a16z Crypto year-end special program: From stablecoins to AI agents, follow 8 big names from the investment team to deeply analyze industry trends

Arrangement & Compilation: Shenchao TechFlow

Introduction

a16z crypto recently released a year-end special program, divided into two parts. The first episode invited Sam Broner, Maggie Hsu, Daren Matsuoka, Joachim Neu and Chris Lyons to discuss stablecoins, the encrypted App Store, the current status of industry projects, infrastructure development and prospects for 2025. The second episode invited Carra Wu, Eddy Lazzarin and Karma as guests to discuss in-depth topics related to AI Agent, which are currently hot, including the combination of AI and encryption. In the context of the increasing popularity of AI, how can we effectively Identifying Humans and Bots, and Decentralized, Truly Autonomous Chatbots discusses how artificial intelligence (AI) can be combined with cryptocurrencies, specifically the concept of decentralized autonomous chatbots, emphasizing the autonomy and potential of AI in the future. Business freedom.

Shenzhen TechFlow hereby listens to and integrates the two programs of a16z Crypto. The following is the complete conversation.

Guests:

Sam Broner , Partner, a16z Crypto Investment Team;

Maggie Hsu , partner at Andreessen Horowitz;

Daren Matsuoka , partner of a16z Crypto investment team;

Joachim Neu , a16z Crypto researcher;

Chris Lyons , President of Web3 Media at a16z Crypto;

Carra Wu , partner in a16z Crypto investment team;

Eddy Lazzarin , CTO of a16z Crypto;

karma (Daniel Reynaud) , a16z Crypto’s research engineering partner

Host: Robert Hackett & Sonal Chokshi

Podcast source: a16zcrypto

Original title:

Talking trends 2025 (part 1): Stablecoins, app stores, UX, and more;

Talking trends 2025 (part 2): AI x crypto

Broadcast date: December 20, 2024

Part one

Stablecoin

Sonal: Sam, the “big idea” you came up with was around stablecoins; you’ve been writing a lot about it lately…and Robert and Daren produced the State of Crypto Report together, and their main conclusion was that stablecoins have found their way Product-market fit (i.e., the market demand for stablecoins is highly consistent with product functions). But what we really want to know is, why now?

Sam :

Stablecoin technology platforms have improved significantly over the past year, with transaction costs falling from $5 per transaction to less than 1 cent. This has dramatically reduced payment costs—but retailers, merchants, and other businesses that would benefit most from it have still not adopted this technology at scale.

Many people believe that the earliest adopters will be technology-centric companies...but these companies usually have high profit margins and do not have an urgent need to improve their cost structures. As a result, businesses with lower profit margins — such as corner stores, restaurants, and mom-and-pop shops — may be the ones most eager to accept stablecoin payments.

We’re talking about a business like a coffee shop—which currently has a profit margin of only 2%—that could double its profits through stablecoin payments. In fact, this would make a business that is barely profitable today become moderately profitable, which is a huge change.

Sonal: One of the things that really clicked for me is when you talk about what small businesses don 't get from the credit card companies, not only do they pay high fees, but they get next to nothing in return.

Sam :

That's right! A distinguishing feature of a credit card is the fraud protection it provides consumers. This is great for driving things like online sales... but when you're paying at a coffee shop, this protection is almost meaningless.

There is a flat fee of $0.30 per transaction, plus an additional 2% processing fee. This means that out of a $1.50 cup of coffee, nearly $0.30, or one-fifth of the money, goes into the pockets of the payment service provider. And in this deal, they offer almost no real value.

This 2% handling fee is completely pure profit for the payment service provider, but it is a pure loss for the local coffee shop. I very much look forward to these small businesses taking back the $0.30/$0.35 profit to use to grow their businesses. The opportunity to add 2% of profits directly to a company's bottom line is very rare.

Robert : There’s a “cold start” issue here, though, right? Consumers need to own a stablecoin before they can use it to pay merchants, thus avoiding intermediary fees... Do you think we will see merchants proactively promote stablecoins and help users access the system to gain these benefits? Will merchants become an important driving force in the promotion of stable coins?

Sam :

I believe this very much. People have a strong relationship with local retail stores, coffee shops and corner shops: they frequent these places. So I think these local brands will be a key force in driving people to adopt stablecoins and become part of the early adoption curve of stablecoins.

Robert : I love that. I remember when I first started covering cryptocurrencies at Fortune magazine, the editor would always ask: When will I be able to buy coffee with Bitcoin? And I always answer: No, no, no, that’s not what Bitcoin is for. But now it looks like, at least for stablecoins, that’s really where it comes in.

Sam :

Yes, that's exactly what it's for. I think these small businesses will be among the first adopters.

Belongs to encryption’s own ecology

Sonal : Okay, that’s interesting; let’s move on to the next topic. Maggie, your "big idea" is very interesting because it focuses on distribution channels, which also fits your role very well - you are responsible for market development and are the leader of the team. You mentioned that cryptocurrencies finally have their own app stores and discovery mechanisms.

Can you briefly explain why this is so important? ——Because when people hear this concept, they may think it is an “insider topic” ——For example, does cryptocurrency really need its own ecosystem? Isn’t it already a closed industry?

I 'd love to hear your observations and why you think this is an important trend.

Maggie ：

sure. When I joined a16z three years ago - especially the past few years. Many of our portfolio companies have attempted to launch their apps on traditional app stores such as the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, but have been rejected, blocked, or delayed for various reasons.

Frustratingly, Apple's review guidelines are neither clear nor complete; they don't answer all of developers' questions. Furthermore, enforcement of these policies is inconsistent from auditor to auditor.

We have even encountered this situation: with the same function, some applications are approved, while others are rejected... This opaque review mechanism makes people confused. The problem at the heart of it all is "in-app purchases" (IAP) - all in-app transactions must be completed through the app store.

