Expert: Crypto Was Built for Machines, Not Humans, and AI Is Proof

TLDR:

• Crypto built for AI agents treats rigid code as infrastructure instead of a flaw in financial design.
• Legal contracts favor human judgment, while smart contracts favor machine verification and execution.
• AI wallets bypass legacy systems that only recognize humans and registered institutions.
• Self-driving wallets could replace manual interaction with automated on-chain decision systems.

Crypto has long struggled with usability, security risks, and trust gaps for everyday users. 

A new framework suggests those flaws reflect a deeper design choice rather than engineering failure. The argument centers on crypto built for AI agents, not for human decision-making. This shift reframes why smart contracts rely on rigid logic instead of legal judgment.

Crypto Built for AI Agents Challenges Human-Centered Finance

The idea gained traction after a commentary shared by Milk Road and attributed to Haseeb Qureshi, managing partner at Dragonfly. He highlighted that even crypto-native firms still rely on traditional legal contracts when making investments.

Despite having engineers capable of auditing smart contracts, Dragonfly continues to use courts and lawyers for enforcement.

Legal systems allow judges to apply context and reason when disputes arise. Code executes instructions without interpretation.

Humans instinctively trust law because it reflects centuries of social and institutional design. Banking infrastructure assumes mistakes, reversals, and mediation will occur. Smart contracts offer none of those safety valves.

For machines, those same traits become advantages. 

An AI agent can verify addresses, audit logic, and simulate outcomes in seconds. Deterministic code removes uncertainty that legal frameworks introduce through jurisdiction and precedent.

Crypto Built for AI Agents Aligns With Machine-Only Transactions

The traditional financial system only recognizes humans, companies, and governments as valid participants. It has no category for autonomous software actors. That creates unresolved questions around liability, compliance, and sanctions when AI systems transact.

Crypto avoids those constraints by treating every participant as a wallet controlled by code. 

An AI agent can hold funds and execute agreements without legal identity. This structure allows machine-to-machine commerce to operate without regulatory classification barriers.

Supporters of the thesis argue that features humans dislike are optimal for automation. 

Long addresses, gas fees, and permissionless access form a strict specification layer. AI systems interpret these rules as predictable infrastructure rather than friction.

This logic underpins the concept of a “self-driving wallet.” Instead of users clicking through decentralized apps, they would issue goals to an agent. The agent would evaluate protocols and construct transactions automatically.

Machine-to-machine transactions already occur in limited forms across on-chain trading bots and automated liquidity strategies. The framework suggests those activities will expand into broader economic coordination. Humans would remain supervisors rather than operators.

The argument does not claim crypto failed its original mission. It proposes that crypto found its natural counterpart in autonomous software. Earlier technologies followed similar paths once complementary tools emerged.

Milk Road framed the thesis as a rethinking of long-standing crypto criticism. 

Problems such as complexity and rigidity may reflect optimization for non-human users. In that view, crypto’s future lies in becoming financial infrastructure for artificial agents rather than consumer interfaces.