OpenClaw "Endorses" Venice: What Other Targets Are There in the Privacy AI Track?

Odaily星球日报Publicado em 2026-03-05Última atualização em 2026-03-05

Resumo

OpenClaw's brief endorsement of Venice has drawn market attention to the growing intersection of privacy and AI in the crypto space, sparking discussions around several related projects. Venice (VVV) is positioned as a decentralized, privacy-first alternative to ChatGPT, emphasizing its no-logging and no-censorship policies. Its token has surged amid both growing demand and a reduction in token supply. NEAR Protocol is shifting its narrative toward becoming an infrastructure layer for AI agents, particularly through its Confidential Intents system, which adds optional privacy to cross-chain transactions to combat MEV and front-running. Sahara AI aims to build a decentralized AI ecosystem that addresses data ownership and fair value distribution. Its ClawGuard system provides safety mechanisms for AI agents, while its data service platform incentivizes users to contribute data. Phala Network offers privacy-preserving computation via TEE-based smart contracts, providing a secure execution environment for AI agents. It has partnered with projects like ai16z to integrate confidential computation into agent frameworks. Analysts note that interest in privacy-AI projects had been building even before recent hype, suggesting the trend may have longer-term potential beyond short-term speculation.

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | DingDang (@XiaMiPP)

The hot topic OpenClaw has started endorsing Privacy AI, and the "desperate crypto retail investors" seem to have found a new direction for speculation.

It is precisely within this narrative context that a batch of projects related to privacy computing and AI Agent infrastructure have begun to re-enter the market's view. Odaily Planet Daily's review found that during this wave of heated discussion, several projects have already become potential beneficiaries.

VVV(#133)

Venice is an AI generation platform focused on censorship resistance + privacy, positioning itself as a decentralized version of ChatGPT. The starting point of the Privacy AI hype originated from Venice. This is because OpenClaw had once highlighted Venice in its official documentation, only to remove it hastily within 24 hours. Although the recommendation could be removed, this action drew more attention to Venice and its privacy-first features.

Unlike most AI projects, Venice's core narrative is not AI model capability, but privacy itself. Against the backdrop of mainstream AI platforms increasingly strengthening content censorship, and with ongoing controversies over AI data leaks and model training, this "no recording, no censorship" product positioning precisely hits the most sensitive values of the crypto community.

In an era where the AI Agent trend is rapidly fermenting, Venice has stepped into this "era dividend" quite aptly. More coincidentally, the Venice project is actively reducing the token supply of VVV, decreasing inflation. Increased demand meeting reduced supply further strengthens the positive feedback expectation for the VVV token.

Read reference: OpenClaw Endorses Venice.ai, VVV Token Surges Over 500% in a Month

NEAR(#43)

Near Protocol, this veteran high-performance public chain project, is also actively seeking self-reinvention under the impact of the AI wave. It is no longer just a "traditional L1" pursuing TPS and low gas, but is gradually shifting its narrative focus towards the execution layer and settlement infrastructure in the era of AI Agents, attempting to find a new growth narrative in this new technological cycle.

Since the beginning of 2025, it has been vigorously promoting the NEAR Intents (Intent System). This system allows users or AI agents to simply express the "final desired outcome," and the backend will automatically complete complex operations across 35+ chains without manual bridging, wallet switching, or routing management.

On February 25, 2026, NEAR officially upgraded this intent system and launched Confidential Intents. This version introduces privacy computing capabilities into the original intent execution framework. Through Near's privacy sharding mechanism combined with Trusted Execution Environments (TEE), cross-chain transactions can hide key details during execution, such as swap paths, trade size, or specific strategies. However, it does not enforce privacy on all transactions like Zcash or Monero, but rather adds an optional layer of privacy protection to intent execution. Its main goal is not to anonymize transactions, but to prevent MEV, front-running, and sandwich attacks and other on-chain arbitrage behaviors, thereby making transactions more secure during execution.

In the future, AI agents might become the main "users" of blockchain. They will autonomously hold assets, conduct cross-chain transactions, execute strategies, and even coordinate with each other. Under this vision, blockchain not only needs to handle high-frequency transactions but must also provide capabilities like verifiable execution, privacy computing, and cross-chain coordination.

Near's current layout is precisely built around this imagination. It attempts to build an open network that can both support AI agents in automatically executing complex tasks and ensure the process is verifiable and secure. Against the backdrop of the continuously impacting AI wave, this transformation can be seen both as an attempt to actively embrace the new narrative and as a self-reshaping of a veteran public chain in the new cycle.