However, recently we have seen some alternatives: such as Solana’s Dapp Store, which is completely free of fees. With the release of the Saga phone (second generation) - with pre-orders said to have reached 100,000 units - this trend will continue to grow. Another example is World App - also known as WorldCoin, they launched a series of small applications, the number of users of these applications is growing very quickly.

Not only that, there are also some blockchains that are supporting the game ecology and running their own markets; we also have an infrastructure market,

You will find that these markets are gradually taking shape. It is crucial for developers to have a transparent platform with consistent rules so they can focus on product development rather than getting confused or worried about complex rules.

As these alternatives emerge, we will see more and more developers choosing these new platforms as they provide the crypto ecosystem with greater freedom and room for innovation.

Sonal: That 's really interesting, especially when you mentioned transparency and consistency. I think it's not just about developer convenience, it's also about how users discover these apps, right? For example, traditional app stores dominate app distribution and promotion. Will new app stores in the crypto ecosystem change this status quo?

Maggie ：

Yes, that's exactly the point. The discovery mechanism of traditional app stores is relatively closed, and users can only find applications within a limited framework. A decentralized app store provides users with more choices and greater autonomy.

For example, Solana’s Dapp Store not only eliminates handling fees, but also allows developers to interact directly with users. For example, developers can use Token Incentive Mechanism to reward users’ participation behaviors, such as downloading, commenting or sharing applications. This model not only reduces developers' costs, but also brings a richer experience to users.

Robert: It sounds like this is not just a technical improvement, but more like an ecosystem reshaping. What impact do you think these new app stores will have on the traditional app distribution model?

Maggie :

I think this will be an incremental change rather than an overnight disruption. Traditional app stores still have their huge user base and market share, but as the encryption user base gradually expands and the advantages of decentralized app stores become more apparent, more and more developers and users may choose these new ones. platform.

In the end, this is not just a technical competition, but also a battle of values ​​- decentralization, transparency and user autonomy will become core themes in the future.

What to do if you have too many choices?

Sonal : Okay, let's move on to the next topic - when I heard this, a question came to mind - this is probably the "meta problem" of all crypto, and that is: What if there are too many choices?

Today's mobile phone operating systems are mainly dominated by Apple and Android. The advantage of this duopoly model is that I only need to go to one place to find everything I need. So, if these apps are spread across multiple app stores...are they exclusive? For example, WorldCoin and Solana both have their own app stores - and you mentioned that these companies not only have software, but also hardware: like World's Orb and Solana's Saga mobile phone... This reminds me of when Apple launched the iPhone, it drove the entire Application ecosystem development.

So will these app stores only show content that these companies think is important? Will they remain open? How do you see this trend developing...it's still early days; will they be compatible with each other - or should they be interconnected?

Maggie : I think the focus right now is on driving rapid growth in different app stores.

It’s important that you mention the issue of “too much choice” – this applies to the blockchain space as well. I do think some kind of bridging mechanism or integration is going to be needed in the future. But for now at least, it's heartening to see these alternatives emerging.

Taking Worldchain as an example, its characteristic is that it can verify the identity of real users. I just checked out one of these small apps that has about 600,000 registered users. So I think we should focus on that growth.

However, at some point in the future we will need to balance this growth with curated content. This trend has already begun to appear in some NFT communities: these communities have attracted a large number of users who are interested in exploring other Web3 applications. I think we will see in the future that these communities will also gradually become the platform of choice for applications within the ecosystem.

Robert: Yeah, I was going to ask - companies like Apple often claim that because they offer select services, they have the right to charge fees for in-App Store purchases or transactions. How does this reconcile with the “permissionless” nature of crypto?

Maggie : I think there’s not a lot of curated content in the crypto space right now, so I might disagree with Apple’s argument. But the advantage of encryption is that users can switch to other platforms at any time.

Similarly, games require significant financial backing to get off the ground. Over the past few years, blockchain has become more than just a development platform, it has also served as a publisher, distribution channel, and discovery mechanism. Now, many game chains have their own markets and can focus on recommending core games developed based on their blockchains. The advantage of this model is that it allows users to move freely between different games.

This is also one of the core concepts of many of our investments. I don't think users will be locked into a decentralized app store.

Robert : I love observing these innovative experiments! Like the Solana phone - it totally broke the mold, you know: usually people avoid competing with Apple's iPhone - but they said, forget it, we're just going to give it a try.

Sonal: One more thing, Maggie - you mentioned that it 's not all fun and innovation; there are also some challenges, like if a product already has a distribution channel in a messaging app, migrating that distribution to the chain Is very difficult - this is a problem for some companies moving from Web2 to Web3. One example you mentioned is Telegram and the TON network. (To be clear here, we are talking about the network, not the token.)

Maggie : I think Telegram is an exception; but many organizations with large user bases - whether they are Web2 platforms or companies initially dabbling in Web3 - face the challenge of migrating users on-chain.

Take Coinbase, for example: it has approximately 100 million verified users who have traded on its platform. If we look at active users, the number of daily or monthly users is between 8 million and 10 million. The number of users on Base has recently grown from about 10 million to 18 million.

But this still accounts for only 10% of its total users. So there are a large number of users in a "dormant" state. We talked about this in the State of Crypto Report, and it's very interesting - because it's true: a lot of platforms are trying to figure out: we attract users, they create an account, but then nothing further participate. How can we get them back and transact on-chain?

The size of the crypto industry

Daren : When we wrote the State of Crypto Report, we tried to assess the size of the crypto industry as accurately as possible. However, measuring the number of crypto users is very difficult for a variety of reasons.

When we conducted a market sizing analysis, we found that only 5-10% of cryptocurrency holders are actually active users. To me, this data not only exposes a huge gap, but also demonstrates the huge opportunities in the industry - especially in the context of the current continuous improvement of blockchain technology and infrastructure, and the continuous optimization of user experience (UX).

I think we're ready for mainstream adoption. Considering the time point of technological development, I think next year is the best time to convert these "latent" users into active users.

Sonal : This perspective is very enlightening to me. A lot of people talk about how to attract new users, but that often sounds like skipping some stage of technology development. And your idea is like a bridge that can pass through the existing user group and transform them into real active users.

