Dragonfly: Crypto Was Not Made for Humans

marsbitPublicado em 2026-02-19Última atualização em 2026-02-19

Resumo

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.

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Is the Sharp Decline Over? Let the Data Speak

**Has the Sharp Decline Ended? Let Data Speak** Bitcoin's recent significant drop has placed short sellers in a precarious position. Three concurrent pressures—sustained outflows from ETFs, miners offloading coins to exchanges, and short-term holders capitulating—pushed the price near $63k. The asset fell 13% this week and 21% this month, roughly halving from its all-time high. A critical data point is the extremely crowded short positioning, with a short-to-long ratio reaching 8:1, representing nearly $100 billion in short interest overhead. This creates conditions for a potential short squeeze if selling pressure merely pauses, similar to the event in November 2022 which triggered a 24% rally. The selling pressures are real: spot Bitcoin ETFs have seen a record $5.4 billion outflow over 20 days. Short-term holders moved 53k loss-held BTC to exchanges in a day, and miners sent 24k BTC to Binance, a six-month high. Capital is also rotating towards AI and tech stocks like SpaceX, with $400 billion invested in AI infrastructure recently. However, on-chain data shows accumulation by long-term holders, who added 200k BTC in a month, and institutions/miners have absorbed 1.24 million BTC since 2023. This indicates strong buying beneath the surface. Key levels to watch are the $67k-$70k zone (2021 high & 2024 breakout point). A swift recovery above it suggests a leverage washout; failure could test $60k-$55k. The direction also hinges on ETF flow reversal. Currently, the S&P 500 hits new highs driven by AI, while Bitcoin and DeFi (TVL down from $173b to $73.9b) lag. The most probable path is a grinding basing process between $60k-$58k with continued ETF outflows. A less likely but explosive scenario involves a sudden flow reversal, a surge above $70k triggering a short squeeze, and a rally back above $76k. The immediate trigger depends on when the relentless selling pauses. A final cautionary note questions Bitcoin's correlation: if the high-flying U.S. stock market corrects, will Bitcoin once again miss the rally but not the decline?

foresightnews_apiHá 11m

Is the Sharp Decline Over? Let the Data Speak

foresightnews_apiHá 11m

Single-Day Plunge of 30%, Arthur Hayes Suddenly Liquidates: Why Did ZEC Get Exploded by Security Issues?

On June 5th, Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox disclosed a critical soundness vulnerability in the project's latest Orchard privacy pool. This flaw, found in the elliptic curve multiplication constraints, could allow an attacker to create unlimited counterfeit ZEC within the shielded pool, with transactions appearing valid. The vulnerability was discovered in late May by security researcher Taylor Hornby, who utilized Anthropic's new Opus 4.8 AI model for a targeted audit. The Zcash ecosystem had already performed an emergency network upgrade to patch the issue. However, the detailed disclosure triggered severe market panic, causing ZEC's price to plummet over 30% in a single day. Notably, prominent investor Arthur Hayes announced he had sold his entire ZEC position following the news. The incident starkly challenges the "technological trust" narrative central to privacy coins. Despite years of top-tier cryptographic audits, the bug persisted until uncovered with advanced AI-assisted research. This highlights the growing gap between theoretical perfection and practical implementation in privacy technology. The event serves as a industry-wide warning: in an AI-driven security landscape, the assumption that "undiscovered equals safe" is obsolete. It underscores the urgent need for continuous, proactive security practices combining AI audits, formal verification, and rapid response mechanisms.

foresightnews_apiHá 1h

Single-Day Plunge of 30%, Arthur Hayes Suddenly Liquidates: Why Did ZEC Get Exploded by Security Issues?

foresightnews_apiHá 1h

Breaking the Curse of DeFi Cascading Liquidations, Vitalik Proposes a New Solution

