To be honest, when I first came across Kite, I didn't feel much excitement. Proxy payments sound like one of those flashy concepts that are unlikely to take off. In this circle, many projects talk a big game about autonomy and smart economies, but due to overly complex designs or neglecting real pain points, they ultimately fade into silence. I've long gotten used to it, thinking that Kite is probably just another one of them.
However, I studied Kite closely and found it quite different. It doesn't just talk about future visions but directly addresses a problem that has already arrived: AI agents have already started doing tasks on their own, but what about our payment systems? They are still stuck in the primitive stage where each person has a private key and manually clicks to confirm. The Kite team has clearly experienced similar failures and knows what kind of trouble autonomous agents can cause on public blockchains, so they focused on practicality and constraints from the very beginning.
The core of Kite is a Layer 1 blockchain specifically designed for AI agent payments. It does not treat AI as a tool, but as an economic participant that needs to be managed. Most traditional blockchains correspond a private key to a user, with each transaction representing an intention. However, Kite changes this with a three-layer identity system: you yourself are the ultimate boss (root permission), your AI agents are delegated subordinates (delegated permission), and each specific conversation or task is like a temporary worker badge (temporary permission). This way, users can grant agents limited authorization, such as only spending 500 yuan this month on cloud services and only purchasing from Company A. How the money is spent, who did the work, and how long it is valid for are all clearly recorded on the chain.
I think Kite is smart precisely because it deliberately keeps the scope narrow. It does not claim to be omnipotent but focuses on real-time, small-scale, and clearly defined scenarios. Low latency and determined execution results are crucial for situations that require coordinating multiple AI to work. It packages identity, rules, and execution into a system, rather than piecing together here and patching there. Moreover, it assumes that AI will make mistakes and can be hacked, so its design is filled with safety valves: permissions can be revoked at any time, conversations can be halted, and one agent messing up will not implicate the entire identity. These designs are not flashy but are reliable.
Imagine some real scenarios to understand better. For example, you have an AI managing your cloud server; it can pay in real-time based on usage, but it can never exceed your set budget and vendor list. Or a trading AI that can adjust positions between different strategies, but the funds do not have to remain with it at all times. An AI representative of a DAO can negotiate, sign contracts, and make payments, with every step documented. These tasks do not require throughput to be off the charts; what is needed is reliability, traceability, and clear accountability. Even its token KITE has a practical roadmap: first, use it well within the ecosystem for specific coordination and incentive tasks, and then slowly consider staking governance, rather than jumping straight into speculation.
In the blockchain circle, assessing whether a project is reliable often comes down to what it refuses to do. Kite does not attempt to solve the AI alignment problem, nor does it claim to make agents inherently trustworthy. It acknowledges that agents are tools: they can be immensely helpful when useful, but need to be strictly constrained when dangerous. Decentralization does not equal safety, and governance tokens do not magically align interests. Kite’s governance is programmable, contextually adjustable, and revocable. This realism is rare.
Of course, Kite has many questions: Are developers willing to migrate from established chains to this dedicated chain? Can the identity standards of various AI agents be unified? How does regulation view these limited autonomous transactions? Most fundamentally, is the economic value generated by AI agents enough to support an independent Layer 1? These questions cannot be answered by white papers or testnet data; they depend on real-world adoption, how it handles actual faults, and how trust accumulates bit by bit. Kite’s roadmap is quite restrained; it does not shout any disruptive slogans but says to take it step by step.
Looking broadly, Kite is at the intersection of the AI and blockchain industries, both of which are mature yet have become tiresome due to hype. The blockchain is still entangled in scalability, governance, and practical applications, while AI faces issues of accountability, sourcing, and economic autonomy. Many past attempts at integration have failed because they relied too much on stories and too little on constraints. Kite’s approach reminds us that unstructured autonomy leads to chaos, while autonomy without structure is rigid. It focuses on agent payments, identity separation, and programmable governance, not to build a future for everything, but to make an inevitable behavior feasible.
If AI agents are truly to join the economic circle, what they need is not just a wallet, but clear boundaries, complete records, and traceable consequences. Kite has not solved all problems, but it has taken a solid step towards operability. This low-key pragmatism makes me feel that in the noisy market, it is worth paying more attention to.