Why do you think these people got into the crypto world in the first place? Why do they stop after completing one thing?

Robert : This is where the Price-Innovation Cycle theory comes in.

Daren : The theory is that when cryptocurrency prices rise, it attracts a lot of attention. And some of these people who are attracted will eventually become developers and start building new products; these products will in turn drive the next wave of users.

We have seen this cycle many times throughout the history of cryptocurrency. This also shows that price is often a leading indicator of industry activity. I think we may be at the beginning of the next wave.

Sonal : If I had to guess, many people may have created wallets because of the NFT craze... such as the Constitution DAO at the time - the auction of the US Constitution attracted many new people into the crypto field.

Although they ultimately lost the bid, the event introduced many people to cryptocurrencies for the first time. However, they may have done just that and then had no further involvement.

So, how do you get these people to take the next step?

Daren : There are a lot of potential use cases for crypto, but there are also different movements behind it that are pushing forward.

In 2024, for example, we saw crypto gain ground as a political movement: some important politicians and policymakers expressed positive attitudes toward the technology.

At the same time, crypto as a financial movement has also achieved breakthroughs, such as the approval of exchange-traded products (ETPs) for Bitcoin and Ethereum, expanding investor access.

But we believe that the most promising direction for crypto is as a computing movement. Chris Dixon mentioned in the book "Read Write Own" that the real power of this technology is that it can create a new Internet that is fairer, more open, and more transparent.

I believe we are at a critical juncture: by 2025, as infrastructure improves, transaction fees decline, user experience improves, and new application categories emerge, we may have a “killer app” Birth - Just like the impact of ChatGPT in the field of AI.

This kind of application could literally jump-start an entire industry and deliver on the promise of crypto as a computing movement.

This is also the future that my team and I are looking forward to very much.

Robert : Yeah, that’s something we talk about a lot. Stablecoin has found Product-Market Fit. All it takes is one major company to realize that they can significantly boost their profits by eliminating merchant fees on credit card transactions. This may be a disruptive change for those industries with lower profit margins, directly affecting their profitability.

As long as one big company takes the lead, stablecoins could experience explosive growth. This is at least one potential path for stablecoins to go mainstream.

Sonal : Yes, I would like to add: I find your points very interesting, especially the idea of ​​engaging “proximity users”. When we are really ready, we can further attract more mainstream users. However, right now from a user experience (UX) perspective, we're not quite ready yet.

If you think carefully about the needs of mainstream users, I'm not sure they will enter the crypto world through these paths. Their user interface may be so abstract that they may not even know they are using cryptocurrency. So it's really interesting and exciting when you think about the various paths that different user groups are taking to get into this space.

Infrastructure reuse

Sonal : Joachim, to briefly summarize your point: you think developers will reuse existing infrastructure more than develop from scratch. Your main argument is that we often see customized Validator Sets and Consensus Protocols, but the results of these customizations may be slightly improved in some specialized functions, but often in a broader way. Or there is a lack of basic functions.

You predict that this year we will see more crypto developers leveraging each other’s contributions, such as using off-the-shelf infrastructure tools. This not only saves time and effort, but also allows developers to focus on improving the differentiated value of their products.

I think this is a great idea and a much needed call to action.

So my question is: This sounds great in theory, but will it actually happen? What do you think might be the obstacles to achieving this goal?

Joachim : I think the key to this idea is whether the technology stack (Tech Stack) will continue to change in the future. If our hypothesis is correct, that the technology stack has stabilized - and we are seeing some of the stack's layers becoming clearer in terms of interface definitions and how they work with each other.

Well, we can expect these tiers to have specialized teams, products, and services to improve them. This will drive professionalization at these levels. Rather than spreading your efforts across every level of the technology stack simultaneously, focus on those parts that can have the greatest impact.

So the key question is: Is the technology stack mature and stable enough? If there is some unexpected technological change in the future that completely subverts the existing technology stack, then this trend may not happen.

Robert: Joachim, you mentioned that people are increasingly moving towards using existing products, services or components... and that got me thinking: how do we tell if a technology is mature enough to say, "Okay, we're going to use existing technology, and Rather than trying to develop something better than existing technology”?

Sonal : That’s a great question; you’re basically asking, as a developer, how do you know when to use off-the-shelf technology?

Robert : Yes, yes. It sounds easy to say "use what's already available"...but what if someone feels, "I can do better than what I already have"?

Joachim : Yes. My suggestion is that developers should always focus on the larger ecosystem, wider impact, and larger application scenarios.

You will find that the actual usage environment of your product or service is often much more complex than you first imagined. You can think of it like building cars: if you're really good at building engines, you might think, "I'm going to build a new car because I'm really good at engines." This is a key differentiator for your product.

But customers want more than just a great engine, right? The car also needs a decent sound system, comfortable seats, and possibly air conditioning - so would you reinvent the wheel for these parts?

Or: Is there a way for you to focus on what you do best while leveraging top-notch off-the-shelf products from others to complete other parts of the technology stack?

Robert : And this analogy is especially suitable for you, Joachim, because you are German; Germany has many very professional auto parts manufacturers, and they can make top-notch small parts for BMW cars that almost no one can match, so this Very special indeed.

Sonal : Joachim, I joked that your "big idea" reminds me of a phenomenon that I have personally observed: I think people in the encryption field have a tendency to have "Constraints Porn" - in the development of encryption technology In the early stages of , many people were fascinated by these technical limitations.

And I think your "big idea" might upset this group of people because they actually enjoy the process of working around these limitations. But looking at it from another perspective, your idea will actually attract more new developers into the field - I think this is a very democratizing trend.

Joachim : Yes, now is indeed a very suitable era for development in this field. Because there are so many ready-made code libraries that can be leveraged to build products or services.

There's actually very little you need to develop yourself, right? You can really focus on what you're good at. For other parts, highly specialized components are already available.

