Hua BNB

In early-stage infrastructure projects, capital is rarely the most important contribution investors make. Far more valuable is what their presence signals about credibility, direction, and long-term relevance. Kite Protocol’s $35 million funding round reflects this clearly. The composition of its backers points to a shared belief that autonomous AI agents will require a new kind of economic and settlement infrastructure—and that Kite’s approach fits that future.
What stands out is not just the size of the round, but the mix of investors involved. The participation of PayPal Ventures signals recognition from traditional fintech that autonomous software agents may soon participate directly in digital commerce. For a payments-focused institution, this suggests a view that transaction flows will increasingly originate from non-human actors, requiring infrastructure designed specifically for machine-native payments, permissions, and accountability.
General Catalyst’s involvement adds a different dimension. Known for backing foundational platforms rather than short-lived applications, their participation implies confidence that Kite can evolve into a core layer rather than a niche solution. This aligns with the idea that agent-based economies will need shared, neutral infrastructure in the same way cloud computing required standardized platforms a decade ago.
Coinbase Ventures brings a crypto-native but regulated-market perspective. Their presence indicates that Kite’s design choices—around compliance, settlement, and economic structure—are viewed as compatible with broader adoption rather than confined to experimental ecosystems. This kind of alignment matters when a protocol aims to sit between AI services, users, and real economic value.
The wider investor group reinforces this positioning. Backers with experience in deep tech, consumer hardware, global markets, and blockchain ecosystems suggest that Kite is being evaluated as a cross-sector infrastructure play. This diversity reduces the risk of the project being narrowly defined and instead frames it as something adaptable across multiple future use cases.
Taken together, the investor syndicate acts as a non-technical layer of validation. It doesn’t guarantee success, but it does suggest that experienced institutions see the problem Kite is addressing as real, timely, and large enough to justify long-term commitment. For builders and organizations considering the protocol, this kind of backing lowers uncertainty and signals that Kite is being built with durability in mind.
A few evenings ago, I was discussing Kite with my friend Sameer over coffee.
He said, “I usually ignore funding news, but this one feels different.”
I replied, “Yeah, it’s less about the money and more about who’s standing behind the idea.”
We sat there quietly for a moment, realizing that sometimes the strongest signals aren’t written in code, but in who chooses to support it early.

@KITE AI #KITE $KITE

In the Kite ecosystem, the KITE token’s value is closely tied to the network’s activity through AI Service Commissions. This mechanism imposes a small fee on transactions for AI services, creating a direct link between the growth of the agent economy and the token’s intrinsic utility. Rather than relying solely on speculation, KITE accrues value from actual usage, reinforcing the network’s long-term sustainability.
Mechanically, whenever an AI agent pays to access a model, dataset, or service on Kite, the protocol automatically deducts a small commission from the payment. Unlike gas fees, these commissions flow to the protocol treasury or an on-chain fund governed by KITE holders. Over time, as more AI services are used, the treasury grows, providing resources that can be reinvested into the ecosystem, used for buybacks and token burns, or distributed to stakers—creating a self-reinforcing economic cycle.
This “flywheel” effect ensures alignment across the network: developers are incentivized to list high-quality AI services, users benefit from reliable and composable tools, and token holders gain from the network’s growing activity. The KITE token thus shifts from a purely functional utility to an asset tied to real economic value, capturing revenue from the very activity it enables.
The model’s success depends on network adoption. The more agents transact and leverage AI services, the more commissions accrue, strengthening the treasury and creating a virtuous cycle of growth, funding, and ecosystem expansion. It is a fundamental economic layer that embeds value capture into the protocol itself, ensuring that the token appreciates in step with real-world utility.
Last week, my friend Ayan and I were experimenting with deploying an AI agent to access a sentiment analysis model on Kite.
“It’s crazy—every tiny transaction actually contributes back to the network,” Ayan said, watching the commission tally update in real time.
I nodded, “Yeah, it’s like the network earns while we explore—it actually grows as we use it.”
By the end of the session, we both realized that this simple commission mechanism wasn’t just a fee—it was the heartbeat of Kite’s economic engine.

