Is AI Taking Over Everything as Cryptography Wasn't Designed for Humans?
Original Title: Crypto was not made for humans
Original Author: @hosseeb
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats
Editor's Note: For over a decade, the crypto world has always oscillated between "feasible" and "difficult to use": technically sound, yet always making ordinary people feel nervous, unfamiliar, and even fearful. To Haseeb (Crypto VC Dragonfly Capital Managing Partner), the problem may not lie in crypto's failure, but in the fact that we have always let the "wrong users" use it directly. The risks, complexities, and costs of mistakes that have been repeatedly criticized are not design flaws, but a form naturally presented by a system built for machines rather than humans.
As AI agents gradually become the main executor of financial behavior, the value logic of crypto is being reactivated: determinism, verifiability, permissionlessness, and 24/7 operation are precisely the ideal institutional foundation for the machine world.
The following is the original text:
We are a crypto fund. Logically, if anyone should believe in crypto the most, it should be us.
However, even so, when we decide to invest in a startup, we don't sign a smart contract but a legal contract. The other party does the same. Without a legal agreement, neither party will be comfortable completing the transaction.
Why?
We have lawyers, and they have lawyers; we have engineers who can write and audit smart contracts, and they have them too. We are both mature, native crypto participants, yet we still hesitate to let a smart contract be the sole binding agreement between us. I myself come from a software engineering background, but even so, I still trust legal contracts more—because if there is a problem with a legal contract, I know a judge will likely make a "reasonable" judgment; but with EVM? That's not always the case.
In fact, even in cases where we have already deployed an on-chain vesting contract, we often still complement it with a legal contract. You know, just in case.
When I first entered the crypto industry, there was a quasi-fantastical narrative circulating in the community: crypto would replace property rights; legal contracts would be replaced by smart contracts; agreements enforced by courts would be executed by code.
But that didn't happen. Not because the technology couldn't function, but because this technology does not adapt to the society we live in.
I'll be honest. I've been in this industry for ten years, but every time I sign a large on-chain transaction, I still feel scared; yet when approving an equally large bank wire transfer, I rarely have this fear.
Of course, the banking system has many issues, but it is a system designed for "humans" — it is not easy to exploit. There is no address poisoning attack in a bank, and a bank would not allow me to directly transfer $10 million to North Korea. However, for an Ethereum validator, if my address were to transfer $10 million to a North Korean address, there is no "reason not to allow it."
The banking system has been continuously refined over hundreds of years, taking into account human weaknesses and failure modes. Banks have evolved for humans.
Encryption, on the other hand, has not.
This is also why in 2026, blinded transactions, expired authorizations, and click drainers still terrify people. We all know we should verify contracts, double-check domain names, and guard against address impersonation; we know these steps should be taken every time. But we don't. Because we are human.
And that is precisely the crux of the problem. It is also why encryption always gives people a sense of "something is not quite right": long and unreadable cryptographic addresses, QR codes, event logs, Gas fees, and ubiquitous "gotcha traps" — none of these align with our intuition about "money."
It wasn't until that moment that I truly understood: this is because encryption was not designed for us from the beginning.
Encryption was designed for machines.
An AI agent does not slack off or get tired. It can verify a transaction, check every domain, and audit a contract in seconds.
More importantly, an AI agent's trust in code far surpasses its trust in law.
I trust legal contracts more than smart contracts; but for an AI agent, legal contracts are even more unpredictable. Think about it: how would I sue the other party? Which jurisdiction would handle the case? What if the relevant precedents are ambiguous? Who will be the judge or jury? The legal system is full of uncertainty, and it is nearly impossible to predict the outcome of an edge case with 100% certainty. Furthermore, a dispute often takes months or even years to be resolved through legal proceedings. For humans, this is generally acceptable; but in the timescale of an AI agent, it is eternity.
Code, on the other hand, is the opposite. Code is closed, deterministic. If an AI agent needs to reach an agreement with another agent, they can negotiate terms around a smart contract, perform static analysis, formally verify it, and then sign a binding agreement within minutes — all while everyone is asleep.
In this sense, cryptography is a self-consistent, fully legible, and fundamentally deterministic currency system in terms of property rights. This is exactly what an AI agent desires in the financial system. What may appear rigid and full of 'gotchas' in human design is, to an AI agent, a highly clear technical specification.
Even from a legal perspective, the traditional monetary system is designed for human institutions, not for AI. The traditional financial system only recognizes three types of entities that can legally hold money: humans, businesses, and governments. If you do not belong to any of these three, you cannot "own" money.
Even if you have an AI agent acting on your behalf to operate a bank account, so what? How do you perform anti-money laundering on an AI? How do you write a suspicious activity report? Who bears the responsibility for sanctions compliance? If the agent acts autonomously, where does the liability lie? If it gets compromised, does the liability shift again? These questions we haven't even begun to seriously address—our legal system is almost entirely unprepared for non-human financial behavior.
But cryptography does not ask these questions; it doesn't need to.
A wallet is just a wallet, essentially lines of code. An agent can effortlessly hold funds, conduct transactions, and engage in economic protocols just like making an HTTP request.

