AI needs Crypto Assets, not TradFi.

Author: Liu Honglin

In the past few years, AI technology has made rapid advancements. Large models, intelligent agents, and automated systems have emerged one after another, ranging from content generation to code writing, from intelligent customer service to algorithmic trading, AI is gradually shifting from being a "tool" to becoming an "actor." Meanwhile, the Web3 field has also begun to actively 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 opposite: does AI itself need blockchain?

If we view AI as a participant gradually detaching from human control and possessing autonomous behavior capabilities, it is almost impossible for it to operate within the current financial system. This is not a matter of efficiency, but rather a structural issue. The traditional financial system was not designed with machines in mind from the very beginning.

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

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, there is one prerequisite that cannot be avoided: identity verification. You have to submit your ID card, proof of address, phone number, and may even need to face a video recording to complete the KYC review. 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 entity."

But AI does not belong to either of these categories. It has no nationality, no ID card, no tax number, and does not possess "signature capacity" or "legal capacity." AI cannot open a bank account, cannot register a company, and cannot independently become a counterparty or transaction object. This means it cannot receive money, cannot make payments, and cannot hold assets. In summary: AI is a "non-human ghost" in the current financial system, lacking a financial personality.

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

You let an AI agent buy 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 linked to a "person" or "enterprise" behind it. As long as the AI is not "someone's subordinate tool," but rather a relatively independent entity, it is destined to be "kept outside" of this structure.

Blockchain provides machine-accessible financial protocols.

The biggest difference between a blockchain system and a traditional financial system is that it doesn't care who you are. You can be a person, a script, a program, or even an "always-on" 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, assuming it uses decentralized storage (like Arweave) to obtain data, and then uses a decentralized computing power market (like Akash) to acquire running resources, collects rewards through smart contracts (settled in stablecoins) after completing the task. This entire process does not require a centralized platform for matchmaking, does not require bank card verification, and does not require any "human" intervention.

This sounds like a science fiction novel from the future, but it has already been realized in prototype form 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 stages.

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

Why can't the traditional financial system adapt to this scenario?

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

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

This leads to all transactions related to "non-human users" in the traditional financial system needing to be "backed" by 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 losses? How are taxes collected when it makes a profit? These questions have no answers today, but on the blockchain, at least we have the technical possibility.

Stablecoin: 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 a "stable value unit" rather than in highly volatile crypto assets.

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

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

Further progress: the "on-chain legal entity" form of AI?

We can even foresee that in the future, certain AI systems 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 funds pool, community governance mechanism, and on-chain identity system. They do not require legal registration, nor are they filed in any country, yet they can serve users, receive payments, initiate lawsuits, and publish protocol updates, forming a truly "digital legal entity" or "AI legal entity."

Their cooperation and game will be based on smart contracts, mediated by cryptocurrency, and ordered 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 is 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.

More realistically, our existing legal system and regulatory framework provide almost no pathways 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 is accountable? All of this requires new legal structures, social consensus, and technical governance measures to address.

But at least we have seen a path in some pioneering projects - it does not rely on patching old systems to accommodate AI, but rather builds a more adaptable "machine financial infrastructure" to support the behavior 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.

written at the end

The development of cryptocurrency initially served those "without accounts," such as groups, countries, and marginal industries that were excluded from the financial system. Now, it may become the only option for "identity-less machines" to participate in economic activities.

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

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