was reading through the kite whitepaper this morning and found an actual theorem buried in the security section, not just marketing language about safety.
most projects just say trust us the agent cant spend more than you allow. kite actually proves it mathematically. they define something called a standing intent, a signed authorization with a daily spending cap and an expiration date. then they prove that even if an attacker fully compromises the agent, the maximum possible loss is bounded by the daily cap times how many days the authorization is valid for, nothing else gets through no matter what the compromised agent tries.
so a $100 daily limit for a month means worst case exposure is $3,000, period, even if someone fully takes over the agent the moment it starts running. thats a number you can actually calculate before you ever deploy anything, not a hope.
does seeing an actual bounded loss proof change how comfortable you'd be handing an agent real spending authority, or does the math not matter much if you dont trust the underlying chain??
#KiteBBW $KITE @KITE AI 中文
most projects just say trust us the agent cant spend more than you allow. kite actually proves it mathematically. they define something called a standing intent, a signed authorization with a daily spending cap and an expiration date. then they prove that even if an attacker fully compromises the agent, the maximum possible loss is bounded by the daily cap times how many days the authorization is valid for, nothing else gets through no matter what the compromised agent tries.
so a $100 daily limit for a month means worst case exposure is $3,000, period, even if someone fully takes over the agent the moment it starts running. thats a number you can actually calculate before you ever deploy anything, not a hope.
does seeing an actual bounded loss proof change how comfortable you'd be handing an agent real spending authority, or does the math not matter much if you dont trust the underlying chain??
#KiteBBW $KITE @KITE AI 中文