SAHARA(#295)

Sahara AI's core goal is to build a decentralized, transparent, and secure AI ecosystem, making the development, training, deployment, and commercialization of AI fairer and more trustworthy. The project is committed to solving the problems currently faced by the AI industry, such as data privacy, algorithmic bias, and unclear model ownership.

The rise of AI Agents is bringing forth a new question: Who exactly do the data, models, and capabilities used by these Agents belong to? In the current AI industry structure, this question hasn't been properly resolved. The data required to train models often comes from a large number of dispersed contributors, but the final profits are highly concentrated in the hands of a few AI companies; model developers, even with technical capabilities, often can only依附 on platform ecosystems; and as AI Agents begin to call models, data, and tools autonomously, the entire value chain will become more complex. Without a clear set of rights confirmation and profit-sharing mechanisms, the future AI economy will likely repeat the path of Web2: data owned by users, value captured by platforms.

Sahara AI is precisely trying to establish new rules in this环节. Its ClawGuard security system provides verifiable safety guardrails for AI agents, ensuring they operate safely within preset rules. The Data Service Platform (DSP) allows users to earn token incentives by labeling and contributing AI training data, gradually forming a decentralized data market. Under this mechanism, data contributors can not only participate in the AI model training process but also receive continuous收益 when the data is used, while the platform also ensures data quality and privacy protection through on-chain mechanisms.

PHA(#601)

Phala Network is a privacy-preserving smart contract platform built on Substrate, aiming to provide verifiable privacy-preserving computation services for Web3 applications. To understand why Phala benefits from the AI Agent热潮, one first needs to answer a more fundamental question: What infrastructure does the operation of AI Agents actually rely on?

If we break down the current Agent ecosystem, its tech stack can be roughly divided into several layers. The top layer is the model layer, which includes various large language models or reasoning models, such as OpenAI, Claude, and a series of open-source models; below that is the Agent framework layer, including tools like LangChain, AutoGPT, OpenClaw, etc., which are responsible for organizing tasks, scheduling models, and calling external tools; further down is the execution environment layer, where the Agent actually runs code, calls APIs, and executes automated tasks; additionally, there is the payment and identity layer, used to handle payments, identity, and reputation systems between Agents; and at the very bottom is the compute power and privacy layer, responsible for ensuring the computation process is trustworthy and data security is not compromised.

From this structure, Phala's position恰恰 spans the execution environment layer and the compute power & privacy layer. Its core technology—a confidential computing network based on TEE (Trusted Execution Environment)—enables AI Agents to run programs securely off-chain while ensuring the computation process is verifiable and data is not窥探 by external parties. This is particularly crucial in the Agent economy.

In terms of specific ecosystem implementation, Phala has already begun to integrate with AI Agent projects. For example, Phala collaborated with ai16z to build a TEE component for its Eliza multi-agent framework, integrating trusted execution technology directly into the Agent runtime environment; meanwhile, some AI Agent token issuance projects (like aiPool) have also adopted Phala's TEE technology to manage private keys and on-chain assets.

In the future, as AI Agents evolve from "chat tools" into digital entities capable of holding funds, executing transactions, and even operating protocols, secure execution environments will gradually become an indispensable infrastructure layer for the entire Agent ecosystem, and Phala is trying to occupy this position.

Conclusion

When reviewing these projects, an interesting finding is: The time when these tokens actually started rising was actually earlier than the recommendation event these past few days. That is to say, before Venice brought "Privacy AI" to the forefront, a portion of funds in the market had already noticed this direction in advance, it just lacked a clear enough narrative trigger point at the time. The OpenClaw recommendation event was just a fuse that ignited attention.

In fact, whether it's a16z or Delphi Digital, their annual investment research reports for 2025 listed privacy and AI as key focus areas for 2026. However, when these macro judgments真正落到 the market, they often need a specific event to trigger consensus. And in early 2026, privacy and AI have come before us in such a combined form.

As for whether this will become the next long-term trend or just another short-lived thematic speculation,恐怕 still requires time to provide the answer.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the core narrative of Venice (VVV) in the context of privacy AI?

AVenice's core narrative is not AI model capability but privacy itself. It positions as a decentralized ChatGPT alternative, emphasizing 'no recording, no censorship' to address data leakage and model training controversies in mainstream AI platforms.

QHow is NEAR Protocol adapting to the AI wave and what key feature did it introduce in February 2026?

