Tiger Research: How Crypto Giants Are Betting on AI Agent Payment Infrastructure

marsbitPubblicato 2026-02-22Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-22

Introduzione

Tiger Research explores how major tech companies and crypto sector are building payment infrastructure for AI Agents to enable fully autonomous transactions. Key points: - Payments are transitioning from human-initiated to AI Agent-executed, requiring new infrastructure. - Big Tech (e.g., Google's AP2) builds controlled, approval-based systems using existing platforms, prioritizing consumer protection and convenience but limiting interoperability. - Crypto solutions (ERC-8004 for NFT-based identity and x402 for smart contract payments) enable trustless, decentralized agent-to-agent transactions using stablecoins, emphasizing user sovereignty and permissionless access. - Google’s model operates within a restricted partner ecosystem, while crypto aims for open, programmable microtransactions. - Future may involve interoperability between closed and open systems rather than a winner-takes-all outcome.

This report is written by Tiger Research. To achieve true autonomous automation, native payment capabilities are essential. The market has already begun to actively position itself for this shift.

Core Points

  • The payer is shifting from humans to AI Agents, making payment infrastructure a core requirement for achieving true autonomy.
  • Big Tech companies (including Google AP2 and OpenAI Delegated Payment) are designing approval-based automated payment systems on top of existing platform infrastructure.
  • Cryptocurrency utilizes NFT-based identity and smart contracts through standards like ERC-8004 and x402 to achieve a disintermediated payment model.
  • Big Tech prioritizes convenience and consumer protection, while cryptocurrency emphasizes user sovereignty and broader Agent-level execution capabilities.
  • The key future question is: Will payments be controlled by platforms or executed by open protocols?

1. Payments Are No Longer Exclusive to Humans

Source: macstories (Feder1C0 Viticci)

Recently, "OpenClaw" has garnered significant attention. Unlike AI systems like ChatGPT or Gemini, which primarily focus on retrieving and organizing information, OpenClaw allows AI Agents to execute tasks directly on the user's local PC or server.

Through instant messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Slack, users can issue commands, and the Agent then autonomously executes tasks, including email management, calendar coordination, and web browsing.

As it runs as open-source software and is not tied to a specific platform, OpenClaw functions more like a personal AI assistant. This architecture is favored for its flexibility and user-level control.

However, a critical limitation remains. For AI Agents to achieve full autonomy, they must be able to execute payments. Currently, Agents can search for products, compare options, and add items to a cart, but final payment authorization still requires human approval.

Historically, payment systems were designed around human actors. In an AI Agent-driven environment, this assumption no longer holds. If automation is to become fully autonomous, Agents must be able to independently evaluate, authorize, and complete transactions within defined constraints.

Anticipating this shift, both Big Tech companies and crypto-native projects have introduced technical frameworks over the past year aimed at enabling Agent-level payments.

2. Big Tech: Building Agent Payments on Existing Infrastructure

In January 2025, Google launched AP2 (Agent Payment Protocol 2.0), expanding its AI Agent payment infrastructure. While OpenAI and Amazon have also outlined related initiatives, Google is currently the only major company with a structured implementation framework.

AP2 divides the transaction process into three Mandate Layers. This structure allows for independent monitoring and auditing of each stage.

  • Intent Mandate: Records the action the user wants to perform.
  • Cart Mandate: Defines how a purchase should be executed under preset rules.
  • Payment Mandate: Executes the actual transfer of funds.

Example: Suppose Ekko asks an AI Agent on Google Shopping to "find and buy a winter jacket under $200".

  • Intent Mandate: Ekko instructs the AI Agent to buy "a winter jacket with a maximum budget of $200". This information is recorded on-chain as a digital contract, the Intent Mandate.
  • Cart Mandate: The AI Agent follows the intent, searches for matches among partner merchants, and adds eligible items to the cart. Verifies the price ($199, within budget ✓), confirms the shipping address.
  • Payment Mandate: Ekko reviews the selected item and clicks approve. The $199 is processed via Google Pay. Alternatively, the AI Agent can complete the payment automatically within preset parameters.

Throughout this process, the user does not need to input additional information. Google AP2 relies on existing user credentials (pre-registered cards and addresses), which lowers the barrier to entry and simplifies the adoption process.

Source: Google

However, Google currently only supports Agent payments for companies within its partner network. Consequently, its usage is confined to a controlled ecosystem, limiting broader interoperability and open access.

