Brothers, recently the crypto circle has been talking about AI agents, automated trading, wealth management, and even smart agents that help you buy things. It's quite enticing. But to be honest, the biggest concern for large institutions is not whether it can make money, but if something goes wrong, whose problem is it?
Traditional automated system permission management is often chaotic, usually one large account manages everything. Over time, it becomes unclear who approved what and why. When something goes wrong, finding the responsible person can lead to endless disputes, and the problem is fundamentally unclear.
The brilliance of the Kite project lies in its fundamental resolution of the issue of blurred responsibility. Agents never have permanent permissions; every operation is executed in a session that is 'limited in scope, governed by rules, and will expire.' Who initiates, who approves, and how long the permissions last are all clearly recorded on the blockchain.
The more critical issue is the hard boundaries: spending limits, operational scope, approval thresholds, all hard-coded into the execution layer. Does the agent want to overspend? Not a chance! If an anomaly occurs, the problem narrows down to three points: Are the rules correct, is the data accurate, and is the system executing according to the rules? These are all issues that institutions are good at handling.
The design of session expiration is also crucial. Once the task is completed, permissions immediately become invalid, leaving no residual evidence floating around. If the agent is hacked, the impact is limited to that session, with a very small explosion radius. This is not only about safety but also ensures that regulation and auditing can be conducted with confidence.
All operational logs are complete and traceable: which rule was triggered, why it was allowed to execute, and the authorization time frame. Everything can be checked on the chain, and post-event reviews can directly look at the timeline without guessing intentions.
Why don't institutions use AI agents? What they fear are the invisible risks. Kite doesn't boast about zero risk; instead, it cages the risks, and every action must stay within preset boundaries. Predictability is what the legal team loves the most; it's not about being smart or fast, but about clearly defining who is responsible.
In the end, Kite doesn't want agents to be smarter than humans, but rather ensures that every action taken has someone willing to take responsibility. This hardcore design of the responsibility chain is the real reason why institutions dare to get on board. In the AI agent race, only projects that can lower trust costs are likely to come out on top.
