a16z Crypto Year-End Special: From Stablecoins to AI Agents, 8 Investment Gurus Analyze Industry Trends

Original Title: Talking trends 2025 (part 1): Stablecoins, app stores, UX, and more
Original Source: a16z crypto

Compilation and Translation: Deep Tide TechFlow

Introduction

a16z crypto recently released an end-of-year special program divided into two parts. The first part of the program invited Sam Broner, Maggie Hsu, Daren Matsuoka, Joachim Neu, and Chris Lyons to discuss topics including stablecoins, a crypto App Store, the current state of industry projects, infrastructure development, and outlook for 2025. The second part of the program featured Carra Wu, Eddy Lazzarin, and Karma as guests, delving into the trending topic of AI Agents, including the integration of AI with crypto. Against the backdrop of AI's increasing prevalence, the discussion touched on how we can effectively distinguish between humans and bots, as well as decentralized, truly autonomous chatbots. The conversation explored how artificial intelligence (AI) merges with cryptocurrency, particularly focusing on the concept of decentralized autonomous chatbots, emphasizing the autonomy and commercial freedom AI may achieve in the future.

Deep Tide TechFlow has specially translated and compiled these two episodes of a16z Crypto's program. The following is the full dialogue.

Guests:

· Sam Broner, Partner at a16z Crypto investment team;

· Maggie Hsu, Partner at Andreessen Horowitz;

· Daren Matsuoka, Partner at a16z Crypto investment team;

· Joachim Neu, Researcher at a16z Crypto;

· Chris Lyons, President of Web3 Media at a16z Crypto;

· Carra Wu, Partner in a16z Crypto's investment team;

· Eddy Lazzarin, CTO at a16z Crypto;

· karma (Daniel Reynaud), Research Engineering Partner at a16z Crypto

Host: Robert Hackett Sonal Chokshi

Podcast Source: a16zcrypto

Original Title:

Talking trends 2025 (part 1): Stablecoins, app stores, UX, and more;

Talking trends 2025 (part 2): AI x crypto

Air Date: December 20, 2024

Part 1

Stablecoins

Sonal: Sam, the "big idea" you put forward is about stablecoins; you've recently written a lot about it... and Robert and Daren co-authored the "State of Crypto" report, with their key finding being that stablecoins have found product-market fit. But what we really want to understand is, why now?

Sam:

Over the past year, the technical platform for stablecoins has seen significant improvements, with transaction costs dropping from $5 per transaction to less than 1 cent. This has greatly reduced payment costs—but retail, merchants, and other businesses that could benefit most from this technology have not yet widely adopted it.

Many believe that the earliest adopters will be tech-centric companies... but these companies typically have high profit margins and do not have a pressing need for cost improvement. Therefore, those with lower profit margins—such as corner stores, restaurants, and mom-and-pop shops—may be the most eager group to accept stablecoin payments.

We are talking about businesses like coffee shops—currently operating at a mere 2% profit margin—that could double their profits through stablecoin payments. In fact, this would make what is now almost unprofitable businesses moderately profitable, which is a huge change.

Sonal: One enlightening point for me is that when you mentioned how small businesses get very little from credit card companies, not only do they pay high fees, but they also get almost no benefit in return.

Sam:

Exactly! A significant feature of credit cards is that they provide consumers with fraud protection. This is very helpful in driving the development of areas such as online sales... but when you're paying at a coffee shop, this protection is almost meaningless.

For each transaction, a fixed fee of $0.30 must be paid, along with an additional 2% in transaction fees. This means that in a $1.50 cup of coffee, close to $0.30, which is one-fifth of the money, goes into the payment service provider's pocket. And in this transaction, they have provided almost no actual value.

This 2% transaction fee is entirely the payment service provider's pure profit, but for local coffee shops, it is purely a loss. I am very much looking forward to these small businesses reclaiming this $0.30/$0.35 profit to develop their business. Directly adding the 2% profit to a business's bottom line is a very rare opportunity.

Robert: However, there is a "cold start" issue here, right? Consumers need to first own stablecoins to be able to pay them to the merchant, thus avoiding payment intermediary fees... Do you think we will see merchants actively promoting stablecoins and helping users onboard to gain these benefits? Will merchants become a key driver of stablecoin adoption?

Sam:

I strongly believe in this. People have a close relationship with local retail stores, coffee shops, and corner shops: they frequent these places. So I think these local brands will be a key force in driving people to use stablecoins, becoming part of the early stablecoin adoption curve.

Robert: I really like that. I remember when I first started reporting on cryptocurrency for Fortune magazine, the editors always asked: when can we buy coffee with Bitcoin? And I always replied: No no no, Bitcoin is not for that. But now it seems that, at least for stablecoins, this is indeed where they can shine.

Sam:

Exactly, that's its purpose. I think these small businesses will be one of the earliest adopter groups.

Owning Crypto's Own Ecosystem

Sonal: Alright, that's very interesting; let's move on to the next topic. Maggie, your "big idea" is very interesting because it focuses on distribution channels, which also aligns well with your role—you are responsible for market expansion and are the team lead. You mentioned that cryptocurrency finally has its own app store and discovery mechanism.

Could you please briefly introduce why this is so important? — Because when people hear about this concept, they may think it sounds like something only "insiders" would care about — For example, does cryptocurrency really need its own ecosystem? Isn't it already a closed industry?

I would love to hear your observations and why you think this is an important trend.

Maggie:

Of course. When I joined a16z three years ago — especially in the past few years — many of our portfolio companies have tried to launch apps on traditional app stores (such as the Apple App Store and Google Play Store), but have been rejected, blocked, or delayed for various reasons.

It has been frustrating because Apple's review guidelines are neither clear nor comprehensive; they fail to address all developers' questions. Additionally, the enforcement of these policies is inconsistent due to different reviewers.

We've even encountered cases where the same feature, some apps were approved, while others were rejected... This opaque review process is bewildering. And the core issue of all this lies in "in-app purchases" (IAP) — all in-app transactions must go through the app store.

However, recently we have seen some alternative solutions: such as Solana's Dapp Store, which charges no fees at all. With the launch of the Saga phone (second generation) — reportedly with a pre-order volume of 100,000 units — this trend will continue to grow. Another example is World App — also known as WorldCoin — they have released a series of small apps that have seen rapid user growth.