3. Cryptocurrency: Self-Custody and Open Exchange

The crypto space is also developing payment infrastructure for AI Agents, but its approach differs significantly from Big Tech. Big platforms build trust within controlled ecosystems, while crypto starts from a different question: Can AI Agents be trusted without relying on centralized platforms?

Two core standards aim to address this goal: Ethereum's ERC-8004 and Coinbase's x402.

First is the identity layer. AI Agents operating on the blockchain must be identifiable. ERC-8004 serves this function. It is issued as an NFT, but not as an art collectible; rather, it is a credential NFT containing structured identity data. Each token consists of three parts:

  1. Identity
  2. Reputation
  3. Validation

These elements together form a verifiable on-chain identity certificate.

Regarding the payment mechanism, x402 acts as the payment pathway. Developed by Coinbase, x402 is a crypto-native payment standard for AI Agents. It enables Agents to conduct autonomous transactions using stablecoins. Its core feature is automated smart contract execution, where conditional logic is embedded directly into the code, and settlement occurs without human intervention once conditions are met.

When ERC-8004 (identity) is combined with x402 (payment), AI Agents can verify counterparties and execute transactions without relying on a centralized platform.

Example: Ekko instructs his Agent A to buy a used laptop with a maximum budget of $800. The seller's Agent B communicates directly with it.
  • Mutual Verification: Checks identity and reputation score via ERC-8004 NFT (e.g., Reputation 72, balance confirmed).
  • Smart Contract Escrow: $800 is transferred from the wallet into a smart contract escrow, locking the funds until delivery confirmation.
  • Settlement & Reputation Update: Upon transaction completion, x402 automatically settles, and the reputation records of both parties are automatically updated and written into their respective ERC-8004 NFTs.

Throughout this process, no intermediaries are involved. The two AI Agents transact directly through blockchain-based verification and settlement, embodying the crypto-native model of Agent-to-Agent (A2A) commerce.

4. Big Tech vs. Cryptocurrency: Differences in the AI Agent Operational Domain

Google AP2 represents a controlled model designed for vetted partners. Google restricts market participants to protect consumers. Because AI Agent execution has probabilistic outcomes rather than being entirely deterministic, liability for transaction error may ultimately fall on the payment infrastructure provider. To reduce the probability of failure, Google has an incentive to narrow its ecosystem.

A restricted ecosystem increases stability but also limits the Agent's ability to operate autonomously and optimize choices across a broader market.

In contrast, ERC-8004 and x402 reflect a more open architecture. The crypto model is designed for permissionless access and interoperability.

While end-to-end execution is not yet perfect, the long-term vision is for Agents to independently manage daily consumption. Big platforms may attempt to integrate major retail channels, but open crypto standards have a structural advantage in handling small, high-frequency programmatic payments (micropayments). For example, if an Agent buys 1000 stock images at $0.01 each, the operational efficiency of the crypto-native path is higher.

Of course, the lack of a central authority involves trade-offs: identity evaluation standards must be established in a decentralized manner, and there is no single entity with ultimate responsibility for failures.

Summary

Both Big Tech and the crypto space are pursuing the same goal: enabling autonomous AI Agent commerce. The difference lies in the architecture: Big Tech favors closed, controlled systems, while crypto advances open, protocol-based models.

The future trend is more likely to be the interoperability of both approaches, rather than a zero-sum game.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the key limitation preventing AI Agents from achieving full autonomy according to the article?

AThe key limitation is that AI Agents currently cannot execute payments independently; final payment authorization still requires human approval.

QHow does Google's AP2 (Agent Payment Protocol 2.0) structure the transaction process for AI Agent payments?

AGoogle's AP2 divides the transaction process into three mandate layers: Intent Mandate (recording the user's desired action), Cart Mandate (defining how the purchase should be executed under preset rules), and Payment Mandate (executing the actual transfer of funds).

QWhat are the two core standards in the cryptocurrency space for enabling AI Agent payments, and what are their respective roles?

AThe two core standards are ERC-8004, which provides a verifiable on-chain identity for AI Agents using NFT-based credentials, and x402, which serves as a payment standard allowing Agents to autonomously transact with stablecoins using smart contract execution.

QWhat is the primary difference in approach between big tech companies and the cryptocurrency sector regarding AI Agent payment infrastructure?

ABig tech companies prioritize controlled, closed ecosystems with consumer protection and convenience, while the cryptocurrency sector emphasizes user sovereignty, permissionless access, and open, interoperable protocols for broader Agent-level execution.

