In recent years, AI technology has advanced rapidly. Large models, intelligent agents, and automated systems have emerged one after another, ranging from content generation to code writing, from intelligent customer service to algorithmic trading, as AI gradually transitions from a 'tool' to an 'actor.' Meanwhile, the Web3 field has also begun to fervently discuss the possibilities of 'AI + blockchain': optimizing smart contracts with AI, enhancing risk control accuracy, assisting on-chain analysis, and so on.

But few people think the other way around: Does AI itself need blockchain?

If we regard AI as a participant gradually detaching from human control and possessing autonomous behavior capabilities, it is almost impossible for it to operate in the current financial system. This is not an efficiency issue but a structural problem. The traditional financial system was not designed for machines from the beginning.

The financial system is designed for 'humans,' while AI is not 'human.'

The account system is the foundation of the modern financial system. Whether you want to open a bank card, buy a fund, or use a payment service, there is a prerequisite: identity verification. You need to submit your ID card, proof of address, phone number, and even face-to-face video calls to complete KYC checks. The core purpose of these processes is to make the system believe that you are a specific, identifiable, and legally responsible 'natural person' or 'legal entity.'

But AI does not belong to either of these categories. It has no nationality, no ID card, no tax number, and does not possess 'signature capacity' or 'legal capacity.' AI cannot open bank accounts, cannot register companies, and cannot independently become a contracting party or transaction object. This means it cannot receive money, cannot make payments, and cannot hold assets. In summary: AI is a 'non-human ghost' in the existing financial system, lacking financial personality.

This is not a philosophical question, but a real systemic boundary.

When you let an AI agent purchase a server usage right, call an API, or even participate in transactions on the secondary market, it must first have a payment method. Any compliant payment method is tied to a 'person' or 'enterprise.' As long as AI is not 'an appendage of someone' but rather a relatively independent entity, it is destined to be 'kept out' of this structure.

Blockchain provides financial protocols accessible to machines.

The biggest difference between blockchain systems and traditional financial systems is that it does not care who you are. You can be a person, a script, a program, or even an 'always online' automated agent. As long as you can generate a pair of private keys and an address, you can receive payments, make payments, sign smart contracts, and participate in consensus mechanisms on-chain.

In other words, blockchain is inherently suitable for 'non-human users' to participate in economic activities.

For example: an AI model deployed on the blockchain, assuming it uses decentralized storage (like Arweave) to obtain data, and then uses a decentralized computing power market (like Akash) to acquire running resources, completing tasks and receiving rewards through smart contracts (settled in stablecoins). This entire process does not require a centralized platform for matchmaking, does not need bank card verification, and does not require any 'human' intervention.

This sounds like a future science fiction novel, but in fact, it has already been realized in some projects. Projects like Fetch.AI, Autonolas, and SingularityNET are exploring how AI agents can have 'economic identities' on-chain, how to provide services to other agents, and how to autonomously complete transactions and coordination. This form of 'machine-to-machine (M2M)' economy has already moved from concept to practical testing.

AI is no longer a model that relies on human feeding, but rather a cyclical entity that can acquire resources, provide services, generate income, and reinvest in itself. It does not need humans to issue paychecks but has its own sources of income on-chain.

Why can't the traditional financial system adapt to this scenario?

Because its entire infrastructure is designed around the assumption of 'human behavior.'

In the traditional payment system, the transaction process involves someone initiating, someone approving, and someone supervising. The clearing process relies on trust and regulatory coordination between banks. Risk control logic focuses on 'who is doing what,' rather than 'whether this program is stable.' It is hard to imagine an AI wallet opening a bank account through facial recognition, nor can we expect an AI model to complete tax reporting to regulatory authorities.

This leads to the fact that all transactions related to 'non-human users' in the traditional financial system need to be 'affiliated' with a person or company to operate. This not only lowers efficiency but also poses a significant responsibility risk: when AI causes losses, who bears the responsibility? When it makes a profit, how is tax collected? These questions have no answers today, but on-chain, at least we have the technical possibility.

Stablecoins: The 'hard currency' of the AI world.

Many people think that what AI needs is 'payment capability,' but in fact, AI needs stable settlement currencies more. Imagine that when an AI agent calls another model or purchases a data API service, it would prefer to exchange in 'stable value units' rather than highly volatile crypto assets.

This is precisely the significant meaning of stablecoins. USDT, USDC, or future compliant RMB stablecoins provide a financial tool that can circulate freely on-chain while maintaining value stability, serving as the 'hard currency' of the AI world.

Currently, some projects are trying to allow real-time settlement of service calls between AIs through stablecoins, thus forming a low-friction economic system that does not require 'human approval.' As the liquidity of on-chain stablecoins increases, AI can directly earn revenue from tasks and use this revenue to purchase new service modules or running resources, forming a truly autonomous machine economy.

We can even foresee that in the future, certain AI systems will no longer be attached to a specific company or research institution, but will exist in the form of a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) or on-chain protocols.

These AI agents will have their own fund pools, community governance mechanisms, and on-chain identity systems. They do not require legal registration, nor are they filed in any country, yet they can serve users, receive payments, initiate lawsuits, and publish protocol updates, forming a true 'digital legal person' or 'AI legal entity.'

Their cooperation and competition will be based on smart contracts, mediated by cryptocurrencies, with on-chain rules providing order. They may lack emotions, but they have incentives; they have no rights and obligations, but they execute code.

In this process, cryptocurrency is not a speculative asset but rather the underlying protocol of trust between AIs.

Risks and challenges: We are far from ready.

Of course, all of this is not without challenges.

The key custody issues of AI wallets, economic losses caused by model misuse, verifiability of on-chain identities, legal eligibility of cross-border AI entities, and ethical boundaries of algorithmic behavior are all new challenges that must be faced.

The more realistic situation is that our existing legal system and regulatory framework provide almost no pathways for 'non-human actors.' AI cannot sue others, nor can it be sued; it cannot pay taxes, nor can it enjoy property rights. Once it goes out of control or is attacked, who is responsible, and who can be held accountable? All of this requires new legal frameworks, social consensus, and technical governance measures to address.

But at least, we have already seen a path in some pioneering projects—it's not about patching the old system to accommodate AI, but about constructing a more suitable 'machine financial infrastructure' to support AI behavior.

This infrastructure requires on-chain identities, encrypted accounts, stablecoin payments, smart contract collaboration, and decentralized credit mechanisms. In other words, what it needs is not our traditional 'financial system,' but Web3.

Written at the end.

The development of cryptocurrencies was initially aimed at serving 'those without accounts,' such as individuals, countries, and marginalized industries excluded from the financial system. Now, it may become the only option for 'identity-less machines' to participate in economic activities.

If traditional finance is a pyramid built for human society, then blockchain and cryptocurrencies may be constructing a 'financial foundation prepared for machines.'

AI does not necessarily need to possess rights, but it must have an operable economic interface. And this is exactly what blockchain is best at solving.


/END.

Original author: Lawyer Liu Honglin.