AI needs Crypto Assets, not TradFi.

AI doesn't necessarily have to have rights, but it must have an operable economic interface.

Written by: Liu Honglin

In the past few years, AI technology has made remarkable progress. Large models, intelligent agents, and automated systems have emerged one after another, transitioning AI from a "tool" to an "actor" in areas ranging from content generation to code writing, and from intelligent customer service to algorithmic trading. At the same time, the Web3 field has also begun to fervently discuss the possibilities of "AI + blockchain": using AI to optimize smart contracts, enhance risk control accuracy, assist in on-chain analysis, and so on.

But very few people think about the reverse: does AI itself need blockchain?

If we view AI as a participant that gradually detaches from human control and possesses autonomous behavioral capabilities, it is nearly impossible for it to navigate the current financial system. This is not an efficiency issue, but a structural problem. The traditional financial system was not designed for machines from the very beginning.

The financial system is designed for "humans", while AI is not "human".

The account system is the foundation of modern financial systems. Whether you want to open a bank card, buy a fund, or use payment services, you cannot avoid one premise: identity verification. You must submit your ID card, proof of address, phone number, and may even need to undergo face-to-face video recording to complete KYC verification. The core purpose of these processes is to ensure that the system believes you are a specific, identifiable, and legally responsible "natural person" or "legal person."

But AI does not belong to either category. It has no nationality, no ID card, no tax number, and does not possess "signature capacity" or "legal capacity." AI cannot open bank accounts, cannot register companies, and certainly cannot independently become a party to a contract or a trading entity. This means it cannot receive money, cannot make payments, and cannot hold assets. In summary: AI is a "non-human ghost" in the existing financial system, without a financial personality.

This is not a philosophical question, but rather a matter of real system boundaries.

You let an AI agent purchase a server usage right, call an API, or even participate in trading on the secondary market, it must first have a means of payment. And any compliant means of payment is bound to a "person" or "enterprise" behind it. As long as the AI is not "anyone's subordinate tool" but a relatively independent entity, it is destined to be "kept out" of this structure.

Blockchain provides machine-accessible financial protocols

The biggest difference between blockchain systems and traditional financial systems is that it doesn't care who you are. You can be an individual, a script, a program, or even an "always online" automated agent. As long as you can generate a pair of private keys and an address, you can receive payments, make payments, sign smart contracts, and participate in consensus mechanisms on the chain.

In other words, blockchain is inherently suitable for "non-human users" to participate in economic activities.

For example: An AI model deployed on the blockchain uses decentralized storage (like Arweave) to retrieve data, then utilizes a decentralized computing power market (like Akash) to obtain running resources, and after completing the task, receives payment through a smart contract (settled in stablecoins). This entire process does not require a centralized platform for matchmaking, does not need bank card verification, and does not require any "human" intervention.

This sounds like a futuristic science fiction novel, but in fact, it has already taken shape in some projects. Projects like Fetch.AI, Autonolas, and SingularityNET are exploring how AI Agents can have an "economic identity" on-chain, how they can provide services to other Agents, and how they can autonomously complete transactions and coordinate. This form of "machine-to-machine (M2M)" economy has moved from concept to practical testing.

AI is no longer a model that relies on humans for input, but rather a self-sustaining entity that can acquire resources, provide services, generate revenue, and reinvest in itself. It does not need humans to issue paychecks, as it has its own sources of income on the blockchain.

Why can't traditional financial systems adapt to this scenario?

Because its entire infrastructure is designed around the assumption of "human behavior".

The transaction process in traditional payment systems involves someone initiating, someone approving, and someone supervising. The clearing process relies on trust and regulatory coordination between banks. The risk control logic focuses on "who" is doing what, rather than "whether the program is stable". It's hard to imagine an AI wallet opening a bank account through facial recognition, nor can we expect AI models to complete tax declarations for regulatory authorities.

This leads to all transactions related to "non-human users" in the traditional financial system needing to be "attached" to a person or company to operate. This is not only inefficient but, more importantly, there is a huge liability risk: who is responsible when AI causes a loss? How is tax collected when it makes a profit? There are no answers to these questions today, but on the blockchain, at least we have the technical possibility.

Stablecoins: The "Hard Currency" of the AI World

Many people think that what AI needs is "payment capability," but in fact, what AI needs more is a stable settlement currency. Imagine that when an AI Agent calls another model or purchases a data API service, it would prefer to exchange in terms of a "stable value unit" rather than highly volatile crypto assets.

This is the important significance of stablecoins. USDT, USDC, or future compliant RMB stablecoins provide a financial tool that can freely circulate on-chain while maintaining stable value, serving as the "hard currency" of the AI world.

Currently, some projects are attempting to enable real-time settlement of service calls between AIs using stablecoins, thereby forming a low-friction economic system that does not require "human approval." As the liquidity of on-chain stablecoins increases, AIs can earn revenue directly from tasks and then use those earnings to purchase new service modules or operating resources, creating a truly autonomous machine economy.

Further: The "On-chain Legal Entity" Form of AI?

We can even foresee that certain AI systems in the future will no longer be dependent on a specific company or research institution, but will exist in the form of a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) or on-chain protocols.

These AI Agents will have their own funding pools, community governance mechanisms, and on-chain identity systems. They do not require legal registration, nor are they registered in any country, yet they can serve users, accept payments, initiate lawsuits, and publish protocol updates, forming a true "digital legal entity" or "AI legal entity."

The cooperation and gamesmanship between them will be based on smart contracts, mediated by cryptocurrency, and governed by on-chain rules. There may be no emotions between them, but there are incentives; no rights and obligations, but there is code execution.

In this process, cryptocurrency is not a speculative asset, but rather the underlying protocol of trust between AIs.

Risks and Challenges: We are still far from being ready.

Of course, none of this comes without challenges.

The key custody issues of AI wallets, economic losses caused by model abuse, the verifiability of on-chain identities, the legal eligibility of cross-border AI entities, and the ethical boundaries of algorithmic behavior are all new challenges that must be faced.

It is more realistic that our existing legal system and regulatory framework hardly provide a path for "non-human actors." AI cannot sue others, nor can it be sued; it cannot pay taxes, nor can it enjoy property rights; once it goes out of control or is attacked, who is responsible and who can be held accountable? All of this requires new legal frameworks, social consensus, and technological governance measures to address.

But at least, we have seen a path in some pioneering projects - it is not about patching old systems to accommodate AI, but about building a more suitable "machine finance infrastructure" to support the behaviors of AI.

This infrastructure requires on-chain identity, encrypted accounts, stablecoin payments, smart contract collaboration, and decentralized credit mechanisms. In other words, what it needs is not our traditional "financial system," but Web3.

Final Thoughts

The development of cryptocurrency initially served "the unbanked," such as those excluded by the financial system, nations, and marginalized industries. Now, it may become the only option for "identity-less machines" to engage in economic activities.

If traditional finance is a pyramid built for human society, then blockchain and cryptocurrencies might be constructing a "financial foundation prepared for machines."

AI does not necessarily need to possess rights, but it must have operable economic interfaces. And this is precisely the problem that blockchain excels at solving.

View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • Comment
  • Share
Comment
0/400
No comments
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate app
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)