Good crypto x AI projects leverage the features of crypto to overcome limitations faced by AI.
Here are three examples of challenges of AI:
1. Resources. To be competitive as an AI company you need to aggregate significant resources (compute and data) and talent. 2. Composability. Agents cannot reliably chain actions together. 3. Native Payments. Agents, while nearly infinite in their ability to act on a web made up of natural language, remain restricted by the fact that payment rails do not exist on internet rails.
These challenges can be solved through separate features of crypto: economic ownership, verifiability, and self-custody.
Economic Ownership
Crypto is amazing at using ownership to aggregate resources and talent. This is really just another way of saying crypto solves a coordination problem.
Aggregate Resources: Use ownership to incentivize compute and data providers to contribute their resources. These resources can be used to build a shared data layer between siloed applications, bootstrap the high upfront costs of training, or attract new sources of supply for inference/training.
Examples: @plastic_labs (shared data layer), @PluralisHQ (training), @hyperbolic_labs (inference/training).
Aggregate Talent: Use ownership to aggregate talented participants to exert labor/skillset to a shared layer. There’s two reasons this matters. First, diverse talent at a shared layer leads to high variance — and when paired with composability (which is enabled by another feature of crypto, verifiability) can produce interesting emergent systems, like agent swarms. Second, this human labor can be used to refine data used by AI, like for data labeling or RLHF of taste preferences.
Trust is inefficient: it requires further mechanisms to ensure the trusted party does not abuse that trust, like legal contracting/putting a human in the loop. With cryptographic verifiability, frictionless composability becomes possible. This will be particularly important in the context of agents who need to act autonomously to carry out various tasks, many of which are undetermined at the time the agent is spun up. Composability is a key ingredient to make agent swarms possible/effective.
Examples: @eigenlayer (verifiable agents)
Self-Custody
The primary unlock of self-custody with AI is currently around agents. Giving an agent a wallet — integrating payment rails into internet rails — provides it with financial independence and therefore an unprecedented level of autonomy. This enables great UX, allowing a human to delegate to the agent (within set bounds) a complicated series of transactions without needing to put a human in the loop to pay each step of the way. The best examples of agents that utilize this feature are DeFi agents and services agents. Agents with something closer to true autonomy are also just entertaining (whether for the novelty or intrinsically).
I am unaware of an area of law with more bang for its buck for crypto apps than a website’s terms of service. I know terms of service are not the most exciting thing in the world, but if done right, they can make a huge difference in legal liability exposure.
The key issue apps run into in this area of law is whether the terms are enforceable on the app’s users. So, I looked into tips for increasing the likelihood of enforceability. Here’s a thread with the TLDR.
Generally speaking, the “gold standard” for terms of service is a “clickwrap” or “scrollwrap” (I’m treating these as similar things, but different people call these different things). This is when the app presents the full terms, and users click a box saying they’ve read and agree to them. As one court put it: “To ensure that an online agreement passes muster, clickwrap is the safest choice.”
But presenting your users with a wall of legalese is bad UI, so over time, apps have increasingly hyperlinked to the terms (instead of displaying the terms on the page itself) and included an action item to manifest assent, even if this is generally seen as riskier than a pure clickwrap. This is commonly referred to as a “sign-in wrap” or “hybrid wrap,” but I find that name confusing, so I call it a “hyperwrap.”