QHow do ERC-8004 and x402 work together to enable direct AI Agent-to-Agent (A2A) transactions without intermediaries?

AERC-8004 provides a verifiable on-chain identity and reputation for AI Agents, while x402 standard enables automated payment execution via smart contracts. Together, they allow Agents to mutually verify identities, lock funds in escrow, and autonomously settle transactions without relying on centralized platforms.

Letture associate

Has Hook Summer Really Arrived? sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite the New Narrative of Uniswap v4

"Hook Summer" Arrives? Sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite Uniswap v4 Narrative Amidst a slight market recovery, attention within the Ethereum ecosystem has shifted to Meme coins built on Uniswap v4's Hook protocol. Following ASTEROID, tokens like sato, sat1, Lo0p, and FLOOD have become market focal points, with market caps ranging from millions to tens of millions, bringing concentrated liquidity to a narrative-dry market. Uniswap v4 Hooks are "plugin smart contracts" that allow developers to inject custom logic at key points in a liquidity pool's lifecycle (initialization, adding/removing liquidity, swaps, etc.), making the AMM programmable. Recent representative projects include: * **sato**: Market cap peaked over $38M; uses a v4 curve mechanism for minting/burning, locking ETH as reserve. * **sat1**: Market cap briefly exceeded $10M, positioning as an "optimized sato," but later declined significantly. * **Lo0p**: Market cap neared $6.6M; a "lending AMM protocol" allowing users to borrow ETH against deposited LO0P tokens without immediate selling pressure. * **FLOOD**: Market cap approached $6M; channels trading reserves into Aave v3 to generate yield, which is retained in the pool. The emergence of these Hook-based tokens could drive long-term growth for the Uniswap ecosystem by attracting users and liquidity to v4 pools. Combined with Uniswap's activated fee switch (partially used to burn UNI), the long-term outlook for UNI appears positive. However, short-term UNI price appreciation is not directly guaranteed. Factors include the sustainability and lifecycle of these new tokens, their price volatility, overall market conditions, and regulatory pressures. Currently, Uniswap v4's TVL ($595M) lags behind v3 and v2, indicating Hook adoption still requires time to mature. In summary, the Hook ecosystem serves as "long-term nourishment" for UNI, but acts more as a "catalyst" than a direct "booster" in the short term. Note: These are early-stage experimental tokens and may carry unknown risks.

marsbit18 min fa

Has Hook Summer Really Arrived? sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite the New Narrative of Uniswap v4

marsbit18 min fa

Has Hook Summer Truly Arrived? sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite the New Uniswap v4 Narrative

With the broader market showing signs of recovery, a new wave of interest has emerged around Ethereum-based meme coins. Following ASTEROID, tokens like sato, sat1, Lo0p, and FLOOD, built upon the Uniswap v4 Hook protocol, are capturing market attention. Their market capitalizations range from millions to tens of millions of dollars, injecting much-needed focused liquidity into a market lacking narratives. This article explores whether this trend signifies an incoming "Hook Summer" and its potential impact on UNI's price. Hooks are essentially plug-in smart contracts for Uniswap v4 liquidity pools, allowing developers to inject custom logic at key points in a pool's lifecycle (like initialization, adding/removing liquidity, swaps). This transforms the AMM into programmable building blocks. Key highlighted projects include: * **sato**: Peaked over $38M market cap. It utilizes a v4 curve for minting/burning; buying locks ETH as reserve to mint new tokens, while selling redeems ETH from the reserve and burns tokens. * **sat1**: Market cap briefly exceeded $10M, promoted as an "optimized sato," but later declined significantly. * **Lo0p**: Reached nearly $6.6M. It's a lending AMM protocol where buying LO0P tokens locks them as collateral, allowing users to borrow ETH from the pool reserve at 40% LTV, aiming to improve capital efficiency for idle ETH in LPs. * **FLOOD**: Peaked near $6M. Its mechanism directs asset reserves from buys into Aave v3 to generate yield, with fees and interest retained in the pool to potentially influence the token's price long-term. In the long term, the development of the Hook ecosystem can attract users and liquidity to Uniswap v4, benefiting UNI's fundamentals—especially combined with the recent activation of the protocol fee switch, where a portion of fees is used to burn UNI. However, in the short term, these Hook-based tokens are unlikely to directly drive significant UNI price appreciation. Their impact is moderated by factors like token sustainability, price volatility, and broader market and regulatory conditions. Currently, Uniswap v4's TVL ($595M) still trails behind v2 and v3, indicating adoption and growth will take time. The article concludes that while the Hook ecosystem provides long-term "nourishment" for UNI, its short-term role is more of a "catalyst" than a "booster." Readers are cautioned that these are early-stage experimental tokens and may carry unknown risks.