**Vitalik Buterin Proposes New DeFi Design to Eliminate Forced Liquidations** Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has published a proposal for a new decentralized finance (DeFi) architecture aimed at removing the automatic liquidation mechanisms prevalent in current lending protocols. The core idea involves creating synthetic assets using options as building blocks, fundamentally avoiding the抵押借贷结构 that triggers forced sell-offs. The proposal responds to a recurring flaw in DeFi: during sharp market downturns, mass自动清算 of under-collateralized positions can exacerbate price declines, creating systemic selling pressure and market instability, as evidenced by recent crypto market volatility. Buterin's model would split an asset like 1 ETH into two option-like derivatives, P and N, pegged to a price index with a set strike price and expiration. At expiry, an oracle determines the settlement price to allocate the underlying ETH between P and N holders. This design eliminates the "cliff" of instant liquidation. Instead, a position's value would gradually drift from its target peg if not actively rebalanced by the user, transferring the rebalancing decision from the protocol to the user or automated tools. A key advantage is the reduced reliance on high-frequency, real-time oracle price feeds, which are vulnerable to manipulation and errors in current systems. The delayed settlement in the options model allows for more robust, fault-tolerant oracle designs. However, significant challenges remain for practical adoption. High transaction costs (slippage) from frequent rebalancing on automated market makers (AMMs) could erode user funds. The model may not be suitable for stablecoins requiring a strict 1:1 dollar peg, as it inherently allows for value drift. Success would depend on developing new liquidity provisioning models and deep markets for these synthetic assets. The proposal represents a fundamental rethinking of DeFi risk management, challenging the industry to explore alternatives to被动集中平仓 rather than merely optimizing existing liquidation processes. It remains a theoretical framework awaiting implementation and testing by development teams.

foresightnews_apiHá 1h

Breaking the Curse of DeFi Cascading Liquidations, Vitalik Proposes a New Solution

foresightnews_apiHá 1h

Bitcoin's Decline Marks the Transformation of Crypto

Title: The Decline of Bitcoin Marks the Transformation of Crypto While Bitcoin's price recently fell below $70,000, down approximately 45% from its peak, the broader crypto industry is not following it into decline. Instead, crypto is maturing and evolving beyond its dependence on Bitcoin's price movements. Two of Bitcoin's core functions are being usurped. First, AI has captured its role as the primary speculative asset. AI, with its tangible revenue, explosive demand, and massive capital inflows ($700-830 billion in 2024), is siphoning off the speculative "hot money" that once drove Bitcoin. It also contributes to a sustained high-interest-rate environment, further tightening liquidity for assets like Bitcoin. Second, dollar-pegged stablecoins like USDC and USDT have replaced Bitcoin as the crypto market's foundational currency and primary on/off-ramp. Most trading pairs and on-chain transactions are now settled in stablecoins, severing the historical link where all capital inflows had to pass through Bitcoin first. This decoupling allows projects to thrive based on their own fundamentals rather than Bitcoin's price. Examples include Hyperliquid, an on-chain derivatives exchange with annual revenues of $8-13 billion, and prediction market platform Polymarket, valued at $200 billion with $3.65 billion in annual fees. These projects are evaluated on traditional metrics like revenue and user growth. New opportunities are emerging, particularly around privacy. Privacy coins like Zcash (ZEC) are seeing surging demand, while infrastructure like NEAR enables private, cross-chain asset transfers without requiring users to hold a specific token—privacy becomes a universal service layer. In this new paradigm, stablecoins are the universal cash, various project tokens represent equity, and privacy-enabled cross-chain coordination layers (like NEAR) act as the critical infrastructure connecting a fragmented, multi-chain ecosystem. Bitcoin is now just one asset among many. The era where the entire crypto market moved in lockstep with Bitcoin is over. The industry's health should now be judged by project fundamentals—real revenue, active users, and tokenomics that capture value—and the development of the underlying infrastructure enabling a mature, dollar-denominated crypto economy.

foresightnews_apiHá 1h

Bitcoin's Decline Marks the Transformation of Crypto

foresightnews_apiHá 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片