If AI gets your ID card, is it worth handing over the money to it?
On October 8, the Cardano Foundation announced that its digital identity business, Veridian, has spun out into an independent company. The announcement says that Masumi has already used it to provide verifiable identity for AI agents, so counterparties can verify identity before making payments; if the agent is compromised, the relevant credentials can be revoked.
This addresses a real issue: who the other party is, and whether they are authorized to act on behalf of a person or organization. But having a real identity doesn’t mean the party is able to repay; having valid authorization doesn’t mean the transaction price is reasonable either.
Here’s a hypothetical example: a company’s AI truly has procurement authority and requires settlement using <0-9>$USDC </0-9>. Identity credentials can help verify the representation relationship, but they cannot alone prove that the company has sufficient funds, or that the counterparty will deliver on time after receiving payment. This currency is only an example for payment, not a confirmed collaboration in the announcement.
That’s why资金风控 (funds risk control) cannot stop at “authentication passed.” I’d also look at payment terms, delivery responsibility, the counterparty’s financial capacity, and who bears the loss if a dispute arises. Reducing impersonation risk doesn’t mean other risks disappear at the same time.
For research into AI assets such as <0-9>$ADA </0-9> and <0-9>$FET </0-9>, identity infrastructure is an observable application direction. But whether adoption at scale, paid revenue, and token value hold up still needs separate verification. Being able to prove who is spending money is the starting point of business activity; credit needs to be built separately.
Click my avatar to view live trading with orders
On October 8, the Cardano Foundation announced that its digital identity business, Veridian, has spun out into an independent company. The announcement says that Masumi has already used it to provide verifiable identity for AI agents, so counterparties can verify identity before making payments; if the agent is compromised, the relevant credentials can be revoked.
This addresses a real issue: who the other party is, and whether they are authorized to act on behalf of a person or organization. But having a real identity doesn’t mean the party is able to repay; having valid authorization doesn’t mean the transaction price is reasonable either.
Here’s a hypothetical example: a company’s AI truly has procurement authority and requires settlement using <0-9>$USDC </0-9>. Identity credentials can help verify the representation relationship, but they cannot alone prove that the company has sufficient funds, or that the counterparty will deliver on time after receiving payment. This currency is only an example for payment, not a confirmed collaboration in the announcement.
That’s why资金风控 (funds risk control) cannot stop at “authentication passed.” I’d also look at payment terms, delivery responsibility, the counterparty’s financial capacity, and who bears the loss if a dispute arises. Reducing impersonation risk doesn’t mean other risks disappear at the same time.
For research into AI assets such as <0-9>$ADA </0-9> and <0-9>$FET </0-9>, identity infrastructure is an observable application direction. But whether adoption at scale, paid revenue, and token value hold up still needs separate verification. Being able to prove who is spending money is the starting point of business activity; credit needs to be built separately.
Click my avatar to view live trading with orders