Kite’s more interesting claim, though, isn’t just “use stablecoins.” It’s that autonomous spending needs identity and limits baked in. If software can pay, then software needs a clear way to prove what it is, who it represents, and what it’s allowed to do right now. Otherwise you end up with the same problem we already have with accounts and keys, just faster and more expensive.

@KITE AI A year or two ago, “AI payments” sounded like something you’d hear in a pitch, not in a finance meeting. Now it’s a real topic, and the reason is pretty plain. We’re building software that doesn’t just answer questions. It can take action. It can decide when to pull data, when to rent compute, when to call an API, when to retry a task, when to switch providers. The moment you let systems behave that way, you run into an awkward truth: the money side of the internet is still built around people moving slowly, signing off, batching decisions, and trusting a handful of legacy intermediaries.
@undefined is one attempt to close that gap by treating stablecoins as the everyday rails for machine-to-machine commerce. That phrase can sound abstract, so I try to picture it in smaller, more ordinary scenes. Imagine a fleet of delivery robots paying for connectivity by the minute. Or a monitoring agent buying a fresh dataset the moment it detects a change in conditions.
Or a tool that uses cloud computing for a short time, pays for it, and stops when the work is done. None of those are wild sci-fi ideas. They’re the kind of boring, practical automation people are already building, just without a clean way for the money to move at the same pace as the decisions.
Stablecoins matter here because they behave like cash without behaving like a bank transfer. They can move quickly, settle at odd hours, and keep the value steady enough that pricing makes sense. If you’ve ever tried to reconcile a handful of SaaS subscriptions across teams, you know how messy billing can get even with humans in the loop. Now shrink the transaction size and multiply the frequency. Machines don’t naturally batch decisions the way people do. They don’t wait until Monday morning. They don’t get tired and “do it later.” They just keep going, which is great for productivity and slightly terrifying for controls.
What’s changed recently is that stablecoins are starting to show up in places that aren’t trying to be edgy.
Some payment firms now see stablecoins as a useful way to make global payouts faster. And in 2025, U.S. lawmakers started pushing clearer laws about stablecoins, including who can issue them and how they must prove they have real reserves behind them.The details will keep getting argued over, but the direction matters. It’s easier to build real infrastructure when you’re not standing on regulatory fog.
Kite’s more interesting claim, though, isn’t just “use stablecoins.” It’s that autonomous spending needs identity and limits baked in. If software can pay, then software needs a clear way to prove what it is, who it represents, and what it’s allowed to do right now. Otherwise you end up with the same problem we already have with accounts and keys, just faster and more expensive. This is where the language of verifiable identity and permissions becomes more than a buzzword. It’s a way to make machine spending legible: budgets that can be enforced automatically, activity that can be audited afterward, and a path to shut things down without guessing what happened.
I keep coming back to the lesson of cloud computing. The cloud didn’t win because servers suddenly got exciting. It won because the boring parts got better: access controls, cost visibility, logs, and the ability to set boundaries without slowing everything down. Agentic systems need that same boring discipline. A tool that can buy compute is neat. A tool that can buy compute inside a budget, with an audit trail and a kill switch, is what a cautious organization can actually live with. In that sense, stablecoin rails are only half the story. The other half is governance and guardrails.
One reason Kite is getting attention is that investors and builders are circling around the same idea: an “agent economy” where software hires other software. That sounds dramatic, but it can be as simple as a model paying another model for a translation, or a monitoring agent paying a verifier to confirm a result. New payment standards for AI agents are being discussed in parallel, which suggests the ecosystem wants interoperability, not one-off hacks. In that context, Kite positions itself as connective tissue. It’s less about replacing banks tomorrow and more about reducing friction in tiny, frequent exchanges.
Of course, there are reasons to be skeptical. Any system that moves value automatically becomes a tempting target. Stablecoins still depend on issuers, reserves, and redemption mechanics that can fail under stress. And even with good identity controls, humans can become complacent when things “just work.” It’s easy to stop paying attention to a drip of micro-charges until the drip turns into a leak
There’s also a bigger question here: if software can buy and sell things on our behalf, will we stop paying attention to what we’re saying yes to?
Even so, I get why people are talking about this more right now.
AI agents are moving from toys to colleagues. They’re being asked to operate across tools, vendors, and jurisdictions. As that happens, payments stop being a back-office detail and become part of the product itself. If Kite, or something like it, succeeds, the big win won’t be a flashy new coin. It will be the moment machine-to-machine payments feel ordinary—quiet infrastructure that fades into the background while the work keeps moving.

@KITE AI #KITE $KITE
{future}(KITEUSDT)