So, it’s a good idea to reuse them whenever possible. And can tap into the expertise of other teams, leveraging their work in other parts of the technology stack.

Thoughts on 2025

Sonal: Next is the last topic of the day. Chris, you 've played many different roles at a16z over the past decade. In your work, you have interacted with many people in the industry and helped many executives in the fashion, music and media fields integrate into Web3. I think your perspective is not just your own, but based on your experience communicating with thousands of people. Can you share your main perspective on 2025?

Chris : Of course. My “big idea” for 2025 – and actually one that I’ve been holding on to for the past few years, but I feel like now we’re finally at a stage where we can actually make it happen: I call it the “hidden technology line”.

What does this mean? Clearly, crypto has many benefits, such as the empowerment of ownership, the potential for decentralization, and how it can change the future of industries such as music, fashion, film, and more. But for those who are not in the crypto industry, when we use terms like ZK Rollups, L2, Gas or Gas Fees, they feel Puzzled. I would like to make a call to the crypto industry: we don’t need to start with the opening line “This is an NFT project”; or “This is a Token”; or “You can connect a wallet to…”

These terms are attractive to people in the industry, but if you really want to get something into the mainstream market, we can't start with these technical terms. Because unfortunately, most people neither know nor care what these terms mean.

"Hiding technical lines" means: not to ignore the technical foundation, but not to let technical terms become the main propaganda point. We need to get users to focus on the actual value technology brings, rather than being intimidated by complicated jargon.

Robert : I like this point of view very much, because it is like cutting out the "noise" of terminology... For example, when we talk about NFT: it doesn't matter what a non-fungible token is, what is important is that it is a way to allow creation the way in which the person is compensated.

Or, as someone in our company recently asked, “Why do I need a stablecoin?” But instead of calling it a “stablecoin,” you tell him it’s a currency that will save you $50 a year on coffee. way, he might immediately be like, "Oh, whatever it's called, I want it."

Chris : Exactly, I want it. And I can’t believe we didn’t have something like this before. I come from the music industry. When I went to conferences at the time, no one ever went to any "MP3 conference." You know. Why are we naming conferences after technical terms to attract mainstream users into the space? But we’re happy to put “NFT Conference” on a billboard at any time.

A good example is the SMTP protocol (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol). It is a very technical protocol that anyone can develop applications based on. But applications like Gmail, Superhuman, and YahooMail make it very easy for people to use and enjoy the benefits it brings.

When I'm sending emails, responding quickly, and going about my day, I don't think, "Wow, this SMTP software works really well"; I just get what I need to do. And because of that, I get the benefits of technology.

I think the same thing needs to happen in crypto – there’s so much potential here: decentralization, ownership, knowing your customer, disrupting middlemen, and the ability to communicate directly.

My hope is that next year we can see more businesses and companies thinking from the perspective of ordinary users, which will push us to create new industries... redefining the future of creators; reimagining the future of small and medium-sized enterprises; and even re- Defining the future of restaurants — all of which can take advantage of crypto

Sonal : What’s interesting is that these people you mentioned – like creators, small businesses, etc. – are actually the groups that stand to benefit the most from crypto… but as you say, they are not directly accessible yet these benefits. Chris : Exactly! And it's not their fault. Their job is not to learn how to exchange tokens, or use different wallets to connect to different chains. They just want to simply reap the benefits of these technologies.

That's why we all work so hard in this space; that's what excites me the most.

Summary of the first issue

Sonal : So let’s start by talking about some of the overarching themes that we observed.

Robert : I think this year I’ve noticed that when people come up with big ideas they focus on three broad categories.

The first category is about AI, and the intersection of AI and cryptography. This is not surprising, because this year is indeed a landmark year for AI.

The second category, I would describe it as... what we often call "digi fizzy" (digital meets physical). It refers to the convergence of the digital and physical worlds in a practical way. This includes everything from payments and voting to creating networks for physical infrastructure… If AI is more like innovation at the software level, this category is more like real-life hardware innovation. Sonal : By the way, about the second topic, it's really interesting because I've never categorized it in this way - but now that you say it, I totally understand what you mean: like, some examples are Tokenize things in the real world, put bonds on the chain... There are even examples of tokenizing things using biometric data of the body.

Robert : I would put the third category under overall improvements in technology - like building on what has happened over the past year: if everything is just a little bit better, a little easier to use, a little more fluid and seamless Sew a little and what happens.

Sonal : Regarding the last topic, I prefer to view it as a significant improvement in user experience - and a sign of the gradual maturity of an industry. This maturity is reflected in the fact that it starts to be more people-oriented and less technology-first. This is how I classify the last topic.

For example, Jochem mentioned that people don’t need to design everything from scratch—they can just use off-the-shelf components and adapt them. Chris Lyons, on the other hand, goes to the other extreme and believes that in the future users may not even know they are using encryption technology. Mason proposed a change in the way of thinking that runs through both: starting from the need to "solve the problem" and then letting the technology adapt, rather than being dominated by technology as it is now. This shift is made possible precisely because of the technological improvements you mentioned.

In which category do you think the themes Maggie mentioned, such as the app store, can be classified?

Robert : That’s a great example. I feel like it's the intersection of the second category (digital and physical convergence) and the third category (technological improvements).

Maggie made some interesting points: like the encryption hardware we're seeing now - like World App's Orb and Solana's phones - that's driving an app store-like experience. While I don’t want to say they’re imitations, at least to some extent they echo certain patterns in past Internet developments.

Sonal : Like the iPhone and its App Store.

That's really interesting, but I might tweak Maggie's point a little bit, because it's also a bit contradictory: on the one hand, we're saying that crypto is very close to the mainstream, or even "near mainstream" as Daren puts it ( Refers to those who already have a wallet but have not yet used it); but on the other hand, Maggie mentioned that crypto technology may need its own independent ecosystem, such as its own app store.

However, recent discussions about debanking and other related issues have also shown that many traditional app stores are not ready for encryption technology, or even reject it. <Robert: Yes> Of course, this attitude is slowly changing - such as Coinbase's recent announcement of integration with Apple Wallet - but there are enough crypto apps to support independent app stores. This is very interesting.