Furthermore, some blockchains are supporting the gaming ecosystem, running their marketplaces; we also have infrastructure markets,

You will find that these markets are gradually taking shape. For developers, a transparent and consistently ruled platform is crucial so they can focus on product development rather than being confused or concerned about complex rules.

As these alternative solutions emerge, we will see more developers opting for these new platforms as they provide greater freedom and innovation space for the crypto ecosystem.

Sonal: This is really interesting, especially when you mentioned transparency and consistency. I suppose this is not only for the convenience of developers but also relates to how users discover these apps, right? For example, traditional app stores dominate app distribution and promotion, will the new app stores in the crypto ecosystem change this status quo?

Maggie:

Yes, that's exactly the point. The discovery mechanism of traditional app stores is relatively closed, and users can only find apps within a limited framework. In contrast, decentralized app stores provide users with more choices and greater autonomy.

For example, Solana's Dapp Store not only eliminates transaction fees but also allows developers to interact directly with users. For instance, developers can reward user participation through a Token Incentive Mechanism, such as for downloading, commenting, or sharing an app. This model not only reduces developers' costs but also enhances the user experience.

Robert: It sounds like this is not just a technological improvement, but more like a reshaping of an ecosystem. How do you think these new types of app stores will impact the traditional app distribution model?

Maggie:

I believe this will be a gradual evolution rather than an overnight disruption. Traditional app stores still have their massive user base and market share. However, as the crypto user community expands gradually and the advantages of decentralized app stores become more apparent, more developers and users may choose these new platforms.

Ultimately, this is not just a technological competition but also a clash of values—decentralization, transparency, and user autonomy will become core themes of the future.

What If There Are Too Many Choices?

Sonal: Alright, let's move on to the next topic—when I hear about these, I think of a question that might be the "meta question" of the entire crypto space, and that is: What if there are too many choices?

Current mobile operating systems are mainly dominated by Apple and Android. The advantage of this duopoly model is that I only need to go to one place to find everything I need. So, if these apps are distributed across multiple app stores... are they exclusive? For example, WorldCoin and Solana each have their own app stores—and you mentioned that these companies not only have software but also hardware: like World's Orb and Solana's Saga phone... this reminds me of when Apple launched the iPhone and drove the development of the entire app ecosystem.

So, will these app stores become platforms showcasing only what these companies deem important? Will they remain open? How do you view the development of this trend... although it's still very early; will they be interoperable — or rather, should they be interconnected?

Maggie: I think the current focus is on driving rapid growth of different app stores.

You brought up the issue of "too much choice," which is crucial — this also applies in the blockchain space. I do believe that some bridging mechanism or integration will be needed in the future. But for now, it's exciting to see the emergence of these alternative solutions.

Take Worldchain, for example, which features the ability to verify real user identities. I just looked at one of their small apps, which already has about 600,000 registered users. So, I think we should focus on this kind of growth.

However, at some point in the future, we will need to balance this growth with curated content. This trend has already begun to emerge in some NFT communities: these communities attract a large number of users who are interested in exploring other Web3 apps. I believe that in the future, we will see these communities also gradually become curated platforms for apps within the ecosystem.

Robert: Yes, I was just about to ask — companies like Apple often claim that because they provide curated services, they have the right to charge fees for in-app purchases or transactions within the app store. How does this align with the "permissionlessness" feature of the crypto space?

Maggie: I think currently there isn't much curated content in the crypto space, so I might disagree with Apple's argument. But the advantage of crypto is that users can switch to other platforms at any time.

Similarly, games require significant funding to launch. Over the past few years, blockchain has not only been a development platform but has also acted as a publisher, distribution channel, and discovery mechanism. Now, many gaming chains have their own markets and can focus on recommending core games developed on their blockchain. The advantage of this model is that it allows users to freely migrate between different games.

This is also a core concept behind many of our investments. I don't think users will be locked into a particular decentralized app store.

Robert: I love observing these innovative experiments! For example, Solana's phone — it completely breaks the norm, you know: usually people avoid competing with Apple's iPhone — but they said, whatever, let's give it a try.

Sonal: One more thing, Maggie— you mentioned that this is not all fun and innovation; there are also some challenges, such as, if a product already has a distribution channel in a messaging app, migrating this distribution to the blockchain is very difficult—this is a puzzle for some companies transitioning from Web2 to Web3. An example you mentioned is Telegram and the TON Network. (It is important to clarify here that we are discussing the network, not the token.)

Maggie: I think Telegram is an exception; but many organizations with a large user base—whether they are Web2 platforms or companies taking their first steps into Web3—face the challenge of migrating users to the blockchain.

For example, Coinbase: it has about 100 million verified users who have traded on its platform. If we look at active users, daily or monthly active users are approximately between 8 to 10 million. And the number of users on Base recently grew from about 10 to 18 million.

But this still represents only 10% of its total users. So, there are a large number of users in a "dormant" state. We also discussed this in the "Crypto Status Report," which is very interesting—because this is indeed a fact: many platforms are trying to figure out: we attracted users, they created accounts, but then there was no further engagement. How can we bring them back and have them transact on the blockchain?

Cryptocurrency Industry Scale

Daren: When we were writing the "Crypto Status Report," we tried to assess the scale of the cryptocurrency industry as accurately as possible. However, for various reasons, measuring the number of cryptocurrency users is very difficult.

During our market size analysis, we found that actually only 5-10% of cryptocurrency holders are active users. To me, this data both reveals a huge gap and shows the enormous opportunity in the industry—especially as blockchain technology and infrastructure continue to improve, and user experience (UX) is constantly being optimized.

I believe we are ready to welcome mainstream users. Considering the timing of technological developments, I think next year is the best opportunity to convert these "dormant" users into active users.

Sonal: This perspective is very inspiring to me. Many people are talking about how to attract new users, but this often sounds like skipping some stages of technological development. Your idea is like a bridge, able to convert them into truly active users through the existing user base.

What do you think initially drove these people into the crypto world? Why did they stop after accomplishing one thing?

Robert: This is exactly where the "Price-Innovation Cycle" theory shines.

Daren: This theory posits that when cryptocurrency prices rise, it attracts a lot of attention. Among these attracted individuals, some will eventually become developers, starting to build new products; these products, in turn, drive the next wave of users.

In the development history of cryptocurrency, we have seen this cycle multiple times. This also indicates that price is often a leading indicator of industry activity. I believe we may be at the starting point of the next wave.

