A recent on-chain operation made me think for a long time. It wasn't an attack, nor a mistake in operation; it was simply that my understanding of "automatic execution" wasn't deep enough. The event happened suddenly, with more or less loss, but what troubled me the most was the momentary doubt: if the executor isn't a human at all, but an AI agent, who is responsible if something goes wrong?

After this question surfaced, I realized why projects like KITE need to be reevaluated now. Not because they can craft more dazzling AI narratives, but because they focus on a more painful, less popular, yet increasingly unavoidable core issue: when AI really moves money on the chain, how should permissions be allocated, where should boundaries be drawn, and who cleans up the mess if things go awry?

KITE is taking a very tough path, even somewhat against the trend. Most AI projects approach from the angles of "what can be done, how the algorithms work, what killer applications exist," but KITE reverses this, starting from seemingly dull infrastructure like identity verification, permission granting, and fund settlement. It sounds like a traditional system thinking approach, but in reality, it touches on the most explosive part of the entire agent economy: the legality and traceability of execution rights.

There's no need to copy the wording from the white paper. The key is to clarify the logic step by step. KITE's architecture is divided into three indispensable layers: identity layer, permission layer, and settlement layer.

The identity layer isn't just about avatars or casually minting an NFT. It's closer to the logic of a passport system—must be verifiable, traceable, and able to clearly explain where this agent came from, who created it, and who bears legal responsibility behind it. Without this link, permissions would degrade into a bunch of cryptographic signatures, and when real trouble occurs, everyone can only pass the buck.

The permission layer is more sophisticated. It's not about bluntly saying "this agent can access your wallet," but about fine-grained authorization—how much quota, how long the time window, which contracts can be operated. This detailed design may seem cumbersome, but in practice, it can greatly reduce risk exposure. If a link in the chain fails, tracing back becomes much easier.

The settlement layer is the aftermath mechanism. All transactions and execution records must be fully documented and stored on-chain forever, so that even if disputes arise later, there is a clear chain of evidence. Unlike traditional finance, where disputes can be more ambiguous, blockchain's transparency makes everything more open but also more ruthless.

The collaboration among these three layers is crucial. Identity verification alone isn't enough; it must be combined with permission control. Permission management can't be isolated; it must depend on a clear identity. Settlement and record-keeping serve as the insurance of the entire system. Any weak link could cause the entire logic to collapse.

In essence, what KITE aims to solve is a trust issue—within an on-chain environment without intermediaries, how to make people believe that an AI agent is acting within expected boundaries, and how to hold it accountable if it oversteps. This isn't a glamorous story of innovation, but it is an essential foundation for building an agent economy. The market may not be excited about it now because these are invisible, intangible infrastructures, but as on-chain automation increases, these elements will become critical to survival.