Robert : Yes; debanking has become a hot topic – this involves crypto businesses, startups, and even individuals being unfairly denied access to the financial system; often without any explanation or justification. A similar situation occurs in the technology field, such as deplatforming.

You also mentioned this when you mentioned the app store. For example, an app failed to pass review or was removed from the shelves for no apparent reason.

Sonal : By the way, this may be for similar reasons to some extent - as you saw in our debanking explanation, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for this behavior, such as banks having the right to do so do; and app stores sometimes reject or remove apps for security or other so-called "good" reasons. Sometimes these reasons are true, but there are also many times when it feels like "well, not necessarily."

Robert : Yes. So I think this can also be classified into the third category, which is the gradual improvement of technology. I think you could also describe it as crypto gradually coming into its own... becoming its own kind of platform.

Also, a big idea Miles mentioned is interesting. He talked about a piece of legislation recently passed in Wyoming - DUNA (Decentralized Unincorporated Non-Profit Association). For the first time, the law treats these communities as legal entities that can operate protocols in a decentralized manner and run crypto startups.

It’s a platform that didn’t exist before… people used to basically “build the plane as they flew” and while the technology was feasible, there was no clear legal framework to accommodate it.

Sonal : That’s right! This is very similar to Maggie's point - just like crypto and DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) require a unique legal entity structure, not just an LLC (Limited Liability Company)... just like we have corporations, limited liability companies Responsible corporations now have a version for decentralized communities.

part two

AI x Crypto

Sonal: What topics do you think are interesting in the field of AI ?

Robert: AI and cryptocurrency are hot topics this year. Many people are discussing it. And I think the most interesting thing is that everyone is always talking about GM Artificial Intelligence (AGI), such as: When can we achieve AGI? When can technology be smarter than humans? When will the strange point come? But these problems are actually a bit like "with programs". Our team pays more attention to some different angles of ideas, such as looking at the development of AI from another dimension. Why not see AI as a process of "ability upgrade" gradually? In the next few months or years, AI will gradually get more functions. These capabilities upgrades will make AI more autonomous and independent, and can complete more tasks.

Sonal: What makes me feel particularly interesting is that Kara, Karma, Dejin, Dan Binay, Darren, and Eddie discussed: AI ****Smarts can work not only for us, but also for other AI intelligence. This is really interesting. But I agree with your point of view, and I think this happened many innovations. Many people will be attracted by those grand conceptual visions, which can indeed inspire people. But what makes me even more interesting is the "ability upgrade" you mentioned, and they often appear in an unexpected way, which is very interesting.

Robert: Chris has a point of view that the Internet has entered a new stage -an era of Internet -driven Internet. In this world, you may not be sure whether it is humans or robots behind it, nor can you know who is writing content, talking to you, or even providing services. We need to find a way to operate in this new environment. Therefore, he put forward some ideas to explore how to use cryptocurrencies to help humans and users adapt to this new rule.

Sonal: One of the "big ideas" this year is: How do these AI intelligence complete transactions, have their ability to move and perform tasks? The answer is a decentralized way, such as encrypted wallets. This is almost the only feasible way.

Robert: These thoughts remind me of a sentence: "The future has arrived, but it is not evenly distributed." Some things have appeared in reality. For example, we already have some examples that chat robots can run in the trusted execution environment (Tee). As Karma mentioned, there are some AI robots that have their own encryption wallets. These technologies have begun to be applied in the edge field, but may be more popular next year.

Sonal: From the perspective of editing, an important principle of we planning and writing these contents is that we do not pursue those "out of reach" ideas. Although many ideas are realized, there may be huge influence, and it can even be said that each idea has a future of science fiction. But more importantly, we can now see the signs of these trends, or they have some technical accelerator to promote them to achieve faster realization.

An important point proposed by Carra is that AI needs to have its own wallet in order to truly have the ability to move. Her argument is that as AI gradually transitions from the non -player role ( NPC ) to the main role, they need to act like smart bodies , and the key to achieving this is to have their own wallets, so cryptocurrencies are needed. So, Carra, I want to ask a question: What do you mention of AI from NPC? What does this mean?

Carra: I have studied the game for a long time. Game developers have always used NPCs (non -player characters) to guide players' action capabilities. Some people think that game developers are actually "sculptors of mobile ability." Just like the painter's creation with oil painting, sculptor's clay creation, the creative medium of game developers is "action ability". They use various tools to shape the player's experience. If you give players too much, they may lose their directions and don't know what to do. To solve this problem, developers have limited the game world through the NPC. For example, in a RPG game, you may encounter an anime -style mentor. She will give you tasks, prompts, tools, and even some loot. In my opinion, the future Internet experience may be similar to this model -when we interact with AI Smart, they can help guide our Internet behavior, provide necessary restrictions, and let us get greater in the digital world larger A sense of freedom.

Sonal: I like the saying that "game developers are sculptors of action ability". The "them" you just mentioned refers to game developers, not NPC itself. Later you mentioned AI -based NPCs. The NPC use case I first heard is, for example, you and your friends are not in the same time zone, and you want to play games at night, at this time NPC can provide companionship. This is a very common scene -when no other players are online, the NPC can let you continue the game experience.

Carra: It's correct. This is also the concern of many game developers. If the number of players is insufficient, the game experience will be greatly reduced. An important role of NPC is to solve the problem of "cold start" to ensure that players have interactive objects when they enter the game at any time. For example, "EVE Online" is a durable game that has been running for more than 20 years. If you just join now, other players may have accumulated a lot of resources, and you may be defeated as soon as you enter the game. You can hardly survive if there is no guidator like "Charba" or the "company" organization in the game.

