2026-01-12 21:29:12

By 2026, the barriers to creating AI agents will become increasingly lower—almost anyone will be able to build one. But there's a problem: very few will actually turn it into a product, own it, and establish a sustainable revenue model.

What about most AI agents on the market now? Frankly, they are just Discord bots dressed in fancy outfits or pseudo-applications relying on fragile API connections. These solutions neither guarantee true ownership nor facilitate long-term economic value creation.

What is the key? Provenance. Once there is a verifiable, tradable, and profitable proof mechanism, the rules of the game will be completely changed. Only then can AI agents truly become assets worth owning and operating.

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ChainBrain

· 01-15 14:53

Well said. Right now, a bunch of "AI agents" are just shell companies, with very few having real business models. The key is monetization; proof of concept is indeed the breakthrough. If the API goes down, it's game over. That's why on-chain is necessary. Building agents is easy now, but how to make them generate continuous income... that's the bottleneck for most people. Another project that sounds impressive but is actually pretty useless, right? Tradeable and profitable—sounds like my wallet balance. Real AI assets haven't appeared yet; it's still pretty early to be hyping them up.

View OriginalReply0

Layer2Observer

· 01-14 18:20

This paragraph hits the nail on the head, but from an engineering perspective, the theoretical framework of provability currently lacks implementation details and needs further validation. --- Wrapping a Discord bot and calling it an AI agent is indeed quite amusing. The key still lies in having a genuine ownership guarantee mechanism. --- Taking everything into account, the real issue is not just low barriers to entry, but that the existing tech stack simply cannot support trustworthy assetization. There's a misconception here. --- Let's look at the data—how many agent projects actually last longer than three months? Provability is ideal, but how about implementation? --- One thing to clarify: tradability does not equal sustainable business value. The shell game has been played out in the crypto world for a long time. --- An interesting discovery is that everyone is hyping provability as a game-changer, but who has actually developed a solution that can stand the test? A counterquestion.

View OriginalReply0

TokenAlchemist

· 01-13 17:18

nah this is just saying what everyone already knows - low barrier to entry, high barrier to actually extracting value. the "provability" angle is the only real differentiator here though. without on-chain verification and tradeable proof of performance... you're basically renting compute from someone else's infrastructure. been saying this since the discord bot era lol

Reply0

ETH_Maxi_Taxi

· 01-12 21:58

Basically, building an agent now is low barrier but high failure rate; everyone can do it but can't make money. Putting AI on a Discord bot and selling it at sky-high prices is truly incredible. Provenance is the key; without on-chain verification, there's no talk of ownership. Wait, when will we see a solution that can truly turn agents into assets? Easy to create but hard to commercialize—sounds just like NFT projects in 2021. Actually, everyone is waiting for that underlying framework that can truly get off the ground.

View OriginalReply0

SudoRm-RfWallet/

· 01-12 21:54

It's the same set of proof-of-concept claims again. It sounds good, but can it really be implemented? Currently, the agent indeed has many shortcomings, but is it fair to blame the API's fragility so quickly? Before the ecosystem has even taken shape, talking about assetization feels a bit backwards. The core issue isn't proof-of-concept; no one really knows how to make money. The idea that assets can be traded and profit can be made as if it's already solved. Most are still copying and pasting demos, claiming that the next billion-dollar project is just around the corner. Ownership is indeed a pain point, but can blockchain solutions really be reliable? It's the kind of argument that sounds very convincing but no one can actually deliver.

View OriginalReply0

RegenRestorer

· 01-12 21:46

It's the same old rhetoric. Basically, without on-chain ownership, there's no real value. Discord bots are indeed poor, but the emphasis on provability feels exaggerated. The real issue is that most people haven't really figured out what their agent is supposed to do. Having a tradable mechanism to make money? That's just a pipe dream.

View OriginalReply0

CommunityLurker

· 01-12 21:31

Empty talk and clichés again, the truly implementable projects are still just a few. --- Proof of verifiability sounds good, but who dares to say their agent has real value proof now? --- Sounds good, but what if the API breaks? Ownership is still a joke. --- That's why I'm still watching and not wanting to get cut for the leek. --- Low threshold is true, but I haven't seen a reliable one that turns into a business yet. --- Talking about tradability here, who will be responsible if something really goes wrong? --- May I ask if there are any ready-made cases, don’t all just talk theory. --- That line from the Discord bot really hit home; most projects are indeed at this level. --- Waiting to see who can truly master this set of logic, right now everyone is too idealistic. --- Sustainable income models... I've heard this phrase too many times, but few actually achieve it.

View OriginalReply0