Odaily星球日报30 min fa

Has Hook Summer Truly Arrived? sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite the New Uniswap v4 Narrative

Odaily星球日报30 min fa

Interview with Michael Saylor: I Did Say I Would Sell Bitcoin, But Never a Net Sale

Interview with Michael Saylor: I Said We'd Sell Bitcoin, But Never Be a Net Seller In a recent podcast, MicroStrategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor clarified the company's stance on potentially selling Bitcoin. Following MicroStrategy's earnings call statement about being prepared to sell BTC to fund dividends for its STRC (Strategic) credit product, Saylor emphasized the distinction between selling and being a "net seller." Saylor explained the core business model: MicroStrategy sells credit instruments like STRC and uses the proceeds to buy Bitcoin, which is viewed as "digital capital" expected to appreciate around 30-40% annually. A portion of these capital gains can then be used to pay the dividends on the credit products. He stressed that even if the company sells some Bitcoin for dividends, it simultaneously buys much more with new credit issuance. For example, after raising $3.2 billion from STRC sales in April, the dividend obligation was only $80-90 million, making the company a net buyer. The clarification aims to counter market narratives questioning the value of Bitcoin on MicroStrategy's balance sheet if it were never sold, and to dismiss claims of a "Ponzi scheme." Saylor reiterated his personal philosophy for investors: "Don't be a net seller of bitcoin" and ensure your Bitcoin holdings increase each year. Saylor also discussed Bitcoin's role as the foundation for "digital credit," noting that STRC has become the largest and most liquid preferred stock issue in the U.S., offering high risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe ratio). He highlighted Bitcoin's deep liquidity, stating that even large purchases by MicroStrategy do not move the market significantly, which is driven by macro factors, geopolitical tensions, and capital flows from ETFs and credit products. Finally, Saylor reflected on his early inspiration from sci-fi books, which motivated his path to MIT, and maintained his fundamental thesis on Bitcoin remains unchanged: it is superior digital capital enabling superior digital credit.

链捕手34 min fa

Interview with Michael Saylor: I Did Say I Would Sell Bitcoin, But Never a Net Sale

链捕手34 min fa

Beaten SK Hynix Employees in China: Year-end Bonus Less Than 5% of Korean Staff's

"SK Hynix Chinese Staff Hit Hard: Bonuses Less Than 5% of Korean Counterparts" Driven by the AI boom, South Korea's SK Hynix is experiencing record performance, with media reports predicting massive year-end bonuses for its employees, making them highly desirable in the matchmaking market. However, this prosperity starkly contrasts with the situation for the company's Chinese employees. According to reports, SK Hynix operates under a rule allocating 10% of operating profit for employee bonuses. While projections suggest Korean employees could receive bonuses reaching millions of RMB, a Chinese employee with over a decade of technical experience revealed the disparity: "If they get 3 million, Chinese staff get less than 5% of that." After adjustments based on KPI ratings, this employee's highest bonus was slightly over 100,000 RMB. Bonuses are paid annually in Korea but semi-annually in China. During the industry downturn in 2023-2024, Chinese employees received no bonus at all. The gap extends beyond bonuses. Recruitment posts for SK Hynix's Chinese factories (in Wuxi, Dalian, Chongqing) show engineer monthly salaries ranging from 10,000 to 35,000 RMB, with a 13th-month salary promised. Chinese employees also receive standard benefits like annual leave but lack stock incentives, which are reportedly unavailable to them. Furthermore, management positions in China are predominantly held by Korean personnel, though industry observers note a gradual increase in local middle managers over time. SK Hynix has confirmed the 10% bonus rule but cautioned that specific future bonus amounts remain unpredictable. The company forecasts strong demand for HBM and other high-value enterprise products for the next 2-3 years, driven by AI infrastructure investment. This focus on business-to-business markets may continue to constrain supply for consumer products, potentially prolonging price increases for components like memory.

链捕手48 min fa

Beaten SK Hynix Employees in China: Year-end Bonus Less Than 5% of Korean Staff's

链捕手48 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片