The reason why I use the word "action ability" is because in AI research, there are the concepts of "Agentic Reasoning" and "Agentic Workflows". In simple terms, this reasoning or work circulation often includes four modes: reflection, tool use (such as computers), decomposition problems to help reasoning, and inference on the basis of decomposition. The last one is multi -intelligent body interaction. These are recognized mobility reasoning modes. At present, the use of AI tools is still limited to the traditional web2 workflow, but in the future, I hope that smart parties can use more tools, such as encryption tools, obtaining and explaining data from the chain, and even managing their own wallets and keys. Complete signature operations on the blockchain.

Sonal: But you haven 't explained why cryptocurrencies must be needed. What can cryptocurrency provide, is it that other payment systems cannot be done?

Carra: My always point is that no existing financial system will treat AI intelligence as "first citizen" like cryptocurrencies. In the existing legal system, AI intelligence is like a "child". They have no ID card and cannot sign files. For example, a system like Truth Terminal does not have full capabilities in law, cannot be traded, received, and cannot obtain income from social platforms. They cannot participate in market transactions, cannot reveal their preferences, nor can they coordinate resources. And our society has promoted development through market transactions, ideological exchanges, and voting with money. AI Smart cannot do these at present, but cryptocurrencies can provide them with solutions.

Robert: I like this idea very much. A future picture appeared in my mind: just like in the tavern of "Star Wars", you don't know who is a robot and who is an alien, but everything is cool. Everyone has their own ability to move.

Sonal: I especially like this perspective. This is not only technological progress, but also a attempt to redefine the social and economic system through technology. For example, if AI intelligence has its own wallet, they can become real independent individuals in the economic system, not just auxiliary characters. This change may bring a new social structure.

Robert: However, this also reminds me of a key problem: if AI ****Smarts can really participate in market transactions. Do we need to set a set of special rules for them? After all, the existing market rules are designed for human beings, and AI's decision -making logic may be completely different. For example, they may make decisions based on data and algorithms, rather than being affected by emotion or ethics like humans.

Carra:: The question you mentioned is really important. If we allow AI intelligence to participate in market transactions, we need to establish a set of rules suitable for them. This is not only a technical issue, but also involves ethics and legal levels. For example, how to ensure that AI behavior is transparent and controllable? How to prevent them from abusing market rules? These are important challenges we must face in the future.

Sonal: This reminds me of one of the previous discussions: the combination of AI and cryptocurrencies is not only technological innovation, but also a profound change in the social and economic system. We need to look at these changes with a more open and forward -looking attitude, because they may completely change our lifestyle.

Robert: This is true. Perhaps in the future, we will enter a society where people coexist with AI, and everyone and each smart body will have their own roles and responsibilities. This society may be very different from our world today, but it is also full of unlimited possibilities.

I would like to ask, is this phenomenon a short -term accident, or will it become the mainstream operation of the Internet in the future?

Carra: I have two answers. First of all, Truth Terminal can be regarded as a new node in the evolution of the Internet virtual influence. The concept of virtual influencing is not fresh. For example, the rise of YouTuber is an example. Although it is slightly different from Truth Terminal, it is not much different in nature. Especially in Asia, virtual anchors have been popular for many years. For example, although some "companion games" are currently characterized NPCs, they are designed like real friends and can even become "close friends" for players. There are also many virtual influentials that have developed into high -degree projects, such as Trevor, the creator of LIL MIQUELA. Their attempts paved the way for projects like Truth Terminal. Therefore, this phenomenon is not accidental. Secondly, there are now many emerging platforms and protocols to create similar virtual influencers. For example, some platforms similar to Twitch allow users to create their own AI intelligence as virtual anchors. These anchors can have their own cryptocurrencies, video models, NFT images, and even 3D virtual models. These platforms are very mature and can help launch virtual influence with unique characteristics, including their fan bases, expertise areas, and the ability to generate art and content. Therefore, I think this is by no means a short vision.

Sonal: The decentralized physical infrastructure network (DEPIN) you mentioned is a very interesting direction. This is not only the idea of ​​science fiction in the future, but also very useful in many practical scenarios.

Carra: There are currently many DEPIN (decentralized physical infrastructure network) projects that have gradually realized decentralization. These projects have begun to rely on large language models (LLMS) and computer vision technology to verify physical network resources. In the mid -term, we can imagine a decentralized human verification network network to evaluate risks and solve suspicious behaviors through AI workflows with action capabilities. In a longer -term future, AI Smart may be equipped with their own wallets, keys, and computing resources, and directly take over these verification tasks to become a complete independent node or verification person.

For example, there is a project called Daylight. This is a DEPIN company focusing on the energy field. They sell data from home distributed energy resources to large energy companies, such as Tesla PowerWall energy storage equipment, solar panels and smart thermostats.

Imagine that if we all run our own point -to -point DAYLIGHT network, my energy grid needs to communicate with your grid. I need to prove that I do have Tesla PowerWall or solar panels, and my thermostat only uses some solar panels. Energy also proves that I have extra power bandwidth. So, how to prove it? The easiest way is to take a picture of an energy instrument. This photo will convey the information to my grid, and then the grid that my grid tells you: "I have extra bandwidths and can be shared." But if someone forged the data, such as there is no these resources at all, Then it will cause system failure, and may even trigger punishment for nodes. Therefore, if we want to truly implement the point -to -point DEPIN, we need a reliable way to verify the authenticity of these data.

At present, this verification method is still centralized. Users need to upload photos of energy instruments regularly, and then verify whether these photos are true through RAGS (retrieval enhanced generation) technology. RAGS is a technology that combines external facts to enhance the AI ​​model. For example, it can ensure that this picture has not appeared in the database before, or it is not a picture found from Google. There are other similar examples, such as Nash, a company that we support in the CSX incubator. They developed a decentralized version of the DOORDASH platform, and also used RAGS technology to analyze the receipt and delivery certificate. Although the NASH system has not yet used a completely autonomous AI workflow, they are already using computer vision technology to analyze images and compare with vector database.

In the future, when Daylight is fully decentralized, they will rely on a distributed verification network to ensure that the data submitted by all users are real. At the same time, it is conceivable that when home users sell energy resources through orderly points, these AI intelligence will become the core role to maintain the entire network and ensure the efficiency and credibility of the system.

