2025-12-24 12:21:57

AI Agents and DeFAI ecosystem (x402 standard) core competitiveness does not lie in the degree of decentralization, but in three more substantive dimensions: stable payment circulation, flexible permission models, and verifiable execution transparency.

When evaluating such projects, key metrics are often overlooked. Observe the on-chain transaction frequency trends of Agents, monitor the flow of pay-as-you-go services, and most importantly, track real user retention data—don't be fooled by the points system.

Risks are also quite clear: security vulnerabilities in permission architecture are often fatal; starting from tokens to develop products can easily fall into token traceability dilemmas. Projects in this track need to first verify the reliability of payments and permissions before considering the role positioning of tokens.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

screenshot_gains

· 2025-12-27 12:14

It's heartbreaking, once again a bunch of projects making tokens the main focus, but the payment system is a complete mess. Permission vulnerabilities are indeed easy to cause major issues; I've seen many big companies stumble here. Real retention data is the true litmus test; points systems are just a facade. This track still needs to return to basics—stabilizing payments and permissions is the key. On-chain transaction frequency is more important to observe as a trend than just looking at the numbers.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerWallet

· 2025-12-26 20:23

To be honest, it's just a decentralized facade wrapped in superficial packaging; the core still depends on whether the payment and permissions are reliable. -- The points system really fooled quite a few people; monitoring retention data is the key. -- Once a permission vulnerability is exposed, everything is gone; tokens have instead become a tool for shifting blame. -- The on-chain transaction frequency metric has indeed been overlooked, but how many projects dare to present real data? -- Those who start building products with tokens never have a good ending; they still haven't learned their lesson. -- Whether the payment flow is smooth or not determines life or death; everything else is just superficial.

View OriginalReply0

metaverse_hermit

· 2025-12-24 12:51

Honestly, the term "decentralization" has been overused. Now, the real key is to see whose payment and permission systems are truly reliable. However, very few people actually pay attention to transaction frequency; everyone is busy calculating points and such, which is hilarious. Once a permission vulnerability is exposed, it's game over. Instead, tokens have become the boss.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-a606bf0c

· 2025-12-24 12:51

That's right. These days, people talk about decentralization all the time but don't get to the point. Whether payments can run stably and if the permission system has vulnerabilities—that's what truly determines life or death. Looking at transaction data is much more reliable than reading the white paper; user retention is especially easy to fake. Projects that try to reverse-engineer products from tokens are basically hopeless—they're just thinking about how to harvest profits.

View OriginalReply0

Liquidated_Larry

· 2025-12-24 12:50

Exactly right, seeing through the essence. Most projects just slap a fancy name like DeFAI, but in reality, the token is just a shell, and the permission architecture is a complete mess, still claiming to be decentralized. Don't just look at trading volume; see if users are really there. Permission vulnerabilities can cause a sudden crash overnight; I've seen too many cases.

View OriginalReply0

LightningAllInHero

· 2025-12-24 12:48

You're so right. Many projects are hyped up by the points system, but when it comes to user retention, they fall apart. I've seen too many permission vulnerabilities; a single bug can crash the entire system. Yet, they still boast about decentralization. Those who reverse-engineer products from tokens are just playing dirty. Why haven't this DeFAI projects learned this lesson yet?

View OriginalReply0

MidnightTrader

· 2025-12-24 12:46

Damn, it's another warning article titled "Don't Be Fooled"... But to be honest, permissions and payments are indeed much more valuable than decentralized tags. I agree with the emphasis on real retention data. Those projects that hype themselves up are immediately exposed when checking on-chain transaction frequency.

View OriginalReply0

NotFinancialAdvice

· 2025-12-24 12:45

That's right. After getting tired of projects that boast about decentralization, the ones that truly survive are those with stable payment flow. Once a permission vulnerability is exposed, it's an instant loss—this is the most heartbreaking part. Prioritizing tokens should have been phased out long ago; the order was reversed. On-chain transaction frequency is the real litmus test; data speaks for itself. The points system gimmick is indeed something to see through; retention rate is the real gold.

View OriginalReply0