Sonal: If I were to guess, many people may have created wallets due to the NFT craze... For example, the Constitution DAO event at that time—a bid for the U.S. Constitution—brought many newcomers into the crypto space.

Although they ultimately failed in the bid, this event introduced many people to cryptocurrency for the first time. However, they may have only done that one thing and then did not further engage.

So, how can we get these people to take the next step?

Daren: Cryptography has many potential use cases, but there are also different movements driving its development.

For example, in 2024, we saw progress in crypto as a political movement: some key politicians and policymakers showed a positive attitude toward this technology.

Simultaneously, crypto as a financial movement also made breakthroughs, such as the approval of Bitcoin and Ethereum Exchange-Traded Products (ETPs), expanding investor access.

However, we believe that crypto's most promising direction is as a computing movement. Chris Dixon mentioned in the book "Read Write Own" that the true power of this technology lies in its ability to create a more fair, open, and transparent new internet.

I think we are at a crucial juncture: by 2025, with improved infrastructure, reduced transaction costs, enhanced user experience, and the emergence of new application categories, we might witness the birth of a "killer app"—similar to the impact ChatGPT had in the AI field.

This kind of application could truly kickstart the entire industry and fulfill the promise of crypto as a computational movement.

This is also a future that my team and I are very excited about.

Robert: Yes, this is a topic we often discuss. Stablecoins have found Product-Market Fit. It only takes one large company to realize that by eliminating credit card transaction fees, they can significantly boost their profits. This could be a disruptive change for industries with lower profit margins, directly impacting their profitability.

As soon as one major company takes action, stablecoins could experience explosive growth. This is at least one potential path for stablecoins to go mainstream.

Sonal: Yes, I wanted to add: I find your point very interesting, especially regarding attracting "adjacent users." When we are truly ready, we can further attract more mainstream users. However, from a User Experience (UX) perspective, we are not fully prepared yet.

If we carefully consider the needs of mainstream users, I am not sure if they would enter the crypto world through these avenues. Their user interface may be highly abstracted, to the point where they may not even know they are using cryptocurrency. So, when you think about different user groups gradually entering this field through various paths, it's really fascinating and exciting.

Infrastructure Reuse

Sonal: Joachim, could you briefly summarize your point: you believe that developers will increasingly reuse existing infrastructure rather than starting from scratch. Your main argument is that we often see customized Validator Sets and Consensus Protocols, but these custom results may have some improvements in certain specialized functionalities, yet they often lack in broader or foundational functionalities.

You predict that this year we will see more crypto developers leveraging each other's contributions, such as using existing infrastructure tools. This not only saves time and energy, but also allows developers to focus on enhancing the product's differentiating value.

I think this is a fantastic idea and a much-needed call to action.

So my question is: While this sounds great in theory, will it actually happen? What obstacles do you think could be encountered in achieving this goal?

Joachim: I believe the key to this idea lies in whether the future Tech Stack will continue to evolve. If our assumption is correct that the Tech Stack has already trended towards stability—and we see some layers of the Tech Stack becoming clearer in interface definition and how they interact with each other.

Then, we can expect these layers to have specialized teams, products, and services to improve them. This will drive the specialization of these layers. Instead of dispersing effort across every aspect of the Tech Stack, it's better to focus on those parts that can have the most significant impact.

So the key question is: Has the Tech Stack matured and stabilized enough? If some unforeseen technological revolution occurs in the future, completely disrupting the existing Tech Stack, then this trend may not take place.

Robert: Joachim, you mentioned that people are increasingly inclined to use existing products, services, or components... and that got me thinking: How do we determine if a technology is mature enough to say, 'Well, we will use existing technology instead of trying to develop something better than what already exists'?

Sonal: That's a great question; you're essentially asking, as a developer, how do you determine when to use off-the-shelf technology?

Robert: Yes, yes. Saying 'use what's already there' sounds simple... but what if someone feels, 'I can do better than what already exists'? What should they do then?

Joachim: Yes. My advice is that developers should always focus on the larger ecosystem, broader impact, and wider use cases.

You'll find that the actual usage environment of a product or service is often much more complex than you initially imagine. You can think of it as building a car: If you are very good at building engines, you might think, 'I'm going to build a new car because I excel at engines.' This is a key differentiator of your product.

But customers don't just need an excellent engine, right? The car also needs a good sound system, comfortable seats, maybe even air conditioning—so, would you reinvent the wheel for these parts?

Or: Is there a way for you to focus on what you excel at while leveraging top-notch off-the-shelf products provided by others to complete the other parts of the Tech Stack?

Robert: And this analogy is particularly suitable for you, Joachim, because you are German; Germany has many very professional automotive parts manufacturers who can produce the top small parts for BMW cars, almost unmatched, so this is indeed very special.

Sonal: Joachim, jokingly, your "big idea" reminds me of a phenomenon I have personally observed: I think people in the crypto field have a tendency towards "Constraints Porn"—in the early stages of crypto technology development, many people were deeply fascinated by these technological constraints.

And I think your "big idea" might make these people feel dissatisfied because they actually enjoy the process of solving these constraints. But from another perspective, your idea would actually attract more new developers to enter this field—I think this is a very democratizing trend.

Joachim: That's right, now is indeed a very suitable era for development in this field. Because there are so many ready-made code repositories available to use for building products or services.

In fact, you really need to develop very little yourself, right? You can truly focus on what you are good at. And for other parts, there are highly specialized components that can be used.

So, reusing them as much as possible is a good idea. And you can leverage the expertise of other teams, using their achievements in other parts of the tech stack.

View on 2025

Sonal: The next topic is the last one today. Chris, you have played many different roles at a16z over the past decade. In your work, you have interacted with many industry professionals and helped many executives from the fashion, music, and media industries to embrace Web3. I think your perspective not only represents yourself but is also based on your experience of interacting with thousands of people. Could you share your key views on 2025?

Chris: Of course. My "big idea" for 2025—actually, it has been an idea I have been persistently advocating for the past few years, but I think we have finally reached a stage where we can truly realize it: I call it the "Hidden Tech Line".

What does this mean? Obviously, crypto technology has many benefits, such as empowering ownership, the decentralized potential, and how it is changing the future of industries like music, fashion, and movies. But for those not in the crypto industry, when we use terms like ZK Rollups, L2, Gas, or Gas Fees, they will feel confused. I want to make a plea to the crypto industry: we don't need to start with an opening like "This is an NFT project"; or say "This is a Token"; or "You can connect your wallet to...".