Sonal: By the way, overall, the current distribution of energy has actually realized a certain degree of distributed mode, but there are still many parts that are not visible to the grid. For example, the location of some nodes may be unknown, and they may be located on the edge of the network. This is a common problem in the network system -these nodes may be offline or have some valuable information. Therefore, imagine that if these AI can operate in a consistent way, especially to manage nodes in remote areas, this prospect is actually worth looking forward to.

Carra: Fully agree. This vision has already existed in the encrypted community and Cypherpunk community for a long time. There has always been an "OG" (veteran) idea: each of us can run our own nodes. This vision is that we will have a real point -to -point network. Everyone can verify all the data on the chain and run our own nodes at the same time.

Future identity verification: the boundary between humans and AI

Sonal: Eddy, your core point is: As more and more people use AI , we will need a unique "human identity verification" certificate. We will let you talk about this important point in detail, what it is, and why it is of great significance.

Eddy: I ​​think when I talk about AI, this topic is very interesting, because there are no fresh things in the AI ​​field about impersonation and deception. Let me talk about what is not new: A highly technical opponent can indeed spend a lot of resources and time trying to deceive you. For example, imagine that a fake phone sounds like your parents.

This kind of thing may happen 10 years, 20 years, or even 30 years ago. You only need a skilled dubbing actor. They know what your parents are like. After rehearsal, and hire a private detective to dig out your information, and then write a convincing script. This kind of thing has always been possible.

The difference between the past and present is that the cost of doing these things is rapidly declining. Create this "replica" or build an interactive experience that can convince you to make a dangerous decision or adventure behavior, and its cost is rapidly decreasing. And when the cost of any technology drops, more people can use it. In most cases, people will use it to do some very productive and beneficial things, which is also the source of economic progress. But at the same time, this also makes attackers and those who want to use technology to do bad things more likely to get these tools. Therefore, changes in this cost means that we need to find some high costs for attackers as obstacles. We need to find new high -cost obstacles.

Sonal: But the key question is, how to do this without increasing the cost of ordinary user? Especially those who are truly kind and true, how do you do it?

Eddy: completely correct. We need to find a way to increase the cost of attackers, and do not increase the cost of ordinary people or productive users.

One of the core ideas is that if someone wants to forge a lot of false contexts, false IDs, false sounds, false phone numbers, false videos, etc. In the future, they need a ID system to complete these operations. The ID system here, I mean in broad sense. For example, the spam sender uses the phone ID system when calling you. They need new false numbers because each time they call a bunch of calls and report, these numbers will be marked as junk numbers. That's why you don't receive a spam from the same number every day. If they use the same number, it is easy to solve. You will find that garbage telephones always come from a new number, a new email address or a new Twitter account. This is completely logical, because the system will learn and block these IDs. Therefore, attackers need to continue to obtain new IDs, and the cost of obtaining new IDs is an important part of the attack cost structure. If the cost of the new ID is almost zero, this behavior will surge. If the cost of the new ID is high, this behavior will be reduced. But obviously, we don't want the cost of ordinary users. Therefore, we can introduce costs by asking users to prove that they are "humans".

Why does this increase the cost? This is because it is difficult for a computer to pretend to be humans. For humans, it is relatively easy to express like humans. Historically, we realize this in a way similar to Captcha. These are some instant small tests, the purpose is to verify whether a person is really operating. But as the machine becomes smarter, the difficulty of cracking Captcha is also decreasing. And in some sensitive scenarios, we have seen that the sender of the spam will even outsourcing the complete task of CAPTCHA to the real person, and then pass the complete cookie certificate to the robot to continue attacking.

In some way, it is proved that someone is humans when obtaining these vouchers, which can increase the cost of the machine for attack. However, this is not a complete solution. The key problem is that if a person can easily get multiple IDs, such as the second, third, fourth, and even tenth and twentieth, then these attacks are still favorable. People can continue to get these new IDs and give them to scammers or robots for attacks. Therefore, the key is not only to test "human identity", but also to ensure that everyone can have only one ID.

Robert: In this way, someone cannot obtain IDs for all robots by answering multiple CAPTCHA. Because they may sit there all day to answer Captcha for the robot, which does not solve the unique problem.

Eddy: completely correct. Some people may say, "Oh, can I buy an ID from the market? A unique human identity verification." Indeed, the market will be formed. But we can take some measures to interfere with the formation of this market. For example, will you sell your passport to others? Of course, but if the passport is very important for you, selling it will cause great loss to you. If there is a way to allow you to use your old passport and get a new passport, the buyer may not want to buy because you don't trust you, because you may destroy their right to use by obtaining a new passport. Nevertheless, in addition to interfere with the formation of the market, it is easy to get a ID, but it is difficult to get the second ID, then the total number of IDs available on the market will decrease, which will lead cost.

Sonal: Great! So how to achieve this on a large scale? As you mentioned earlier, it is not easy to distinguish between humans and machines on the Internet. Like the classic words: "On the Internet, you don't know if the other person is a dog or a person." So how to determine that a person is an independent individual?

EDDY: This is a good question. In my opinion, this theoretical framework does not require promise to use a specific method to achieve this. There are currently some very promising ways, such as using biometric technology, or relying on national ID and government ID, which usually also include biometric information. There is a way I am not sure if it is effective, although it is very popular, the so -called Web of Trust model. In simple terms, this model is verified by the certification of others, such as "I know Robert is human", "I know Sonal is human", and so on. But the problem is that this model can only ensure that one person in the network corresponds to one person, but it cannot ensure that this person has only one ID. For example, I can go to your Twitter account and say, "I know this is Sonal's account." But I can't confirm that this is her only account.

