As I continue to dismantle Kite, I am increasingly certain of one judgment: when AI truly becomes the main executor on the chain, the biggest challenge facing blockchain is not insufficient performance, but the lack of control over the direction of behavior.
In a human-centric on-chain environment, behavior is naturally decentralized and decorrelated. Some buy, some sell, some hesitate, and some make mistakes; the noise itself constitutes a form of stability mechanism. Even in extreme situations, they are often local and short-term.
But AI is different. The advantage of AI lies in its high consistency. When multiple AIs use similar data sources, model structures, and objective functions, they will make decisions in the same direction at the same time. This consistency, which appears 'correct' locally, will evolve into systemic risk once scaled.
The problem is not whether AI will make mistakes, but whether AI will collectively do something harmful to the system that is completely rational from each of their perspectives.
Traditional blockchains are oblivious to this. The chain can only determine whether a transaction is valid, but cannot judge whether a type of behavior is already imbalanced on an overall level. When the system only has 'result verification' capabilities but lacks 'behavioral direction recognition' capabilities, the higher the efficiency, the greater the risk.
What Kite truly complements is this layer of capability.
In the design of Kite's chain layer, behavior is no longer just isolated transactions, but a flow of behaviors that can be continuously recorded, statistically analyzed, and trend-identified. When behavior is recognized as a trend, the chain has the basis to intervene and adjust. This adjustment is not a crude prohibition, but is reflected in convergence mechanisms across multiple dimensions, such as frequency compression, budget consumption curve limitations, temporary fallback of permission levels, and adjustments of module call priorities.
These mechanisms may not seem radical when viewed individually, but when combined, they form a set of directional correction capabilities. Its role is not to prevent AI action, but to correct the overall direction of the system before AI collectively pushes efficiency to the limit.
This step is essential in the era of AI. Because the risks of AI often do not manifest in an instant collapse, but in long-term deviations. If the chain only reacts 'after hitting the wall', systemic damage is already unavoidable.
From this perspective, Kite's design premise is completely different from most chains. Most chains assume that the behavior subject is unpredictable humans, so the system can rely on noise to maintain stability; whereas Kite assumes that the behavior subject is highly rational AI, so it must build stability mechanisms at the institutional level in advance.
This is not a choice at the application layer, but a choice of underlying worldview.
It is precisely for this reason that I am increasingly convinced that Kite is not a project designed for today's AI craze, but an infrastructure prepared in advance for a phase that is almost certain to come: when AI behavior is scaled, synchronized, and aligned in direction, if the blockchain cannot evolve from an execution system to a system with directional control capabilities, it cannot exist in the long term.
And Kite is one of the few projects that has clearly thought this through and written it into its structure at the chain level.
