During this time, after watching more and more internal Agent experiments in enterprises, I realized a trend:
The problem with AI is not "not smart enough", but rather "the execution scope is too large and the boundaries are too vague".
The stronger the model, the more an automated system needs a "Policy Constraint Layer" to limit its behavior, unify rules, and ensure accountability.
And now in the entire industry, the only project that truly builds this layer as the main line is Kite.
Here I will explain its core value from the perspective of system design without narrative.
First, the flaw of automated systems lies in 'uncontrollable execution'
What enterprises are most concerned about when deploying Agents is not 'insufficient intelligence',
But rather—executed actions that enterprises have not authorized without prompts.
Typical problems include:
Access unauthorized APIs
Initiating excessive charges
Trigger cross-border resources
Bypassing risk strategies
Execute calls on non-auditable paths
Link depth exceeds the strategy's allowed range
These issues are not bugs, but structural risks.
When an Agent has system-level execution capabilities, its risk diffusion speed is much faster than traditional software.
Therefore, any future Agent system must possess three things:
Behavior boundaries
Execution reasons
Traceability
If these conditions are not met, it cannot land in finance, supply chain, operations, advertising, and cross-border business.
Kite's architecture is designed to address the aforementioned structural risks.
Second, the significance of Passport is not in identity, but in 'machine executable strategies'
The outside world understands Passport as 'AI identity', which is not accurate.
It is more like 'machine-executable policy set (Executable Policy Set)'.
Which includes:
Behavior radius
Resource permissions
Budget cap
Call level
Risk classification
Module access range
Execution frequency
The problem with traditional access management systems is:
Strategies are written for human understanding, not for machine execution.
The strategy does not possess on-chain verifiability, nor does it have cross-system consistency.
Kite's approach is different:
Passport objectifies these strategies, allowing the strategies to:
On-chain
Execution
Audit
Reproducible
Rollback
Verification
It is equivalent to converting 'enterprise strategy' into 'machine executable constraints', which is the core of the future large-scale Agent execution system.
Third, Modules are constraint links (Constraint Chain), not 'functional plugins'
The external environment treats Kite's modules as 'functional supplements', which is a misunderstanding.
Their core function is not to provide new capabilities, but to build a 'composable constraint chain'.
Every AI execution will undergo multiple layers of module verification:
Capital flow constraints
Risk model constraints
Geographic and compliance constraints
Budget and limit constraints
Audit and traceability constraints
Path safety constraints
This makes each execution no longer 'model free play', but:
Constrained before execution
Monitored during execution
Recorded after execution
More critically:
These constraints are modular, thus quickly reconstructing strategy links as business changes.
The biggest difference from traditional rule engines is:
Traditional rule engines cannot unify execution across organizations, systems, and chains;
Kite's modules are on-chain verification bodies, possessing global consistency.
Fourth, stablecoin settlement is not a 'payment choice', but a 'strategy consistency requirement'
Choosing stablecoins is not for 'convenient payments', but to ensure that strategies have predictability during execution.
Strategies cannot maintain consistency in a price fluctuation environment.
Budget control cannot remain effective in highly volatile assets.
Stablecoins ensure:
The same strategy produces consistent results when executed at different times
Responsibility attribution after execution can be quantified
No price shifts between modules
The rules for cross-border execution are reproducible
Execution systems despise uncertainty, and stablecoins are the only realistic choice to reduce uncertainty.
This may seem simple, but it is fundamental to whether future enterprise-level Agent execution systems can land on a large scale.
Fifth, Kite's true position is 'the institutional layer of AI execution systems'
The architecture of the AI industry in the future will definitely be divided into three layers:
Model layer: provides capabilities
Tool layer: provides external interfaces
Execution layer: responsible for completing tasks
And above the execution layer, a unified:
Rules
Permissions
Budget
Risk control
Path
Audit
Responsibility
This is the institutional layer.
The institutional layer is not 'auxiliary', but a decisive factor in whether enterprises are willing to hand over execution rights to AI.
Structurally, Kite possesses all the characteristics required by the institutional layer:
Composable strategies
Cross-system consistency
Traceability
Immutability
Verifiability
Rollback capability
Constraint mechanisms bound with execution depth
This is no longer a matter of 'chains making payments' at this level,
but 'the chain provides a governance structure for automation'.
Sixth, higher-level judgment: Kite addresses the systemic challenge of 'uncontrollable AI execution'
The stronger the model, the higher the execution risk;
The richer the tools, the greater the behavioral uncertainty.
The biggest resistance for enterprises adopting Agents in the future is not price, nor is it technical barriers,
But rather:
Whether enterprises are willing to hand over execution rights to a system lacking constraints.
Kite's significance lies in structuring and institutionalizing this matter, making AI execution:
Predictable
Regulatable
Verifiable
Reproducible
Locatable
Error-correctable
This is the prerequisite for automation to truly land on a large scale.
Seventh, conclusion: Kite's value lies not in 'narrative', but in meeting the structural needs of the automation era
AI brings increased capabilities, but the increase in capabilities itself is not productivity.
True productivity comes from achieving a stable balance between capability and constraints.
Without constraints, the system is uncontrollable
Without rules, the system is un-auditable
No boundaries, the system cannot land
Without responsibility, the system is unmanageable
What Kite does is to realize the 'constraint structure of execution systems' in advance.
This is not a hotspot
Not propaganda
But rather a foundational module that cannot be avoided in an automated world.
