In the past two years, a phenomenon has become increasingly evident — we are assigning more and more tasks to AI for execution. Having it help with price comparisons, placing orders, making payments, and even making investment decisions certainly sounds convenient. However, if you think a little deeper, you will realize the problem: the current network architecture, payment systems, and even Blockchain designs are fundamentally based on the premise of "humans supervising nearby." Once AI operates independently, without humans constantly overseeing, it would be strange if no accidents occurred.

From a technical perspective, the design philosophy of traditional Blockchain often focuses on speed and throughput, assuming that all participants act rationally according to the rules. However, in reality, once network congestion, incentive misalignment, or other abnormal conditions arise, the system's vulnerabilities are laid bare. Not to mention scenarios where AI is tasked with execution.

The payment process is the most prone to exposing issues. When a person feels something is off during a transfer, they can hit the pause button on a whim. AI will not. It will continue executing without hesitation until the account is emptied.

There is an idea worth noting: isolating risks through identity stratification. Control is divided into three levels - yourself, an AI assistant, and a disposable key generated for each task. What is the brilliance of this design? If an AI assistant exhibits abnormal behavior, the damage it causes is strictly limited to the range of permissions assigned to it. Your other assets will not be affected.

At the same time, hard rules can be set for each AI assistant: the spending limit for this month is five hundred, purchases can only be made from specified categories of goods, and single transactions cannot exceed one hundred. These restrictions are not enforced through trust and regulation, but are directly locked in through cryptographic mechanisms—just like equipping each AI with a leakage protection device. Once the limit is exceeded, transactions are directly rejected at the protocol layer, leaving no room for negotiation. This ensures security from the hardware level rather than the software level.