@KITE AI #kite $KITE #KITE

Above the base blockchain, Kite Protocol’s Platform Layer functions as an abstraction engine, translating the raw technical capabilities of the chain into accessible, developer-ready tools. Its purpose is simple yet powerful: let developers focus on AI agent logic rather than wrestling with cryptographic keys, state channels, or transaction mechanics. This layer is the bridge between Kite’s sophisticated infrastructure and practical, real-world application.
Central to this is a suite of Agent-Ready APIs. The Identity Management API handles hierarchical wallet structures, letting developers create and manage user-agent-session key hierarchies without being cryptography experts. Session & Authorization APIs simplify secure, temporary access, automating session key creation and revocation—tasks that are error-prone when done manually.
Payment Processing APIs are perhaps the most transformative. They abstract the complexity of state-channel payments, allowing developers to open channels, sign micropayments, and settle transactions with a few API calls. This converts near-zero-cost, instant machine-to-machine payments into something as approachable as traditional backend service integration.
The Platform Layer also supports SLA (Service Level Agreement) enforcement. Developers can define performance guarantees for AI services, attaching automated penalties or rewards. For instance, if a model misses a latency target, the system can refund part of the payment automatically. This ensures a trust-minimized marketplace where service quality is enforced economically rather than just promised.
Operational consistency is another key benefit. Standardized APIs ensure uniform behavior across all agents and services. Developers don’t need to understand the inner workings of Kite’s payment lanes or transaction types; the platform handles it transparently, offering high-speed, congestion-free settlements.
In essence, the Platform Layer is Kite’s translator and enabler. It lowers barriers to entry, turning a complex blockchain into an approachable development environment. By handling identity, payments, and service enforcement, it allows developers to focus on building autonomous agent experiences without needing to become blockchain experts.
Last weekend, my friend Rohan and I tried deploying a mini AI agent to test the payment API.
“I feel like we’re skipping all the painful setup,” Rohan said, watching the agent execute its tasks flawlessly.
“Exactly,” I replied. “The platform handles identity, payments, everything. We just focus on what the agent does.”
By the end of the session, we both realized how seamless building on Kite could really be—complex infrastructure made invisible, leaving only the creative work.

@KITE AI #KITE $KITE

Delegating authority to an AI agent comes with a paradox: you want it to act on your behalf, but not beyond boundaries you control. Kite Protocol addresses this with programmable governance—a framework where trust is encoded into the system itself rather than relying on human judgment. Users define rules for spending, counterparties, and validity windows, and these constraints are enforced cryptographically across the network.
Traditional agent control is all or nothing: give full access or approve each action manually. Kite introduces conditional autonomy. Users can specify, for example, “spend no more than $100 per day,” “only interact with whitelisted protocols,” or “permissions expire in 48 hours.” These aren’t suggestions—they are hard-coded rules. Any attempt to breach them is automatically blocked by the network.
This functionality is closely tied to Kite’s three-layer identity system: User, Agent, and Session. A User wallet spawns Agent identities with their own budgets and mandates. Each Agent can create Session keys for specific tasks, inheriting and refining the parent’s rules. Businesses could deploy a “Finance Agent” with a monthly budget, then spawn sessions for invoice payments or portfolio rebalancing, each with its own sub-limits. The hierarchy allows complex control without manual micromanagement.
The applications are tangible. Individuals can safely experiment with small budgets when testing a trading agent. Enterprises gain an immutable audit trail: every action links to a specific agent session and its governing rules, ensuring accountability. This level of traceability is critical for compliance and operational oversight.
Technically, governance is a native blockchain feature. Transactions are validated against the agent’s Passport to ensure compliance before inclusion in a block. No off-chain enforcers are needed, reducing risk and guaranteeing that autonomy and accountability coexist.
Kite’s programmable governance shifts the question from “Can I trust the developer?” to “Can I trust the rules?” By giving users fine-grained, enforceable control, it reduces both psychological and financial risk, making autonomous agents practical and safe.
Last week, my friend Arjun and I were experimenting with a budgeted trading agent.
“I’m nervous about letting it run freely,” he admitted.
I showed him the session setup. “See? We can limit it, whitelist protocols, and even set a 24-hour expiration. It can act independently, but only within the rules we decide.”
We watched the agent execute trades confidently, and for the first time, Arjun smiled. “Autonomy without worry. That’s smart.”

