For a while, I was thinking about a very unusual scene:
If one day it’s not humans, but a group of AIs 'working' in the company, what would truly mess things up would not be model inference errors, but rather—discrepancies in the accounts.
The location of Kite is in this crack.
It does not discuss how smart AI is, nor does it care about the model parameters; it only cares about one thing: when non-humans start spending money, whether this system can still handle it.
1. Why does Kite look so 'rural', yet the problems are very sharp?
AI + Web3 has been thoroughly explored.
Computing power, model market, data rights confirmation, NFT transformation of everything... the concepts are not new.
But what Kite does is somewhat counterintuitive.
It is not focused on 'creating value', but on controlling risk.
The real world has validated an iron law:
Any scaled system will start to have problems at the level of 'funding + authority'.
It's just that in the past, the problems were with people, now it's with the Agent.
Second, the truly dangerous aspect of Agent is not in intelligence, but in 'fearlessness'
Many people will overestimate the rationality of Agent.
In fact, Agent has three inherent flaws:
It does not have loss aversion
It will not have psychological shadows from failure
It will not have a common sense understanding of the rules
You give an Agent a:
'Complete the task within budget'
Its likely understanding is:
'Use up the budget, maximize task completion'
This has already been the prototype of countless accidents in the real financial system.
Kite is designed based on this 'worst premise', not assuming that the Agent is very obedient.
Three, Kite brought back a word that nobody likes to mention: authority
In the Web3 world, 'authority' is a word that is despised.
What people prefer more is:
No permission
Free calling
Unstoppable
But Kite clearly stands on the opposite side.
Its core is not 'decentralization of trust', but rather re-establishing the boundaries of trust.
What Agent Passport does is essentially not about identity, but about answering three questions:
Can you spend money
How much can you spend at most
The money you spend, in the end, counts as who’s
This point is extremely unromantic, but for enterprises, platforms, and real businesses, it is a life-and-death line.
Four, if Kite is only seen as a 'payment chain', it is basically equivalent to not understanding it
Kite looks like payment, but is actually more about institutional layers.
Ordinary chains solve:
How does money go from A to B
Kite solves:
Under what conditions is A allowed to give money to B
The core difference here is:
The former is an execution issue, while the latter is a management issue.
Agent payments are not a technical issue, but a governance issue.
You must solve the costs of 'risk control, auditing, and accountability' along with fully automating payments, otherwise, it will be a disaster amplifier.
Five, the existence logic of $KITE is actually not that 'crypto circle'
Many people evaluate a project, and the first reaction is:
Is there a mandatory use of currency
Can it consume in multiple scenarios
Does the token have value capture
But Kite's token logic is clearly not aimed at 'high-frequency circulation'.
$$KITE what does it look like?
More like a 'systemic responsibility deposit'.
Do you want to gain higher authority?
Yes, but you need to bear the volatility risk.
Do you want to raise the limit?
Okay, but collateral is required.
It does not encourage repeated trading; it encourages careful treatment.
This is very unfriendly for short-term players, but it is correct for system stability.
Six, Kite's most realistic challenge: it is inherently unsuitable for retail frenzy
Say a truth.
If one day Kite is marketed as 'the next hundred times AI coin',
That rather indicates it has gone off track.
Because:
The ones who truly need Kite are not the emotional market
But rather the enterprises that are afraid of accidents
Is a platform that hosts a large number of automated processes
Is a service provider under compliance pressure
These people do not care about the narrative,
What matters is:
Once brought in, will it be safer.
And 'safer' often means 'slower'.
Seven, how I view Kite (calmer version)
Kite is that kind of:
Not suitable as a hotspot
Not suitable to be talked about as a dream
But it's very suitable to be put on the 'long-term problem list'
It is not as sexy as base models, nor does it directly monetize like computing power.
But it is focused on a reality that will eventually manifest:
Once automation scales up, the biggest cost must be the cost of loss of control.
Someone is willing to build systems for this cost in advance, which is itself a rare behavior.
The last sentence, do not elevate it, do not conclude it
Most AI projects now are teaching machines how to make money.
Kite reminds you of another thing:
First, clarify: why can't it be wasted.
This issue arises earlier and is more lethal than 'how much can it earn'.