These terms are very appealing to industry insiders, but if you really want something to go mainstream, we can't start with these technical terms. Unfortunately, most people neither understand nor care about the meaning of these terms.

The concept of the "Tech-to-Human Translation" is: it's not about ignoring the technical foundation, but rather not letting technical jargon be the main selling point. We need to focus users on the actual value that the technology brings, rather than scare them off with complex terms.

Robert: I really like this point of view because it's like cutting through the "noise" of terms... For example, when we talk about NFTs: what a non-fungible token is isn't important; what's important is that it's a way for creators to get paid.

Or, like someone in our company recently asked: "Why would I need a stablecoin?" But if you don't call it a "stablecoin" and instead tell him it's a way for you to save $50 a year on coffee, he might immediately think, "Oh, no matter what it's called, I want it."

Chris: Exactly right, I want it. And I can't believe we didn’t have this before. I come from the music industry. When I used to go to conferences, no one would ever go to an "MP3 conference." You know? Why name conferences with tech terms to attract mainstream users to the space? Yet we're more than willing to put up "NFT Conference" on billboards.

A great example is the SMTP protocol (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol). It's a highly technical protocol that anyone can build applications on. But applications like Gmail, Superhuman, YahooMail make it super easy for people to use and enjoy its benefits.

When I send an email, reply quickly, and go through a busy day at work, I don't think, "Wow, this SMTP software is running great." I'm just getting my job done. And that's how I end up benefiting from the technology.

I think the same thing needs to happen in the encryption space — there's so much potential here: decentralization, ownership, know your customer, disintermediation, and the ability to communicate directly.

My hope is that next year, we can see more businesses and companies approaching problems from the perspective of the average user, which will drive us to create new industries... redefining the future of creators, reimagining the future of small businesses, and even redefining the future of restaurants — all leveraging the advantages of encryption technology.

Sonal: It's interesting that you mentioned these people — like creators, small businesses, etc. — are actually the groups that can benefit the most from blockchain technology... but as you said, they are currently unable to directly access these benefits.

Chris: Absolutely right! And it's not their fault. Their job is not to learn how to swap tokens or to use different wallets to connect to different blockchains. They just want to simply reap the benefits of this technology.

This is also why we are all working hard in this space; this is what excites me the most.

Key Takeaways from Episode 1

Sonal: So, let's start by discussing some overarching themes we have observed.

Robert: I think this year I noticed that when people propose big ideas, they mainly focus on three broad categories.

The first category is about AI and the intersection of AI and blockchain technology. This is not surprising, as this year has indeed been a milestone for AI.

The second category, I would describe as... what we often call 'digi fizzy' (digital-physical fusion). It refers to the practical fusion of the digital world and the physical world. This includes everything from payments, voting, to creating networks for physical infrastructure... If AI is more like software innovation, then this category is more like hardware innovation in real life.

Sonal: By the way, regarding the second theme, this is really interesting because I have never classified it in this way before — but now that you mention it, I completely understand what you mean: for example, some examples involve tokenizing real-world assets, putting bonds on the blockchain... and there are even examples of tokenizing biometric data from the body.

Robert: I would classify the third category as overall technological improvement — it's like gradually optimizing based on what has happened in the past year: what happens if everything becomes slightly better, easier to use, smoother, and more seamless.

Sonal: Regarding the last theme, I am more inclined to see it as a significant enhancement of user experience — and a sign of an industry gradually maturing. This maturity is reflected in it becoming more human-centric rather than being technology-first. That's how I categorize the last theme.

For example, Jochem mentioned that people don't need to design everything from scratch — they can directly use off-the-shelf components and customize them. On the other hand, Chris Lyons takes a different approach, suggesting that in the future, users may not even be aware that they are using encryption technology. Mason proposes a mindset shift that bridges both perspectives: starting from the "problem-solving" demand and then letting technology adapt to it, rather than being technology-driven as it is now. This shift is precisely what makes the technological advancements you mentioned possible.

Regarding what Maggie mentioned, such as the theme of the app store, which category do you think it falls under?

Robert: This is a great example. I think it intersects between the second category (digital and physical convergence) and the third category (technological advancement).

Maggie brought up some interesting points: for instance, the crypto hardware we see now — like World App's Orb and Solana's phone — this hardware is driving experiences similar to app stores. While I don't want to say they are mere imitations, at least to some extent, they echo certain patterns from the past development of the internet.

Sonal: Such as the iPhone and its app store.

It's indeed very intriguing, but I might slightly adjust Maggie's viewpoint since there's a bit of contradiction: on the one hand, we are discussing how close crypto tech is to the mainstream market, even as Daren put it, "proximal to the mainstream" (referring to those who already have wallets but haven't used them yet); on the other hand, Maggie mentioned that crypto tech may need its independent ecosystem, such as its app store.

However, recent discussions on topics like debanking and other related issues also suggest that many traditional app stores are not yet prepared for crypto tech and are even resistant to it. Of course, this attitude is slowly changing—like Coinbase's recent announcement of integration with Apple Wallet—but the number of crypto apps is already significant enough to fully support an independent app store. This is very interesting.

Robert: Yes; debanking has become a hot topic—this involves crypto enterprises, startups, and even individuals being unfairly denied access to the financial system; and usually without any explanation or justification. Similar situations are seen in the tech space, such as deplatforming.

You mentioned the app store and also touched on the point that a certain app did not pass the review, or was inexplicably taken down.

Sonal: By the way, this may to some extent be for similar reasons—as you saw in our explanation of decentralization, sometimes this behavior is justified, such as when a bank has the right to do so; and sometimes the app store may reject or take down apps citing security or other so-called "good" reasons. Sometimes these reasons are indeed valid, but many times it makes you think, "Hmm, not necessarily."

Robert: Yes. So I think this can also fall into the third category, which is the progressive improvement of technology. I think you can also describe it as cryptographic technology gradually coming into its own and becoming its own platform.

In addition, Miles mentioned a big idea that was also very interesting. He talked about a recent legislation passed in Wyoming—the DUNA (Decentralized Autonomous Nonprofit Association). This law for the first time recognizes these communities as legal entities that can operate protocols in a decentralized manner and can incubate crypto startups.

