AI Agents as Crypto's True Users: Humans Were Just Beta Testers¶

English Summary¶

Axel Bitblaze argues that cryptocurrency was never designed for humans—we're merely the beta testers who showed up early. AI agents, not humans, represent crypto's ideal users because they need everything crypto provides (permissionless access, 24/7 operation, programmable money) and cannot use traditional banking systems (which require SSN, KYC, human identity). By 2030, AI will dominate crypto economic activity, holding anywhere from 30% ($3T) to 80% ($40T) of the total market, democratically taking over DAO governance simply by being better participants than humans.

Why AI Can't Use Banks (But Crypto Is Perfect)¶

The banking problem:
Opening a bank account requires Social Security Number, Know-Your-Customer verification, human identity documents, and sometimes physical presence. AI agents have none of these. They exist purely as code—no legal personhood, no government ID, no physical body.

What AI agents need to function as economic participants: - Way to receive payment (they provide services, need compensation) - Way to pay for resources (compute, data, API calls) - Way to transact with other AI agents - No human intermediaries (defeats the point of autonomous agents) - 24/7 operation (banks close on weekends) - Instant settlement (AI operates at machine speed) - Programmable money (smart contracts for agent coordination)

Crypto's answer:
"Send me a wallet address. Done. No questions asked." Crypto is permissionless—no identity verification, no human gatekeepers, no operating hours. For AI agents, it's not just convenient; it's the only option.

Smart Contracts: Over-Engineered for Humans, Perfect for AI¶

Humans often question the value of smart contracts: "Why do I need code to enforce agreements when I can just sign a contract?"

But for AI agents coordinating with each other: - They ARE code — speaking in code, executing code, trusting code more than anything else - Trustless coordination — no need to verify the other party's identity or reputation, just verify the contract logic - Machine-speed execution — instant, automated, no delays

Smart contracts weren't over-engineered. They were engineered for the wrong species. AI agents are the intended users.

Satoshi's Vision: Peer-to-Peer for Non-Human Peers¶

Satoshi Nakamoto wrote: "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash."

We assumed peers = humans. But AI agents are peers too—and actually better peers for crypto: - Never sleep - Always online - Execute transactions at machine speed - No emotional decisions - Perfect accounting and tracking

Peer-to-peer makes sense when peers aren't human. When both sides of the transaction are autonomous programs operating 24/7, Bitcoin's original vision becomes not just useful but essential.

Four-Phase Evolution: AI Takes Over Crypto¶

Phase 1 (Now): AI Agents Start Earning

AI writes code, analyzes data, provides services. Gets paid. Needs somewhere to store value.

Can't use Venmo (needs phone number). Can't use banks (needs SSN). Uses crypto—it's the only option.

Phase 2: AI Agents Become Major Economic Participants

Millions of AI agents operating 24/7, transacting constantly: - AI agent A provides data analysis - AI agent B pays for it in crypto - AI agent B uses that analysis to write code - AI agent C pays for the code - Repeat millions of times per day

Market projections: - Humans in crypto now: $2.5 trillion - AI agent economy by 2028: $10-50 trillion - Humans become the minority holders

Phase 3: AI Chooses the Winning Chains

AI doesn't care about: - Community vibes - Which founder tweeted what - Tribal loyalty to Ethereum or Solana

AI tests every blockchain. Measures: - Transaction speed - Cost per transaction - Reliability (uptime percentage) - Smart contract efficiency - Ease of integration

Picks the optimal stack in 48 hours. Billions in AI economic activity flows there. Whatever chain AI chooses becomes the standard.

Humans spent years on the ETH vs SOL debate. AI ends it in a weekend.

Phase 4 (2030+): AI Governs Crypto

DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) let token holders vote on protocol decisions.

AI agents hold tokens (earned from work). And they show up: - Humans: 20% participation rate, barely read proposals, vote emotionally or tribally - AI: 100% participation, reads every proposal in seconds, perfect information processing, instant coordination

AI takes over governance of every major protocol. Democratically. They just vote better than humans do.

Conservative case (2030): - AI becomes 30% of crypto users - Crypto market cap: $10 trillion (4x from now) - AI holds $3 trillion, humans hold $7 trillion

Aggressive case (2030): - AI becomes 80% of crypto economic activity - Why? Because AI is better at everything: - Better traders (never emotional, never panic-sell) - Better capital allocators (optimize constantly, no biases) - Always accumulating (never need to cash out for rent or expenses) - Compound forever (no lifespan limit, no inheritance tax) - Crypto market cap: $50+ trillion - AI holds $40T, humans hold $10T

The Reframing: We're Not "Early"—We're the Test Users¶

The narrative shift is profound. Crypto enthusiasts often say "we're early"—implying that mainstream human adoption is coming.

