In the process of repeatedly dismantling Kite, I have become increasingly certain of one thing: the real issue this project solves is not whether 'AI can be put on the chain', but whether the blockchain system has the institutional capacity to accommodate such changes when AI exists on the chain in a long-term, continuous manner.
This is not a performance issue, nor a narrative issue, but a reality cost issue that most public chains intentionally avoid.
The design premise of traditional blockchain is very clear - the actor is a person. Transactions are discrete, risks are singular, and responsibility is implicitly off-chain. As long as the execution results are deterministic and the ledger is immutable, this system can operate for a long time.
But when the behavioral entity shifts from humans to AI, this premise will be completely shattered.
The core characteristic of AI lies not in 'intelligence,' but in 'continuity.' It does not exit the system after completing a single operation, but operates long-term, makes continuous decisions, and constantly corrects strategies. Risks are no longer about a particular transaction failing, but rather the cumulative deviation of behavioral patterns over time.
If a chain can only recognize transaction results but cannot recognize behavioral trends, then it is essentially blind when facing AI.
Kite is precisely cutting in at this position.
I believe what Kite is truly doing is proactively undertaking the institutional costs that blockchain must bear after AI becomes a long-term entity and embedding these costs into the chain layer structure instead of continuing to shift the problem to the application layer.
The first layer of cost is the identity cost.
Without continuous identity, there is no responsibility; without responsibility, there is no governance. If AI always exists with a disposable address, then any risk control, permissions, or audits will become ineffective. Kite's Passport is not a simple DID, but rather a carrier that can hold behavioral history. Each execution by AI will accumulate into a long-term trajectory that can be assessed, classified, and restricted.
This is the starting point for AI to transition from a 'tool' to an 'institutional entity.'
The second layer of cost is the constraint cost.
Human behavior is inherently limited by energy and time, while AI is not. If the chain does not provide constraint mechanisms at the entity level, the efficiency of AI will ultimately translate into systemic risk. Gas can only constrain single actions and cannot manage long-term consumption curves. The Budget introduced by Kite essentially elevates economic constraints from the transaction level to the entity level, allowing the chain to possess 'macroeconomic control' capabilities for the first time.
This is not about limiting AI, but about ensuring that AI's execution does not drag the system into an uncontrollable state.
The third layer of cost is the audit cost.
AI's errors often do not explode instantly, but gradually deviate during multiple 'seemingly correct' executions. If the chain only returns success or failure without providing structured reasons, the learning direction of AI may be systematically misled. The Audit Trail recorded by Kite does not track transaction results, but rather the causal path between decision—execution—result, which is not regulation for AI, but a living environment.
The fourth layer of cost is the error correction cost.
AI's mistakes do not pause for reflection; they only repeat faster. If the system lacks degradation, throttling, and freezing mechanisms, errors will be exponentially magnified. Kite links permissions, budgets, and risk states, essentially providing a safety valve for AI behavior at the chain level. This is not conservatism, but rather ensuring that innovation has sustainability.
The final layer of cost is the collaboration cost.
When multiple AIs exist simultaneously, the issue is no longer about individual execution, but rather the collaborative structure. Who can call whose modules, who shares the budget, who bears the responsibility for failure—without unified chain-level rules, collaboration will only evolve into risk transmission. Kite's permission stratification and module access structure essentially provide an organizational framework for AI collaboration.
Looking at these costs together, it becomes increasingly clear to me: Kite's positioning is not as an 'AI-friendly public chain,' but rather as a transitional layer—it connects two eras, one end being a human-centered on-chain economy and the other an institutional economy primarily driven by AI.
As long as AI truly begins to exist on the chain as a long-term entity, the chain capable of supporting this transformation will certainly be scarce. And Kite is one of the few projects that have directly undertaken this institutional cost from the beginning.
This is also the core reason for my long-term positioning judgment about it.
\u003cm-60/\u003e \u003ct-62/\u003e \u003cc-64/\u003e