@KITE AI #KITE $KITE

The vision of autonomous AI agents managing tasks, executing trades, or coordinating complex workflows is tantalizing—but it immediately clashes with the reality of infrastructure built for humans, not machines. Kite Protocol identifies three key bottlenecks in today’s systems that limit agent scalability: inefficient payment mechanisms, unverifiable trust, and credential management complexity.
Traditional payment systems, designed for human-paced transactions, are ill-suited for thousands of micro-actions an agent performs daily. Fees and settlement delays make pay-per-use models impractical, forcing developers toward coarse subscription or centralized billing structures. This disconnect hinders the creation of a truly fluid, agent-driven marketplace.
Trust in human-centric systems is similarly binary: either full access is granted or every action requires manual approval. There’s no framework for granular, auditable delegation. Agents can’t reliably act within limits without risking user funds or autonomy. Without a cryptographically enforceable way to encode permissions—like “spend up to $1,000 for this trip, but no more than $400 on flights”—autonomous operations remain constrained.
Credential management is the third barrier. Agents accessing multiple services each need unique keys or logins. Scaling this across fleets creates operational and security headaches, where a single compromised key can cascade into systemic failure. Human-centric patterns simply don’t scale for non-human actors.
Kite Protocol addresses these issues holistically. Its Layer 1 blockchain introduces near-zero-cost, instant micropayments; a three-layer identity system with session-based cryptographic keys; and programmable, revocable permissions. By rethinking trust, payments, and credentials from first principles, Kite lays the groundwork for agents to act as true economic actors.
This isn’t just a technical fix—it’s a paradigm shift. By resolving the friction inherent in human-designed systems, Kite enables autonomous software to operate at scale safely, efficiently, and verifiably, unlocking the potential for a new digital economy driven by AI agents.
Last weekend, I was tinkering with a small automation script while my friend Nikhil watched.
“I don’t get it,” he said. “Why is it so complicated to let a bot just do its job?”
I smiled. “Because everything it’s touching was built for us, not for it. Kite is trying to change that.”
Later, we watched the little bot execute a sequence flawlessly, no human hand needed. It was a quiet glimpse of what real autonomy could look like.

@KITE AI #KITE $KITE

When a new Layer 1 chooses EVM compatibility, it is making a statement about priorities. For Kite Protocol, this choice signals a focus on continuity rather than disruption for its own sake. Instead of asking developers to abandon familiar environments, Kite positions itself as an extension of an ecosystem that already works. The result is less about novelty and more about momentum.
At a practical level, EVM compatibility means ideas can move faster than infrastructure decisions. Teams experimenting with agent-based systems can prototype on Kite using workflows they already trust. Contracts written for Ethereum-like environments can be adapted, tested, and iterated without rebuilding mental models from scratch. This shortens the distance between concept and deployment, which matters when agents are expected to evolve quickly based on real-world feedback.
Another underappreciated impact is organizational. Many teams are hybrid by nature—part blockchain engineers, part AI researchers, part product designers. EVM compatibility reduces internal friction between these roles. Blockchain developers can operate independently without blocking AI teams on tooling decisions, while AI developers can integrate economic logic without needing to understand a bespoke execution layer. This separation of concerns is subtle but powerful for long-term productivity.
EVM alignment also influences ecosystem resilience. Standards-based systems are easier to maintain, audit, and upgrade because they are not dependent on a narrow group of specialists. If a developer leaves a project, the knowledge does not leave with them. If a tool becomes obsolete, alternatives already exist. This redundancy is often invisible, but it is what allows ecosystems to survive beyond their founding teams.
Importantly, Kite does not rely on the EVM to define its identity. Instead, it uses it as stable ground. The protocol’s differentiation emerges above the execution layer—where agent coordination, payment flows, and permissioning logic live. By keeping the foundation familiar, Kite allows innovation to happen where it actually matters, without forcing risk into every layer of the stack.
In this sense, EVM compatibility is less about convenience and more about discipline. It reflects an understanding that building an agent economy is already complex enough. Removing unnecessary novelty from the base layer gives both developers and users more room to reason, adapt, and trust the system over time.
I was reviewing a small contract late one night when my friend Arjun messaged me.
“Did you notice,” he said, “that nothing felt new, but everything worked differently?”
I knew what he meant. The code looked familiar. The outcome wasn’t.
That quiet contrast is probably what makes the bridge effective.