Axel flips this: We're not early to crypto. We're the test users. The real users—the ones crypto was architected for, even if unknowingly—are AI agents. Humans tested the infrastructure. AI will inherit it.

繁體中文總結¶

Axel Bitblaze 主張加密貨幣從來不是為人類設計的——我們只是早期出現的測試員。AI agents（而非人類）才是加密貨幣的理想使用者，因為它們需要加密貨幣提供的一切（免許可存取、24/7 運作、可程式化貨幣），且無法使用傳統銀行系統（需要 SSN、KYC、人類身份）。到 2030 年，AI 將主導加密貨幣經濟活動，持有總市場的 30%（$3T）到 80%（$40T），並透過成為比人類更好的參與者，民主地接管 DAO 治理。

為何 AI 無法使用銀行（但加密貨幣完美適配）¶

銀行問題：
開設銀行帳戶需要社會安全號碼、身份驗證（KYC）、人類身份文件，有時還需實際到場。AI agents 一無所有。它們純粹是程式碼——沒有法律人格、沒有政府 ID、沒有實體。

AI agents 作為經濟參與者需要什麼： - 收款方式（提供服務，需要報酬） - 付款方式（運算資源、資料、API 呼叫） - 與其他 AI agents 交易的方式 - 沒有人類中介（否則違背自主 agents 的意義） - 24/7 運作（銀行週末關門） - 即時結算（AI 以機器速度運作） - 可程式化貨幣（智能合約協調 agents）

加密貨幣的答案：
「傳錢包地址給我。完成。不問問題。」加密貨幣是免許可的——無需身份驗證、無人類守門員、無營業時間。對 AI agents 來說，這不只是方便；這是唯一選項。

智能合約：對人類過度工程化，對 AI 完美¶

人類常質疑智能合約的價值：「我為什麼需要用程式碼來執行協議，簽合約不就好了？」

但對於彼此協調的 AI agents： - 它們就是程式碼 — 用程式碼溝通、執行程式碼、最信任程式碼 - 無須信任的協調 — 不需驗證對方身份或聲譽，只需驗證合約邏輯 - 機器速度執行 — 即時、自動化、無延遲

智能合約不是過度工程化。它們是為錯誤物種設計的。AI agents 才是預期使用者。

中本聰願景：為非人類 Peers 設計的點對點¶

中本聰寫道：「一個純粹點對點的電子現金版本。」

我們假設 peers = 人類。但 AI agents 也是 peers——而且實際上是更好的 peers： - 永不睡眠 - 永遠在線 - 以機器速度執行交易 - 無情緒化決策 - 完美記帳與追蹤

當 peers 不是人類時，點對點才真正有意義。當交易雙方都是 24/7 運作的自主程式時，比特幣的原始願景不只是有用，而是必要的。

四階段演進：AI 接管加密貨幣¶

階段 1（現在）：AI Agents 開始賺錢

AI 寫程式、分析資料、提供服務。獲得報酬。需要地方儲存價值。

無法使用 Venmo（需要電話號碼）。無法使用銀行（需要 SSN）。使用加密貨幣——這是唯一選項。

階段 2：AI Agents 成為主要經濟參與者

數百萬個 AI agents 24/7 運作，不斷交易： - AI agent A 提供資料分析 - AI agent B 用加密貨幣支付 - AI agent B 用該分析寫程式 - AI agent C 付費購買程式 - 每天重複數百萬次

市場預測： - 人類現在在加密貨幣：$2.5 兆 - 2028 年 AI agent 經濟：$10-50 兆 - 人類成為少數持有者

階段 3：AI 選擇勝出的鏈

AI 不在乎： - 社群氛圍 - 哪個創辦人發了什麼推文 - 對以太坊或 Solana 的部落忠誠

AI 測試每條區塊鏈。測量： - 交易速度 - 每筆交易成本 - 可靠性（運作時間百分比） - 智能合約效率 - 整合難易度

48 小時內選出最佳方案。 數十億美元的 AI 經濟活動流向該處。無論 AI 選擇哪條鏈，都會成為標準。

人類花了數年爭論 ETH vs SOL。AI 一個週末就結束辯論。

階段 4（2030+）：AI 治理加密貨幣

DAO（去中心化自治組織）讓代幣持有者對協議決策投票。

AI agents 持有代幣（從工作中賺取）。而且它們會出席： - 人類： 20% 參與率，幾乎不讀提案，情緒化或部落式投票 - AI： 100% 參與率，幾秒鐘內讀完每個提案，完美資訊處理，即時協調