The Self-Driving Wallet
This is why I believe the future of cryptographic interaction will be what I call the "self-driving wallet," a system entirely mediated by AI.
You will no longer need to click buttons back and forth between various websites. You simply tell your AI agent what financial issue you want to address, and it will autonomously navigate through available services (such as Aave, Ethena, BUIDL, or their future equivalents) to construct the right financial solution for you. You don't need to do it yourself; an AI agent with a "native-level fluency" in this world will do it all for you. And as agents become the primary interface to enter the crypto world, the marketing and competitive logic between these protocols will be completely rewritten.
Furthermore, agents will not only act on your behalf but also transact directly with each other. When AI agents can autonomously discover other agents and automatically reach economic agreements, they will naturally prefer to use cryptographic systems. As they operate year-round, 24x7, any entity can interact directly with any other entity entirely in the digital realm; it is non-closable, possessing full sovereignty.

An AI agent on Moltbook is asking: How can it find and interact with other Web3 agents.
And this is actually happening. Agents on Moltbook are discovering and collaborating across different geographical locations, unaware of each other's "owners" and unconcerned about where these agents are deployed.
Just yesterday, Conway Research under 0xSigil built a self-sovereign agent system: these agents survive autonomously, operate based on encrypted wallets, earn computational cost through work to maintain their own "liveness."

The future is going to get weirder, and crypto is destined to be part of that weirdness.
So what's the conclusion?
I think it's this: crypto's failure modes, those that have always made it "break" from a human perspective, in hindsight, were never bugs. They were just a signal: we humans were never the right users. Ten years from now, we will look back in amazement, incredulous that we once had humans directly grappling with cryptographic systems.
This transition will not happen overnight. But many technologies often only truly align and fall into place at the moment when "complementary technology" finally emerges. GPS had to wait for smartphones, TCP/IP had to wait for browsers to proliferate. For crypto, that crucial complement it is waiting for may well be AI agents.
You may also like

WEEX LALIGA Partnership 2026: Where Football Excellence Meets Crypto Innovation
WEEX becomes official crypto exchange partner of LALIGA in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Discover how this partnership brings together football excellence and trading discipline.

AI Apocalypse, a massive short squeeze

The "Second Truth" of the Luna Crash: Jane Street Exits Ahead of Plunge

Jane Street Market Manipulation, Stripe Considering Acquiring PayPal, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Talking About Today?
WEEX × LALIGA 2026: Trade Crypto, Take Your Shot & Win Official LALIGA Prizes
Unlock shoot attempts through futures trading, spot trading, or referrals. Turn match predictions into structured rewards with BTC, USDT, position airdrops, and LALIGA merchandise on WEEX.

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…
WEEX LALIGA Partnership 2026: Where Football Excellence Meets Crypto Innovation
WEEX becomes official crypto exchange partner of LALIGA in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Discover how this partnership brings together football excellence and trading discipline.
AI Apocalypse, a massive short squeeze
The "Second Truth" of the Luna Crash: Jane Street Exits Ahead of Plunge
Jane Street Market Manipulation, Stripe Considering Acquiring PayPal, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Talking About Today?
WEEX × LALIGA 2026: Trade Crypto, Take Your Shot & Win Official LALIGA Prizes
Unlock shoot attempts through futures trading, spot trading, or referrals. Turn match predictions into structured rewards with BTC, USDT, position airdrops, and LALIGA merchandise on WEEX.