Dragonfly: Crypto Was Not Made for Humans

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-02-19Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-19

Анотація

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.

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

What If the CLARITY Act Ultimately Fails to Pass?

This article examines the potential consequences if the CLARITY Act, a major US crypto market structure bill, fails to pass in the Senate. Having cleared the House in July 2025 and a key committee in May 2026, the bill's passage into law this year is now considered uncertain, with prediction markets showing its probability dropping from 82% in February to 35%. The article analyzes three main areas of impact should the bill fail. First, for the crypto market, analysts believe a negative reaction is limited and partially priced in already, with Bitcoin's recent weakness attributed more to macro factors. The specific details of the failed bill would matter more than its failure alone. Second, for US stocks, Coinbase (COIN) could see short-term pressure, with analysts citing a potential drop to the $140-$160 range, though its long-term thesis is not solely tied to the bill. For Circle, failure might be neutral or even positive long-term, as a passed bill could invite more stablecoin competition. Bitcoin-treasury firms like Strategy (MSTR) are seen as more directly tied to Bitcoin's price than the legislation. Third, in Washington, the failure is framed within a broader political struggle. Democratic resistance is partly linked to concerns over former President Trump's crypto holdings, making the bill a political tool. If it fails in 2026, the industry would likely rely on existing frameworks like the GENIUS Act and agency-level rules. Missing the August window likely pushes any significant progress to 2027, a period of political reshuffling after midterm elections, making consensus harder to achieve.

Odaily星球日报36 хв тому

What If the CLARITY Act Ultimately Fails to Pass?

Odaily星球日报36 хв тому

SK Hynix Q2 Profit Soars Sixfold, Still 'Misses Expectations'; Secures Long-Term Agreements with 10 Clients, HBM4 to Accelerate Volume Ramp in Second Half

SK Hynix reported record-breaking Q2 2026 financial results, with operating profit soaring 557% year-over-year to 60.5 trillion won and revenue increasing 257% to 79.3 trillion won, driven by strong demand for AI server memory, HBM, and enterprise SSDs. The operating profit margin reached 76.3%. However, both figures fell short of analyst expectations, leading to a drop in its share price. The company attributed the earnings miss to three factors: a high sales mix of HBM, which limited upside from surging prices of general-purpose DRAM; a deceleration in memory price increases compared to Q1; and long-term supply agreements (LTAs) with major customers that lock in prices, reducing sensitivity to spot market gains. SK Hynix has signed LTAs with about 10 clients, covering roughly half of its sales. Despite the miss, the company remains optimistic about AI-driven demand. Its net profit of 93.9 trillion won was significantly boosted by a one-time gain from the partial sale of its Kioxia stake. Financially, it strengthened its cash position, ending the quarter with a net cash position of 69.4 trillion won. Looking ahead, SK Hynix plans capital expenditures at the high end of its 40-50 trillion won range for 2026 to expand capacity for HBM and advanced NAND products, including accelerating the mass production of HBM4 in the second half of the year.

marsbit56 хв тому

SK Hynix Q2 Profit Soars Sixfold, Still 'Misses Expectations'; Secures Long-Term Agreements with 10 Clients, HBM4 to Accelerate Volume Ramp in Second Half

marsbit56 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片