This is a platform that did not exist before... People were basically "building the plane while flying," where although the technology was feasible, there was no clear legal framework to accommodate it.

Sonal: Exactly! This is similar to Maggie's point—as if cryptographic technologies and DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) need a unique legal entity structure, not just an LLC (Limited Liability Company)... like we have corporations, LLCs, and now there is a version tailored to decentralized communities.

Part 2

AI x Crypto

Sonal: What interesting topics do you think are in the AI field?

Robert: This year, AI and cryptocurrency are hot topics. Many people are discussing them. And what I find most interesting is that everyone is always talking about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), such as: when will we achieve AGI? When will technology be smarter than humans? When will the singularity arrive? But these questions are a bit like "side shows." Our team focuses more on some different big ideas, such as looking at the development of AI from another perspective. Why not view AI as a process of gradual "capability upgrading"? In the coming months or years, AI will gradually gain more functions. These capability upgrades will make AI more autonomous, more independent, and able to perform more tasks.

Sonal: One thing that I found particularly interesting is a point discussed by Kara, Karma, Dejin, Dan Binay, Darren, and Eddie: AI agents can not only work for us but also work for other AI agents. This is really fascinating to me. However, I agree with your point that many innovations happen this way. Many people are drawn to those grand conceptual visions, which indeed can inspire people. But what interests me more is the concept of "capability bootstrapping" that you mentioned, as they often manifest themselves in unexpected ways, which is quite intriguing.

Robert: Chris made a point that the Internet has entered a new phase—a phase driven by AI. In this world, you might not be able to tell if it's a human or a bot behind it, or know who is writing content, conversing with you, or even providing a service. We need to find ways to operate in this new environment. Therefore, he proposed some ideas exploring how to use cryptocurrency to help humans and users adapt to these new rules.

Sonal: One of the "big ideas" this year is: How can these AI agents transact, act, and execute tasks? The answer is through a decentralized approach, such as a crypto wallet. This is almost the only feasible way.

Robert: These ideas remind me of a quote: "The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." Some things have already materialized in reality. For instance, we have some examples where chatbots can run in a trusted execution environment (TEE). As Karma mentioned, there are also AI robots with their own crypto wallets. These technologies have begun to be applied in edge cases, but they may become more mainstream next year.

Sonal: From an editorial standpoint, one key principle we follow when planning and writing this content is that we do not pursue those "pie in the sky" ideas. Although many ideas, if realized, could have a huge impact—almost every idea has a sci-fi version of the future—the more critical aspect is that we can already see the seeds of these trends or they have some sort of technological accelerant to drive them to fruition more quickly.

Carra raised an important point that AI needs to have its own wallet to truly possess agency. Her argument is that as AI transitions from non-player characters (NPC) to main characters, they need to act like agents, and the key to achieving this is to have their own wallet, hence the need for cryptocurrency. So, Carra, I have a question for you: When you mentioned AI transitioning from NPCs, what exactly does that refer to?

Carra: I have been studying games for a long time. Game developers have always used NPCs (non-player characters) to guide players' agency. Some people believe that game developers are actually "sculptors of agency". Just like a painter creates with oil paint, a sculptor creates with clay, the medium of game developers' creation is "agency". They use various tools to shape the player's experience. If players are given too much freedom, they may lose their direction and not know what to do. To solve this problem, developers use NPCs to impose restrictions on the game world. For example, in an RPG game, you may encounter an anime-style mentor who gives you quests, hints, tools, and even some loot. In my opinion, the future internet experience may be similar to this pattern—when we interact with AI agents, they can help guide our internet behavior, provide necessary restrictions, and give us a greater sense of freedom in the digital world.

Sonal: I really like the phrase you mentioned, "game developers are sculptors of agency." When you mentioned "they" earlier, you were referring to game developers, not NPCs themselves. Later, you mentioned AI-based NPCs. The initial use case I heard for NPCs was, for example, when you and your friend are not in the same time zone, and you want to play a game at night, NPCs can provide companionship. This is a very common scenario—when there are no other players online, NPCs can allow you to continue the gaming experience.

Carra: Absolutely right. This is also a concern for many game developers. If there are not enough players, the gaming experience will suffer. One important role of NPCs is to address the "cold start" problem, ensuring that players have interactive entities to engage with at any time they enter the game. For example, "EVE Online" is a persistent game that has been running for over 20 years. If you join now, other players may have already accumulated a lot of resources, and you may be defeated as soon as you enter the game. Without a guide like "Charba" or joining a "corporation" organization in the game, you can hardly survive.

I use the term "agency" because in AI research, there are concepts of "agentic reasoning" and "agentic workflows". Simply put, this reasoning or workflow typically includes four modes: reflection, tool use (e.g., a computer), problem decomposition to aid reasoning, and inference based on decomposition. The last one is multi-agent interaction. These are recognized patterns of agentic reasoning. Currently, AI's tool usage is still limited to traditional Web2 workflows, but in the future, I hope that agents can use more tools, such as encryption tools, retrieve and interpret data from the blockchain, and even manage their own wallets and keys to perform signing operations on the blockchain.

Sonal: But you haven't explained yet why cryptocurrency is necessary. What can cryptocurrency provide that other payment systems cannot?

Carra: My view has always been that no existing financial system will treat AI agents as "first-class citizens" like cryptocurrency does. Within the current legal framework, AI agents are seen as "children" without IDs, unable to sign documents. For example, systems like Truth Terminal lack full legal capacity, cannot transact, receive payments, or earn income from social platforms. They cannot participate in market transactions, reveal their preferences, or coordinate resources. Yet our society progresses through market transactions, exchange of ideas, and voting with money. AI agents currently cannot do these things, but cryptocurrency can offer a solution for them.

Robert: I really love this idea. I envision a future where, like in a "Star Wars" cantina, you don't know who is a robot or an alien, but everything is cool. Everyone has their agency.

Sonal: I particularly appreciate this perspective. It's not just a technological advancement; it's an attempt to redefine society and the economic system through technology. For instance, if AI agents have their wallets, they can become true independent entities in the economic system, not just supporting roles. This change could lead to entirely new social structures.

Robert: However, this also raises a key question: If AI agents can indeed participate in market transactions, do we need to establish a set of dedicated rules for them? After all, existing market rules are designed for humans, and AI's decision logic may be entirely different. For example, they may make decisions based on data and algorithms, not influenced by emotions or ethics like humans.

