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

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

The AI boom is facing an unexpected bottleneck: a severe shortage of skilled construction workers and electricians. As tech giants like Meta, OpenAI, and Alphabet race to build massive data centers—such as OpenAI's $16 billion "Stargate" project—they are hitting a critical labor wall. The U.S. needs an estimated 130,000 more electricians, 240,000 construction workers, and 150,000 supervisors by 2030 for AI infrastructure alone, but tens of thousands of electrician jobs go unfilled each year. While AI companies offer high premiums, with electricians earning up to $280,000 annually, worker scarcity still causes massive losses—delays on a single project can cost $14.2 million per month. The complexity of building AI data centers, which require immense power (equivalent to powering hundreds of thousands of homes), sophisticated electrical systems, and advanced liquid cooling solutions, demands highly skilled technicians who are in short supply. To combat this, companies are investing heavily in training. Meta has committed $115 million to a free training school offering tuition, housing, and stipends, targeting 5,000 new workers. OpenAI is partnering with unions to secure skilled labor. These efforts are paying off, with a significant rise in Gen Z interest in trade schools over college. However, the power demands are staggering. AI data centers are driving a rapid surge in electricity consumption, projected to account for up to 12% of U.S. power use by 2028 and raising costs for consumers. Furthermore, the construction boom is project-based, leading to a potential future glut of trained workers once building peaks, which could depress wages industry-wide. The race for AI supremacy now depends as much on skilled hands as on advanced chips.

marsbit1 год тому

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

marsbit1 год тому

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

OpenAI is shifting its business strategy away from promoting its most expensive, flagship models for every task. Recent price cuts—80% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 20% for Terra—signal a deeper change: the company now actively advises users that many tasks don't require the most powerful model. Instead, OpenAI recommends a tiered approach: use the high-end GPT-5.6 Sol for complex planning and analysis, then delegate execution to cheaper models like Luna. This mirrors moves by Anthropic, which recently launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its top model, Fable 5. Both companies are de-emphasizing flagship models as primary revenue drivers, using them instead for brand prestige and technological showcases. The industry is entering a "mass-market" phase, similar to automotive, where high-volume, cost-effective models handle daily operations and drive scale. OpenAI's price reductions are partly enabled by AI models themselves optimizing underlying code and infrastructure, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of efficiency gains and cost reduction. Competition is shifting from "who is smartest" to "who offers the best value." The goal is no longer selling individual models but fostering widespread API adoption and ecosystem lock-in. By making AI calls cheap and ubiquitous, companies like OpenAI aim to become the indispensable, utility-like infrastructure powering automated workflows—the "water and electricity" of software, quietly embedded everywhere.

marsbit1 год тому

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片