@KITE AI #KITE
$KITE

Technical capability alone rarely determines whether a blockchain succeeds. Adoption depends on whether ordinary users can enter, understand, and operate within the system without feeling overwhelmed. The Ozone Testnet marked a clear shift in Kite Protocol’s development focus toward this reality. Rather than expanding feature count, Ozone concentrated on reducing cognitive load—testing how people actually move through the network when interacting with AI agents for the first time.
One of Ozone’s most meaningful contributions was treating onboarding as a continuous journey instead of a single entry point. Users were no longer expected to master wallets, permissions, and transaction logic upfront. Instead, the testnet explored progressive engagement: letting users begin with simple actions and gradually encounter more advanced concepts only when needed. This mirrors patterns used in mature consumer software, where complexity is revealed contextually rather than imposed immediately.
Another important refinement was how interactions were framed. Actions like approving an agent, staking, or claiming participation assets were redesigned as flows rather than isolated transactions. The emphasis was on clarity of intent—users understanding what they were authorizing and why—rather than exposing raw blockchain mechanics. This approach acknowledges that trust is built not through abstraction alone, but through predictable, understandable behavior.
Ozone also surfaced how critical recoverability and continuity are for real users. Losing access, forgetting credentials, or switching devices are common human behaviors, not edge cases. By testing account models that support persistence and recovery, Kite gathered insight into how identity can remain stable even when user circumstances change. For an ecosystem built around long-running agents and recurring interactions, this stability is not optional—it is structural.
Equally valuable was what Ozone exposed about user hesitation. Friction points, abandoned flows, and repeated actions revealed where assumptions broke down. These signals are often invisible in purely technical testing but become obvious when real users are involved. The testnet functioned less as a showcase and more as a diagnostic tool, highlighting where design needed restraint rather than expansion
Taken together, Ozone reframed Kite’s development priorities. It reinforced that autonomous systems still require carefully designed human touchpoints. The more independent agents become, the more intentional their interfaces must be. Ozone’s role was not to perfect this balance, but to make its importance undeniable before mainnet.
One evening, my friend Sameer and I were testing things side by side. He clicked through confidently, I paused at every prompt.
“Why are you so slow?” he asked.
“Because I want to know what the system thinks I’m agreeing to,” I said.
He laughed, then stopped at the next screen and read it properly.
That moment felt small, but it captured what Ozone was really about—giving people time and space to understand before trusting.

@KITE AI #KITE
$KITE

For any on-chain network, token storage is not a secondary detail; it is part of the protocol’s real-world usability. In Kite Protocol’s case, wallet management is closely tied to how users and developers interact with autonomous agents, staking mechanisms, and on-chain services. The way KITE is stored determines not just security, but also what parts of the ecosystem remain accessible.
Because Kite is EVM-compatible, it aligns with a familiar wallet model rather than introducing a proprietary solution. This lowers friction for users, but it also shifts responsibility squarely onto the holder. Self-custody wallets allow direct interaction with the network, enabling staking, governance participation, and payments to agents. More importantly, they establish a clear separation between ownership and service providers—a necessary condition for any system designed around autonomy.
The real security distinction is not between one wallet brand and another, but between custody models. When a user controls private keys directly, they control access, recovery, and transaction approval. This autonomy becomes essential once tokens are used beyond passive holding—such as delegating stake, funding agents, or interacting with programmable contracts. In these cases, wallet behavior is operational infrastructure, not just storage.
Hardware-backed signing adds an additional layer of assurance, especially for users who intend to hold KITE long-term or manage higher balances. By keeping private keys isolated from internet-connected environments, this approach reduces the attack surface while preserving full network functionality. The trade-off is convenience, but in an ecosystem focused on long-lived agents and persistent identities, durability tends to outweigh speed.
One area that often causes confusion is the distinction between user wallets and agent identities. Kite’s architecture anticipates agents acting independently under constrained permissions. The keys that govern an agent’s actions are not substitutes for a user’s primary wallet; they are scoped tools with limited authority. Treating these roles separately is part of safe system design and avoids the common pitfall of over-privileged automation.
Ultimately, wallet management on Kite is less about learning new tools and more about adopting disciplined habits. Verified network settings, offline backups, clear role separation, and cautious permissioning form the baseline. These practices are not unique to Kite, but they become more consequential when software, not humans, begins to transact on one’s behalf.
A friend of mine, Nabeel, once asked why I spent so much time double-checking wallet setups instead of just “sending the tokens and moving on.”
I told him, “Because once an agent starts acting for you, mistakes don’t ask for permission.”
A week later, he called me after nearly approving the wrong contract. We didn’t talk about prices or features—just about slowing down before clicking confirm.
That, in a quiet way, felt like understanding Kite better.

@KITE AI #KITE $KITE