ANEAR Protocol is shifting its focus to become an execution layer and settlement infrastructure for the AI Agent era. In February 2026, it upgraded its intent system to Confidential Intents, introducing privacy computing capabilities via TEE to hide transaction details and prevent MEV and front-running.

QWhat problem does Sahara AI aim to solve in the AI ecosystem, and what is its ClawGuard system?

ASahara AI aims to address data privacy, algorithmic bias, and unclear model ownership in AI. Its ClawGuard system provides verifiable safety guardrails for AI agents, ensuring they operate within preset rules securely.

QWhich technology does Phala Network (PHA) use to provide privacy for AI Agent operations, and why is it critical?

APhala Network uses TEE (Trusted Execution Environment)-based confidential computing to enable AI Agents to run programs off-chain with verifiable computation and data privacy. This is critical as Agents evolve to hold funds and execute transactions, requiring secure execution environments.

QAccording to the article, what was the role of OpenClaw's recommendation in the privacy AI trend?

AOpenClaw's recommendation of Venice acted as a catalyst that drew market attention to privacy AI, though the trend had already been noticed by some investors earlier. It served as a narrative trigger for broader consensus.

Leituras Relacionadas

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

**Summary: A Conversation with Jia Hang on Two Decades of China's Payment Globalization** Jia Hang, a veteran with over twenty years in payments, reflects on China's attempts to build a global payment network through three key phases: UnionPay (card networks), Alipay+ (digital wallets), and now, stablecoins. His journey began at UnionPay International, aiming to establish China's card network abroad. While successful in following Chinese tourists ("where Chinese go, UnionPay goes"), it struggled to achieve true global scale. The core lesson: card networks like Visa/Mastercard's unassailable advantage isn't just technical standards, but their deeply entrenched **governance and profit-sharing models** that create powerful network effects. Competing as the "same species" is nearly impossible. At Ant Group, he led Alipay+, a strategy to bypass card networks by interconnecting local e-wallets worldwide. While innovative, it faced a similar ceiling. Mobile QR payments and card swipes were essentially **the same species competing for the same pie**, lacking a disruptive value proposition for users or a sustainable new incentive model to replace the card networks' established flywheel. Today, at Singapore's DCS, Jia focuses on stablecoin-based payments. He argues stablecoins represent a fundamental shift. They are not competing with Visa for consumer payments but challenging the **traditional banking and account system for value movement**. Products like "U Cards" (stablecoin-linked payment cards) are transitional, leveraging existing card networks for acceptance while building new rails. The real potential lies in stablecoins enabling seamless, low-cost global value transfer, potentially reorganizing the financial infrastructure around **accounts rather than cards**. Jia believes stablecoin adoption for local retail payments, cross-border transactions, and as high-yield savings vehicles is becoming irreversible. This could gradually reduce reliance on traditional fiat channels, especially in regions with weak currencies or capital controls. The quest for the "next global payment network" continues, now centered on whether stablecoins can successfully bridge Web2 and Web3, establish new governance, and create compelling user value beyond mere cost reduction.

marsbitHá 3m

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

marsbitHá 3m

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

Circle's stock price has plunged approximately 76% from its 2023 peak, reflecting a major market revaluation. Despite this, Circle President Heath Tarbert emphasized the company's focus on long-term execution and its dominant position with USDC's $73 billion circulation across 34 blockchains. The competitive landscape is intensifying. A new consortium-backed stablecoin, Open USD, is attempting to challenge incumbents by sharing reserve yields with partners. More significantly, Visa's new stablecoin platform, initially supporting Open USD while also being compatible with USDC, could erode Circle's network effects. In response, Circle is expanding into real-world payments through partnerships like the one with Japan's JCB. Separately, Tether (USDT) faces a two-year compliance window under new U.S. regulations, requiring it to adjust its reserve composition away from assets like Bitcoin and loans towards cash and U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, Standard Chartered-backed fintech firm Dian Dian is poised to launch a licensed HKD-pegged stablecoin (HKDAP), moving the industry into a phase where the real test is integrating licensed stablecoins into actual payment flows and corporate treasury systems. The sharp decline in Circle's stock underscores a broader shift: the stablecoin market is moving from a winner-takes-all dynamic to a multi-player competitive arena where execution, compliance, and real-world utility are becoming paramount.

marsbitHá 3m

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

marsbitHá 3m

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight NewsHá 14m

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight NewsHá 14m

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbitHá 30m

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbitHá 30m

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手Há 42m

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手Há 42m

Trading

Spot
活动图片