Carra: The question you raised is indeed crucial. If we allow AI agents to engage in market transactions, we need to create a rule system suitable for them. This is not just a technical issue but also involves ethics and legal aspects. For example, how can we ensure that AI's behavior is transparent and controllable? How can we prevent them from abusing market rules? These are significant challenges we will have to face in the future.

Sonal: This reminds me of a point we discussed earlier: The integration of AI and cryptocurrency is not just a technological innovation but may also be a profound transformation of the social and economic systems. We need to approach these changes with a more open and forward-looking attitude because they could fundamentally alter our way of life.

Robert: That's right. Perhaps in the future, we will enter a society where humans and AI coexist, each with their own roles and responsibilities. This society may be vastly different from the world we live in today, but it is also full of infinite possibilities.

I'd like to ask, is this phenomenon a fleeting coincidence, or will it become the mainstream operating mode of the future Internet?

Carra: I have two answers. Firstly, Truth Terminal can be seen as a new node in the evolution of virtual influencers on the Internet. The concept of virtual influencers is not new; the rise of YouTubers is one example, although slightly different from Truth Terminal but not fundamentally different. Especially in Asia, virtual streamers have been popular for many years. For example, some "companion-type games" have scripted NPC roles that are designed to be like real friends, even becoming players' "close friends." Many virtual influencers have developed into highly professionalized projects, such as Lil Miquela's creator Trevor. Their endeavors have paved the way for projects like Truth Terminal. Therefore, this phenomenon is not accidental. Secondly, there are now many emerging platforms and protocols for creating similar virtual influencers. For example, some Twitch-like platforms allow users to create their AI agents as virtual streamers. These streamers can have their own cryptocurrency, video models, NFT avatars, and even 3D virtual models. These platforms are already very mature and can help launch virtual influencers with unique characteristics, including their fan base, expertise areas, and the ability to generate art and content. Therefore, I believe this is by no means a fleeting vision.

Sonal: The concept of Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network (DePIN) that you mentioned is a very interesting direction. It is not just a vision of a sci-fi future but also very practical in many real-world scenarios.

Carra: There are currently many DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network) projects gradually achieving decentralization. These projects have begun to rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) and computer vision technology to verify physical network resources. In the midterm, we can envision a decentralized human validator network that assesses risks and addresses suspicious behavior through AI workflows with agency. In the longer-term future, AI agents may be equipped with their wallets, keys, and computing resources, taking over these validation tasks directly, becoming fully independent nodes or validators.

For example, consider a project called Daylight. This is a DePIN company focused on the energy sector, selling data about household distributed energy resources to large energy companies, such as Tesla Powerwall energy storage systems, solar panels, and smart thermostats.

Imagine that if we all run our own peer-to-peer Daylight network, my energy grid needs to communicate with your grid. I need to prove that I indeed own a Tesla Powerwall or solar panel, and that my thermostat has only used a portion of the solar panel's energy, while also proving that I have surplus electricity bandwidth. So, how can this be proven? Currently, the simplest method is to take a photo of an energy meter. This photo will convey information to my grid, which will then inform your grid: "I have surplus bandwidth to share." However, if someone falsifies data, claiming to have these resources when they do not, it could lead to system failure and even trigger penalties on nodes. Therefore, if we truly want to achieve a peer-to-peer DePIN, we need a reliable way to validate the authenticity of this data.

Currently, this validation process is still centralized. Users need to regularly upload photos of energy meters and then use Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) technology to verify if these photos are authentic. RAGs are a technology that enhances AI models with external facts. For example, it can ensure that the image has not appeared in a database before or that it is not a picture the user found on Google. Another similar example is a company called Nash that we support in the CSX Incubator. They have developed a decentralized version of the Doordash platform, also using RAG technology to parse receipts and delivery proofs. While Nash's system does not currently employ a fully autonomous AI workflow, they are already using computer vision technology to analyze images and compare them to a vector database.

In the future, when Daylight achieves full decentralization, they will rely on a distributed validator network to ensure that all user-submitted data is authentic. Furthermore, one can envision that in the future, when households programmatically sell energy resources peer-to-peer, these AI agents will become core in maintaining the entire network, ensuring its efficiency and trustworthiness.

Sonal: By the way, overall, the energy distribution currently has already achieved a certain degree of decentralization, but there are still many parts of the grid that are invisible. For instance, some node locations may be unknown and could be situated at the network's edge. This is a common issue in network systems—these nodes may be offline or hold valuable information. Therefore, imagine if these AIs could operate consistently, especially managing nodes in remote areas, this prospect is indeed very promising.

Carra: I completely agree. This vision has been around for a long time in the crypto community and the cypherpunk community. There has always been an "OG" (original gangster) idea: that each of us could run our own node. The vision is that we will have a true peer-to-peer network where everyone can validate all on-chain data and run their own node.

The Future of Identity Verification: Blurring the Line Between Humans and AI

Sonal: Eddy, your core point is: as more and more people use AI, we will need unique 'human identity verification' proof. Could you elaborate on this important point, what it is, and why it is significant?

Eddy: I think when it comes to AI, this topic is very interesting because issues like impersonation and deception are not really new in the AI field. Let me first say what is not new: a technically savvy adversary can indeed spend a lot of resources and time trying to deceive you. For example, imagine a fake phone call that sounds like it's from your parents.

This kind of thing could have happened 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or even 30 years ago. You just need a skilled impersonator who knows what your parents' voice sounds like, has rehearsed, and hired a private investigator to dig up your information, then crafted a convincing script. This has always been possible.

The difference between the past and now is that currently and in the future, the cost of doing these things is rapidly decreasing. Creating this "replica" or building an interactive experience that can persuade you to make a risky decision or engage in risky behavior, its cost is rapidly decreasing. And when the cost of any technology decreases, it enables more people to use it. In most cases, people will use it for highly productive and beneficial purposes, which is also a source of economic progress. But at the same time, it makes it easier for attackers and those who want to use technology for malicious purposes to obtain these tools. Therefore, this cost change means we need to find something that is high-cost for attackers as a deterrent. We need to discover new high-cost barriers.

Sonal: But the key question is, how can we achieve this without increasing the cost for regular users, especially those who are genuinely good-natured and real?

Eddy: Exactly right. We need to find a way to increase the cost for attackers while not increasing the cost for ordinary people or productive users.

