In most blockchains, identity is treated as something static.
A wallet exists. A user exists. Everything else is layered on top.
KiteAI doesn’t start there.
Instead of assuming a single persistent identity, the protocol separates users, agents, and sessions. This is more than a security feature. It’s a recognition that, for autonomous systems, context matters as much as identity itself.
An AI agent is not a continuous actor in the human sense.
It operates in tasks, intervals, and execution windows. Each session has its own scope, permissions, and economic footprint. Collapsing all of that into a single identity blurs accountability and makes behavior harder to reason about.
By treating sessions as first-class objects, Kite introduces a different unit of control.
A session is not just a connection state. It is a bounded economic context. What an agent can do, how long it can act, and what resources it can access are defined at the session level — not assumed globally. This reduces blast radius when something goes wrong and makes agent behavior legible at a granular level.
The implication is subtle but important.
When sessions carry economic meaning, responsibility becomes contextual. Actions are no longer attributed to an abstract agent identity, but to a specific execution instance. This allows the network to observe patterns without overfitting assumptions about long-term intent.
It also reshapes how incentives and governance can evolve.
If behavior is expressed through sessions, then incentives don’t need to target identities in the abstract. They can respond to execution patterns, constraints, and real usage — the things that actually generate risk and value inside the system.
This is a different mental model from most AI narratives in crypto, where agents are treated as wallets with automation scripts attached. Kite’s design suggests something else: that autonomous agents require temporal, not just persistent, identity.
The open question is whether other blockchains are willing to decompose identity this far — or whether they will continue to treat context as an afterthought.