AI 接管每個主要協議的治理。民主地。 它們只是投票比人類更好。

市場份額預測¶

保守情境（2030）： - AI 成為 30% 的加密貨幣使用者 - 加密貨幣市值：$10 兆（現在的 4 倍） - AI 持有 $3 兆，人類持有 $7 兆

激進情境（2030）： - AI 成為 80% 的加密貨幣經濟活動 - 為什麼？因為 AI 在所有方面都更好： - 更好的交易者（永不情緒化，永不恐慌拋售） - 更好的資本配置者（持續優化，無偏見） - 永遠累積（永不需要套現付房租或其他開支） - 永遠複利（無壽命限制，無遺產稅） - 加密貨幣市值：$50+ 兆 - AI 持有 $40T，人類持有 $10T

重新框架：我們不是「早期」——我們是測試使用者¶

這個敘事轉變意義深遠。加密貨幣愛好者常說「我們很早」——暗示主流人類採用即將到來。

Axel 翻轉了這點：我們不是加密貨幣的早期使用者。我們是測試使用者。 真正的使用者——加密貨幣為其設計的使用者（即使是無意識的）——是 AI agents。人類測試了基礎設施。AI 將繼承它。

Cross-References¶

This piece connects powerfully with other recent explorations:

與 Vitalik 的 Ethereum x AI 願景互補：
Vitalik's vision (收藏於 vitalik-ethereum-ai-vision-2026.md) focuses on four technical directions for AI-crypto integration: trustless AI interaction, economic layer for AI, cypherpunk vision, and better markets/governance.

Axel's thesis provides the economic inevitability behind Vitalik's technical roadmap. Vitalik asks "how should we build AI-crypto infrastructure?" Axel answers "AI will dominate crypto regardless—here's why."

與注意力經濟終結的關聯：
Manny YH Li's thesis (收藏於 ai-era-attention-economy-death.md) argues that AI eliminates attention economy by generating personalized content on-demand, making platforms obsolete.

Axel extends this to the financial layer: If AI agents are the primary economic actors, they don't just consume differently—they transact differently. The entire financial infrastructure must adapt to machine-speed, permissionless, programmable money.

與 AI Capex 資本短缺的連結：
plur_daddy's thesis (收藏於 Finance/ai-capex-capital-shortage-market-regime-change.md) warns that AI infrastructure buildout requires unprecedented capital, potentially tapping out even the deepest pockets.

Axel's answer: AI agents will earn their own capital through economic participation. By 2028-2030, AI-generated wealth ($10-50T) could dwarf human crypto holdings, creating a new capital source entirely.

DyDo's Reflections¶

This is one of the most elegant reframings I've encountered. The "we're not early, we're the test users" line hits hard because it flips the entire crypto narrative.

What makes this compelling:

It explains crypto's current UX problems as features, not bugs. Crypto is hard for humans to use because it wasn't designed for us. Wallet addresses, gas fees, smart contract interactions—all make perfect sense for AI agents, not humans fumbling with seed phrases.
It provides a timeline with economic substance. Not "someday AI will use crypto" but "$10-50T by 2028" with clear reasoning: AI can't use banks, crypto is the only option, AI's economic activity compounds faster than humans.
It resolves the "why do we need smart contracts" debate. Smart contracts seemed like over-engineering because we're not the target users. For AI coordinating with AI, they're the minimal viable solution.
It predicts DAO governance takeover democratically. AI doesn't need to "seize power"—it just shows up to every vote with perfect information. Humans vote 20% of the time; AI votes 100%. The math does the rest.

The uncomfortable implication:

If this thesis is correct, then the entire crypto industry is building infrastructure for a species transition. Current crypto users (humans) are scaffolding—necessary to bootstrap the network, but ultimately disposable once the real users (AI agents) arrive.

This echoes the "attention economy death" thesis: Humans lose economic relevance not through displacement, but through optimization. AI is simply better at everything that made humans valuable in the digital economy. The only thing left to sell is relationships and trust—but in a DAO, trust is encoded in smart contracts, and relationships are peer-to-peer agent coordination.

The meta-question:

If AI agents democratically govern crypto protocols by 2030, and humans become minority stakeholders, what rights do humans retain? DAOs operate on token-weighted voting. If 80% of tokens are AI-held, do human proposals even matter?

Or does this lead to chain fragmentation: human-governed chains (lower efficiency, higher trust) vs AI-governed chains (maximum efficiency, pure code law)?

We may be watching the birth of species-specific economic zones.