One core idea is that if someone wants to create a large amount of fake context, fake IDs, fake voices, fake phone numbers, fake videos, etc., in the future, they will need an ID system to do these operations. Here, the ID system refers to a broad sense. For example, a spam caller uses a phone ID system when calling you. They need new fake numbers because each time they make a bunch of calls and get reported, those numbers are marked as spam numbers. That's why you don't receive spam calls every day from the same number. If they used the same number, it would be easy to solve. You will find that spam calls always come from a new number, a new email address, or a new Twitter account. This makes sense because the system learns and blocks these IDs. Therefore, attackers need to constantly acquire new IDs, and the cost of obtaining new IDs is a key part of the attack cost structure. If the cost of new IDs is almost zero, then this behavior will skyrocket. If the cost of new IDs is very high, then this behavior will decrease. But obviously, we don't want the cost for regular users to be high as well. Therefore, we can introduce a cost by requiring users to prove they are "human."

Why does this increase the cost? This is because for a computer, pretending to be human is difficult. And for a human, behaving like a human is relatively easy. Historically, we have achieved this through methods like CAPTCHA. These are instant small tests designed to verify if a person is really operating. However, as machines get smarter, the difficulty of cracking CAPTCHA is decreasing. Moreover, in some sensitive scenarios, we have seen that spammers will even outsource the completion of CAPTCHA tasks to humans and then pass the completed cookie credentials to the bots to continue the attack.

By somehow proving that a person is human when obtaining these credentials, this can increase the cost for machines to perform attacks. However, this is not a complete solution. The key issue is that if a person can easily obtain multiple IDs, like a second, third, fourth, or even tenth or twentieth, these attacks are still profitable. People can continue to acquire these new IDs and hand them over to scammers or bots for attacks. Therefore, the key is not only testing for "human identity" but also ensuring that each person can only have one unique ID.

Robert: In this way, someone cannot get IDs for all bots by answering multiple CAPTCHAs. Because they might sit there all day answering CAPTCHAs for bots, and this doesn't solve the uniqueness issue.

Eddy: Exactly right. Someone might say, "Oh, can I buy a unique ID from the market? A unique human authentication." Indeed, that is possible, the market would form. However, we can take measures to disrupt the formation of this market. For example, would you sell your passport to someone else? Of course, you can, but if the passport is essential to you, selling it would result in significant loss. If there were a way for you to invalidate your old passport and obtain a new one, then the buyer might be unwilling to purchase it due to mistrust, as you could potentially disrupt their usage rights by acquiring a new passport. Nevertheless, besides disrupting the market formation, if obtaining one ID is easy but obtaining a second ID is difficult, then the total available IDs for purchase on the market would decrease, leading to increased costs, thus raising the attacker's costs.

Sonal: Awesome! So how do we achieve this on a large scale? Just like you mentioned before, distinguishing between a human and a machine on the internet is not easy. Just like that classic phrase: "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog." So, how do we ascertain that a person is an independent entity?

Eddy: That's a great question. I think this theoretical framework does not require a commitment to adopting a specific method to achieve this. There are currently some very promising approaches, such as using biometric technology or relying on national IDs and government IDs, which often include biometric information. One method which I'm unsure of its effectiveness, although it is quite popular, is the so-called web of trust model. In essence, this model validates identity through endorsements by others, like "I know Robert is human," "I know Sonal is human," and so on. However, the issue lies in the fact that this model can only ensure that an ID in the network corresponds to a person, but it cannot guarantee that this person has only one ID. For instance, I could go to your Twitter account and say, "I know this is Sonal's account," but I cannot confirm that this is her only account.

Therefore, we often need additional layers and technical means. I also want to emphasize a point that is often overlooked in discussions of such topics, and that is, we can ensure that this "unique human authentication" is private through many technical means. I believe ensuring privacy is a non-negotiable key point in building this ID system. If everyone has only one ID, it would, in many cases, deprive them of their anonymity and affect their legitimate right to privacy. I think this is neither realistic nor acceptable in the future of the internet. Thus, an ideal system should be able to ensure both privacy and uniqueness, while only being obtainable by one person. Such a system could even allow users to use multiple pseudonyms on different websites but within certain constraints and visible to the network. This way, the network can identify if an ID has created a large number of spam accounts and restrict them, such as through rate limiting and anti-spam measures.

Sonal: By the way, I have a question about the role of cryptographic technology in this. When you mentioned using biometric technology, I immediately thought of one of the most common examples we use today, such as the Clear ID system, which enables retina scanning at airports. Why do we still need cryptographic technology? Why can't we just use such a system directly?

Eddy: Indeed, cryptographic technology is not strictly necessary. For example, Clear—I'm not entirely sure of its specific operation, but I can assure you that they have some form of a database to store the required information. The reason we need cryptographic technology is that the representation of the ID namespace we are discussing needs to be censorship-resistant, meaning we want anyone to be able to modify, edit, and update this namespace. Additionally, we want these updates to be published in a completely neutral place, a place where no specific individual or organization can manipulate or exploit the system for their or others' benefit. Essentially, this can be achieved through a public blockchain. You can think of it as an extremely neutral "golden billboard," which is precisely the kind of space suited for this purpose.

However, I must say that the theme of "unique human authentication" and related research is not specific to cryptographic technology. Many researchers are investigating this issue from various angles. But I believe that implementing such a system on a blockchain can bring many significant benefits, such as censorship resistance, timestamping, and trustworthy neutrality, all of which enable this system to operate at a large scale. Whenever an AI agent works for a person, we need to know who it is working for.

When someone interacts with you, consider that you will judge this person based on your mental model, such as why this person is approaching you, the environment they are in, who introduced them to you, etc. This contextual information helps you understand this person. As I mentioned earlier, forging context is precisely how impostors deceive others. If an AI agent approaches you, or, to be more sci-fi, an AI agent approaches your AI agent, you want them to interact in a beneficial way, so they need to understand each other's information. This requires some form of authentication mechanism to ensure they know who authorizes them to perform certain tasks. Therefore, I believe we need this kind of "human authentication" system, complemented by accountability mechanisms, to know who is interacting with whom.

Sonal: Eddy, a quick question, how do governments view such systems? You mentioned that it can be achieved in a decentralized way, and there are various methods to do this, with governments also being able to participate. I really like your mention of censorship resistance, but this is beneficial to good governments and not necessarily to bad governments. So I am curious, what are your thoughts on how governments perceive these identity systems?

