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

Polymarket's "2028 Presidential Election" Volume King Is... LeBron James???

An article from Odaily Planet Daily, authored by Azuma, discusses a peculiar phenomenon observed on the prediction market platform Polymarket regarding the "2028 US Presidential Election" event. Despite having a real-time probability of less than 1%, unlikely candidates such as NBA star LeBron James (with $48.41 million in trading volume), celebrity Kim Kardashian ($33.84 million), and even ineligible figures like Elon Musk ($23.14 million) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani ($18.39 million) account for approximately 70% of the total trading volume. In contrast, high-probability candidates like Vice President JD Vance ($10.58 million), California Governor Gavin Newsom ($15.71 million), and Secretary of State Marco Rubio ($9.32 million) have significantly lower trading activity. The article explains that this counterintuitive trend is not driven by irrational speculation but by rational strategies. Polymarket offers a 4% annualized holding reward for certain markets, including the 2028 election, to maintain long-term pricing accuracy. This yield exceeds the current 5-year US Treasury rate (3.98%), attracting large investors ("whales") to hold "NO" shares on low-probability candidates for risk-free returns. Additionally, some users utilize a platform feature that allows converting a set of "NO" shares into corresponding "YES" shares for better liquidity or pricing efficiency, rather than directly buying "YES" shares for their preferred candidates. Thus, the seemingly absurd trading activity is strategically motivated.

marsbit48 хв тому

Polymarket's "2028 Presidential Election" Volume King Is... LeBron James???

marsbit48 хв тому

Dialogue with ViaBTC CEO Yang Haipo: Is the Essence of Blockchain a Libertarian Experiment?

"ViaBTC CEO Yang Haipo: Blockchain as a Hardcore Libertarian Experiment" In a deep-dive interview, ViaBTC CEO Yang Haipo reframes the essence of blockchain, arguing it is not merely a new technology or infrastructure but a hardcore libertarian experiment. This experiment, born from the 2008 financial crisis and decades of cypherpunk ideology, tests a fundamental question: to what extent can freedom and self-organization exist without centralized trust? The discussion highlights the experiment's verified outcomes. On one hand, it has proven its core value of censorship resistance, providing critical financial lifelines for entities like WikiLeaks and individuals in hyperinflationary or sanctioned countries via tools like stablecoins. However, Yang points out a key paradox: the most successful product, USDT, is itself a centralized compromise, showing users prioritize a less-controlled pipeline over pure decentralization. On the other hand, the experiment has exposed the severe costs of this freedom—a "dark forest" without safeguards. Events like the collapses of LUNA, Celsius, and FTX, resulting in massive wealth destruction and prison sentences for founders, underscore the system's fragility and the inherent risks of an unregulated environment. Yang observes that despite decentralized protocols, human nature inevitably recreates centralized power structures, speculative frenzies, and narrative-driven cycles (from ICOs to Meme coins), where emotion and belonging often trump technological substance. Looking forward, he believes blockchain's future is significant but niche. Its real value lies in serving specific, real-world needs for financial sovereignty and bypassing traditional controls, not as a universal infrastructure replacing all centralized systems. For the average participant, Yang's crucial advice is to cultivate independent judgment. True freedom is not holding a crypto wallet, but possessing a mind resilient to groupthink and narrative hype in a high-risk, often irrational market.

marsbit1 год тому

Dialogue with ViaBTC CEO Yang Haipo: Is the Essence of Blockchain a Libertarian Experiment?

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片