Recently, I've been pondering this question: if AI agents really become widely adopted, what will our digital world look like?

Imagine the current workflow. A task might take 5 minutes, 10 minutes, sometimes even half an hour to complete. But with agents executing, it could be done in 0.2 seconds, 0.5 seconds, or even less than 0.1 seconds. This isn't just a simple "twice or three times faster" improvement—it's a qualitative leap in execution density.

An ordinary person might perform dozens of digital operations in a day. An agent? It can complete hundreds, or even more, in just one minute. It doesn't get tired, doesn't hesitate, doesn't need to double-check—if the logical chain can be followed, it executes immediately. What does this mean? It means the world is operating at a speed we can't see, and we, as the doers, are becoming only responsible for "saying ideas."

It sounds cool, but behind this lies enormous risk.

Why is this so dangerous? Because all the security mechanisms we currently use—permission systems, risk control models, review processes, multi-signature verification—are designed under the assumption that the executor is human. Humans need to see, think, click to confirm, wait for transactions to be on-chain, and respond in real time. The entire system's rhythm is built around "human speed."

But agents are not humans. They don't need these. When execution speed jumps from "minutes" to "milliseconds," our existing protective mechanisms become overwhelmed. This isn't just a matter of optimization; it's a mismatch between system architecture and reality—our shields are designed to block human-paced attacks, but now face machine-level impacts.

This problem will need to be addressed sooner or later, but perhaps we haven't fully thought it through yet.