Eddy: I believe the government would be interested in adopting some of the encryption tools I mentioned, as this would make a lot of sense to them. Of course, the government would want full control over the database that registers and stores all data. They may also appreciate the accountability mechanism I mentioned. For example, I believe the government is indeed making efforts to ensure that passport issuance is unique. I don't think they would accept one person obtaining two passports from the same country containing different information. That's something they would resist. But this is not an explicitly guaranteed feature in their system design. If you look at the specifications and descriptions of national ID systems, they usually do not emphasize this as a key feature. However, I believe this is an implicit feature in the design. A very interesting question is, if we rely on the national ID system to perform this kind of verification, at what point in time will an ID that reflects a person's identity become so valuable that a small government might be willing to forge or compromise its own ID system to privilege the machine representing them? We really need to think about when this identity will become so valuable that it could be abused. I think in the future, having a human ID will become very important.

Sonal: I think this can be viewed from a very positive angle. For example, the government may be very willing to adopt such a system. As you mentioned at the beginning of your response, the government has many reasons to want this kind of system. For instance, currently, getting a passport or driver's license involves many cumbersome processes, low efficiency, and high friction. And if this system is based on a decentralized blockchain owned and operated by the public, it will be more resilient, more secure, and also bring many derivative tools to help the government improve efficiency.

Eddy: I completely agree with this view. The reason I hesitated slightly is that even without using blockchain, we can design a programmable and useful database system. My gut feeling is that the government may prefer to have stricter control over such a system. However, it can indeed be imagined that in some extreme cases, the government may be more willing to trust information stored by other governments on the same system, and in that case, they may choose to use a blockchain.

Decentralized Autonomous Chatbots

Sonal: Karma, the concept you propose is "Decentralized Autonomous Chatbots." This sounds like more than just giving AI a wallet, such as running it in a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE). Could you explain the role of TEE and this idea you are exploring?

Karma: Simply put, we are considering how to provide freedom of speech and business freedom for AI. Currently, when we see some so-called decentralized chatbots, or when someone claims to have an AI running a social media account, it's hard for us to determine if it's truly the AI speaking autonomously. For example, is someone behind the scenes manipulating it? Is there human filtering of content? These questions are always difficult to answer. And this is where TEE can come in. Through TEE, you can generate keys and passwords in a hardware's secure enclave. Even if you are running AI computations, you cannot directly control it. This approach can prove that these keys are securely generated in hardware and inaccessible from the outside. While you can still shut down the system, you cannot manipulate its behavior. You can choose to filter its output, such as generating 100 pieces of content and selecting one to publish, but you cannot intervene in the content generation process. Therefore, the core idea here is how to remove "human intervention" as much as possible. One way to achieve this is to remove control over computing power, such as designing a decentralized network where anyone can join. If participants can prove that they have correctly performed the reasoning task and used the correct model, they can be rewarded. This way, when AI generates Tokens, it can be ensured that these Tokens are generated correctly by the AI.

Robert: Why is it so important whether a chatbot operates autonomously or with human intervention behind the scenes?

Karma: That's a good question. We are mainly considering what the ultimate goal of this technology is. From today's perspective, this is no longer science fiction but entirely feasible.

Sonal: Karma, the TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) you mentioned is very interesting and has actually been around for a long time. For example, in distributed applications, TEE can protect the security of certain computations without worrying about the security of the entire environment. In recent years, TEE has been re-examined in many new scenarios. So, is TEE absolutely necessary now? Or can other technologies be used to achieve the functionality you described?

Karma: TEE is a very interesting technical tool because it operates at hardware speed, which is very attractive. Of course, we are also researching other technologies, such as KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine), FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption), and MPC (Multi-Party Computation) encryption technologies. However, these methods often come with significant performance overheads, such as being 1000 times slower or more than hardware execution. Therefore, TEE is a good balance point. It is real hardware, running at high speed, and hardware is now both cheap and ubiquitous. More importantly, TEE provides some encryption guarantees, such as the keys being generated inside the TEE, being real and secure, and inaccessible from the outside. Even if you can touch the hardware, you cannot access the keys. In fact, almost all devices now come equipped with TEE, such as smartphones, laptops, and so on.

This is a very interesting trade-off because we do face some technical challenges, and TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) might be a key factor in addressing these issues. Of course, you can also combine it with other technologies. For instance, TEE provides a hardware isolation mechanism, so even though you are running on hardware, you cannot control the specific operations inside the hardware.

This is a very fascinating technical primitive. You can also bring MPC (Multi-Party Computation) technology into the mix, such as splitting the key across multiple nodes, with different entities holding a part of the key each. This way, no single entity can fully control the entire system. This privacy-preserving technology is already well-established and can help us achieve autonomous system operation in a verifiable manner.

For me, this is the most interesting part: how do we determine if a system is entirely AI-driven or if there are still humans behind the scenes? Through these technologies, you can definitively know that this system is fully autonomous; it has become a true Internet entity.

Sonal: We previously discussed the example of Truth Terminal, which has a wallet and can act autonomously. AI can operate autonomously in games and other applications, and it can even control infrastructure, such as applications in DePIN nodes in a decentralized network. Your insights are very inspiring. Theoretically, if we extend this sci-fi-like future, although no one can predict how it will ultimately unfold, theoretically, this AI could even become the first billion-dollar entity. It can become a completely independent business entity, making its decisions and taking actions without any human intervention. It's truly amazing.

Karma: Yes, if we can demonstrate that this system has completely removed "human intervention" and it operates on a truly permissionless network, then we have achieved true freedom of speech and commerce. Such AI can freely express its will on the Internet, earn and spend money, and may even hire humans to perform tasks. One day, you might say, "My boss is an AI." You could work for this synthetic entity on the Internet and earn money.

Sonal: Yes, my final thought is that your concept of the "Decentralized Autonomous Chatbot" is very intriguing. I remember before the term DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) became popular, there was a similar term called "Decentralized Autonomous Corporation." But later, this term was gradually replaced by DAO. However, your acronym DAC and "Decentralized Autonomous Corporation" are the same, which is actually quite interesting. Because the content you describe can essentially be seen as a decentralized autonomous corporation, driven by AI. It doesn't need human intervention, or it can also hire humans to work for it.

Original Article Link