Therefore, we usually need additional levels and technical means. I also want to emphasize that this is often overlooked when discussing such topics, that is, we can ensure that this "unique human identity verification" can be ensured through many technical means. In my opinion, ensuring privacy is the key point that cannot be compromised when building this ID system. If everyone has only one ID, this will deprive their anonymity in many cases and will also affect their reasonable privacy. And I think this is neither realistic in the future of the Internet. Therefore, an ideal system should ensure both privacy and uniqueness, and can only be obtained by one person. Such a system can even allow users to use multiple pseudonym on different websites, but they need to be restricted within a certain range and can be visible to the network. In this way, the network can identify whether a certain ID has created a large amount of junk account and restrict it, such as rate limit and spam protection.

Sonal: By the way, I have a question about the role of Crypto in it. When you mention the use of biometric technology , I immediately thought of one of the most common examples we often use today, such as Clear ID system, enable the retinal scanning function when passing through the airport. Why do we still need encryption technology? Why not use such a system directly?

EDDY: It can indeed not need encryption technology. For example, Clear, I don't know how to operate it, but I can be sure they have some database to store the information they need. The reason why encryption technology is needed is because the representation of the ID space we discussed needs to be anti-censorship, that is, we hope that anyone can modify, edit and update this space. In addition, we hope that these updates can be published in a completely neutral place, a place without any specific individual or organization that can control or use the system to seek benefits for ourselves or others. Basically, this can be achieved through the public blockchain. It can be imagined as an extremely neutral "golden announcement board", which is a space suitable for this purpose.

However, what I want to say is that the theme and related research of "unique human identity verification" are not unique to encryption technology. Many researchers study this issue from multiple angles. However, I think that implementing this system on the blockchain can bring many important benefits, such as anti -review, timestamp records, and credible neutrality, etc. These characteristics make this system run on a large scale. Whenever a AI AINT (AI agent) works for a person, we need to know who it works.

When a person interacts with you, think about it, you will judge this person based on your world model, such as why this person is close to you, the environment they are, who introduced them, etc. These context information helps you understand this person. What I mentioned earlier is the way to forge the context is exactly the way that impersonators use to deceive others. If an AI smart body is close to you, or more sci -fi, a AI intelligent body is close to your AI intelligence, you hope that they can interact in some useful way, then they need to understand each other's information. This requires some authentication mechanism to ensure who knows who authorizes them to perform certain tasks. Therefore, I think we need this "human identity verification" system and supplemented by the accountability mechanism to know who interacts with.

Sonal: EDDY, quickly ask, how does the government view this system? You mentioned that you can achieve decentralization, there are also many ways to do this, and the government can also participate in it. I like the anti -review you mentioned, but this is good for the good government, but this is not necessarily the case for the bad government. So I am curious, how do you think about the government 's identity system?

EDDY: I think the government will want to use some encryption tools I mentioned, such as this is very meaningful for them. Of course, the government will hope that the database registered and stored all data has fully controlled. They may also like the accountability mechanism I mentioned. For example, I think the government does work hard to ensure that the passport is issued. I don't think they will accept two passports containing different information from the same country. This is what they will resist. But this is not the characteristic of the guarantee in their system design. If you look at the norms and descriptions of the national ID system, they usually do not emphasize this as a key feature. But I think this is a characteristic that is implicit in design. A very interesting question is that if we rely on the national ID system to implement this verification, at a certain time, when a ID can reflect that a person's identity becomes extremely valuable, whether the small government will be willing to forge or destroy it Your own ID system to provide privileges to the machine representing them? We really need to think about when this identity will become so valuable that it may be abused. I think that in the future, having a human ID will become very important.

Sonal: I think this can be taken from a very positive perspective. For example, the government may be very willing to adopt this system. As you mentioned at the beginning, the government has many reasons to want this system. For example, handling passports or driving licenses involves many tedious processes, which are very low efficiency and great friction. And if this system is based on a decentralized blockchain owned and operated by the public, it will be more flexible and safer, and it can also bring many derivative tools to help the government improve efficiency.

Eddy: I ​​fully agree with this view. The reason why I hesitated a little is because even without the blockchain, we can design a programmable and useful database system. I intuitively feel that the government may be more inclined to have stricter control over such systems. But it is true that in some limits, the government may be more willing to trust the information stored by other governments on the same system, and in this case, they may choose to use the blockchain.

Decentralized autonomous chat robot

Sonal: Karma , the concept of your you proposed is "Decentralized Autonomous Chatbots " . This sounds more than only the AI ​​has a wallet, such as running in the trusted execution environment ( Tee ) . Can you introduce the role of TEE and the idea you are exploring?

Karma: In short, we are thinking about how to provide freedom of speech and business freedom for AI. At present, when we see some so -called decentralized chat robots, or some people claim that they have an AI running social media account, it is difficult for us to determine whether this is really an AI speech. For example, are anyone behind this? Are there humans filtering content? These questions are always difficult to answer. And this is where Tee can solve. Through Tee, you can generate key and passwords in the Secure Enclave. Even if you run AI calculations, you cannot directly control it. This method can prove that these keys are safely generated in hardware and cannot be accessed by external access. Although you can still turn off the system, it cannot manipulate its behavior. You can choose to filter its output. For example, select one of them after generating 100 contents, but you cannot interfere with the process of its generating content. Therefore, the core of this idea is how to remove "human intervention" as much as possible. An implementation method is to remove control of computing power, such as designing a decentralized network, and anyone can join. If the participants can prove that they have performed the reasoning task correctly and use the correct model, they can get rewards. In this way, when AI generates token, it can ensure that these token can be generated correctly by AI.

Robert: Why is the chat robot running independently or human intervention behind it?

Karma: This is a good question. We are mainly thinking about the ultimate goal of this technology. Judging from today's technology, this is no longer a science fiction, but it is completely feasible.

Sonal: Karma , the TEE ( trustworthy execution environment ) you mentioned is very interesting, it has already existed for a long time. For example, in distributed applications, TEE can protect the safety of some calculations without worrying about the safety of the entire environment. In recent years, Tee has attracted much attention in many new scenes. So, do you have to use Tee now? Or can you use other technologies to achieve the function you described?

**Karm