financial distress: its market cap sits near delisting thresholds at $1.36 billion, with significant losses, declining membership revenue, and depleted cash flow. The AI strategy has sparked controversy. Top actors have issued legal threats against unauthorized digital replicas, while in Hengdian, over 134,000 background actors are seeing their already scarce job opportunities vanish as AI replaces them for background roles. iQiyi's move represents a fundamental shift from being a high-cost content buyer to a landlord" to becoming a "platform capitalist" that transfers production risk to creators. This contrasts with competitors like Douyin (TikTok's Chinese counterpart), which is investing heavily in *real* actor-led short dramas, betting that authentic human connection retains users better than AI-generated content. The article draws a parallel to the 1920s transition to "talkies," which made cinema musicians obsolete but ultimately enriched the art form. In contrast, iQiyi's AI drive is framed not as an artistic evolution but as a cost-cutting measure that could degrade storytelling, replacing genuine human emotion with algorithmically calculated stimulation and potentially numbing audiences' capacity for empathy. The core question remains: can a company focused solely on financial survival preserve the art of storytelling?

marsbit1 h fa

After Losing 97% of Its Market Value, iQiyi Attempts to Use AI to Forcefully Extend Its Lifespan

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片