Have you noticed a rather contradictory thing? The blockchain initially became popular because people thought it was 'wild' enough—no real names, no approvals needed, you can transfer money however you like, filled with the thrill of westward expansion in the digital world. But when big banks and institutions want to use it, the problems arise: it's good that this thing is anonymous, but where does the money come from and where does it go? It can't just be a muddled account, right? Someone has to be responsible.
Thus, the industry fell into an awkward tug-of-war. On one hand, the chain desperately protects privacy, resulting in being treated as a 'lawless land' by the traditional financial sector, which the mainstream dares not touch; on the other hand, it forcibly implements identity verification, making it slow and cumbersome, losing that original silky sense of freedom.
It's like you've created a bunch of super capable AI robots that can learn and act on their own, ready to make a splash in the financial market. But then you suddenly feel a chill down your spine: if these robots cause a problem, who do I turn to? They can't sign anything themselves. In the end, you have to rely on human oversight and check logs afterward, which is not only inefficient but also prone to errors.
The core of the problem is not really 'who is operating,' but rather 'how the operation is governed by rules.' Recently, there was a program called KITE, which has quite an interesting approach. Unlike many projects that treat identity verification as an annoying necessity, it considers 'accountable identity' as the most critical building block for the next stage of blockchain.
What has KITE done? It introduced the concept of a 'session agent.' For example:
You, as a verified company or individual, are like the supreme commander. But you do not go to the front lines. You will send out special teams (agent sessions) to execute specific tasks. Each team has clear directives: 'Team A is only allowed to view today's data, generate reports, and will automatically disband after 24 hours.' 'Team B can handle customer refunds, but no single transaction can exceed 100 yuan, and the validity period is one week.' 'Team C is only responsible for internal reconciliation and cannot transfer funds externally.'
Each team has its unique cryptographic signature and countdown life value. All actions they perform on the chain inherently carry this immutable 'task directive token.' This way, accountability shifts from a vague 'who did it' to a clear 'which task package operated under what permissions.'
This is a blessing for the financial world. Just think about it: a bank can deploy hundreds of AI robots to work simultaneously: some monitoring the market, some engaging in customer service chats, and some handling settlements. If, one night, a customer service robot suddenly tries to transfer a large sum to an account, the system alarms. The reviewer does not need to sift through mountains of logs; they can immediately identify that 'Customer Service Session 008' is attempting an unauthorized operation and instantly invalidate it. The work of the other hundreds of robots continues as usual without any delays. This transforms compliance from a 'post-factum accountability department' into a 'real-time operational feature.'
This especially addresses one of the biggest anxieties of the AI era: loss of control. The smarter AI becomes, the more we fear it will 'mean well but do harm' or come up with strange operations on its own. KITE's antidote is a 'temporary visa' rather than a 'permanent green card.' No matter how powerful the AI agent is, its permissions have strict boundaries and will expire on time. Without permanent power, there are no risks of 'permission creep.' Humans remain the commanders setting rules and strategies; machines are the soldiers executing tasks efficiently within transparent fences.
I’ve seen some early user feedback that says its interface is not like traditional blockchain explorers; it resembles a 'task command center' more. You can see all deployed teams at a glance: who is doing what, how much lifespan is left, and whether the status is normal. If you sense something is off with a team, you can click to immediately recall them. This feeling transforms the management of automation from 'anxious firefighters' to 'strategic commanders.' Technology is no longer an anxiety-inducing black box but a set of visible and controllable expansion tools.
Therefore, the true ambition of solutions like KITE may not be to replace existing financial rules but to build a bridge between rules and automation. In the past, compliance officers and programmers found it difficult to communicate: one needed evidence, processes, and accountability; the other sought freedom, efficiency, and innovation. Now, KITE provides a 'common language' through code: the rules themselves become programmable permissions, and every on-chain action comes with an encrypted 'compliance gene.'
The future of finance will certainly be characterized by large-scale collaboration between humans and AI agents. The test for a foundational infrastructure will not only be how fast it can process transactions but also whether it can clearly explain how it operates in the most complex and stringent environments. This requires a deep, architectural level of trustworthy design.
Ultimately, when AI learns to act on its own, we not only need to ask it 'what can you do,' but also ask the system 'how can I trust you.' Giving agents 'registration' and defining boundaries may be the premise that allows us to boldly embrace the trillion-dollar automated economy. This is no longer a matter of choice, but the foundation of trustworthy commercial futures.
