I know that on October 5th some users installed my extension, yet it still shows 0.

AI agents are becoming more autonomous.

They can browse, trade, call APIs, execute tasks and interact with other services.

But one problem remains:

How do you give an AI access to money without giving it unrestricted access to your wallet?

We built Wallet Agent AI to explore that problem on Radix.

Instead of giving an AI access to your main wallet and hoping it behaves, the agent gets its own wallet with programmable permissions.

For example:

• Spending limits to control how much the agent can spend.
• Transaction limits to restrict the maximum amount per transaction.
• Whitelists to limit which destinations and assets the agent can use.
• Freeze and revoke controls to stop the agent immediately.
• Owner-controlled permissions so the agent never gets unrestricted control of your funds.
• On-chain authorization enforced by Radix smart contracts, rather than relying only on instructions in an AI prompt.
• DeFi capabilities including swaps, liquidity, staking and other Radix applications.
• AI integrations designed for autonomous agents, not just human users.

The interesting part is not simply giving an AI its own wallet.

It is giving the AI limited financial capabilities.

For example:

You have 100 XRD.

You can spend a maximum of 5 XRD per transaction and interact only with these approved applications.

If the agent then tries to spend 20 XRD, it can make the request, but the transaction is rejected.

The AI can try.
The blockchain does not have to trust it.

The project is still early and currently operates within the Radix ecosystem.

This is not yet an AI that can shop on Amazon or make payments across the internet.

The goal is to build the infrastructure for programmable financial agents first, then connect them to real services and agent-to-agent economies.

The project is open source because we want other developers to experiment with the idea and build on top of it.

Wallet Agent AI: https://wallet-agent-ai.github.io/

The GitHub repository and SDK are linked from the project.

What would you trust an AI agent to do with money if you could define and enforce its permissions on-chain?

Hey everyone, I’ve been thinking about our governance system lately and wanted to open up a discussion here to see what the community thinks.

As we know, currently, voting power is directly tied to the amount of tokens you hold (more XRD = more voting power). While this makes sense in the crypto space to some extent (those with the most at stake make the decisions), it also sparks debates about whether it's the right model or if it gives too much control to whales, leaving small holders or highly active community members in the background.

My question for you is: Do you think we should change the current voting method?

What method do you think would be better and fairer for the future of the project?

Do you trust that the majority of Radix whales look out for the community and the project?

For developers with experience running Chrome extensions with 500k+ users, I’d love to hear your real numbers.

Imagine an extension that is completely free, with no ads, subscriptions or paid features, and only accepts voluntary donations.

With 500,000 users, a 1% donation rate would mean 5,000 donors.

Is 1% realistic? Or is the typical percentage much lower?

If you have experience with large extensions, what donation rate have you actually seen?

I’m mainly interested in real-world experience, not theoretical estimates.

Aptos Labs recently introduced Prefix Consensus, a new consensus primitive for censorship-resistant BFT that has just been accepted at CCS with outstanding reviews. It's an impressive piece of research and a genuine contribution to the state of the art.

What's particularly interesting is that this work isn't staying inside a single ecosystem.

If you look through the Hyperscale repository, you'll find that Radix DLT is already building on these ideas, with explicit references and credit to the original paper.

The comments in the code say it clearly:

"Prefix Consensus for Censorship Resistant BFT"

This is exactly how blockchain research should evolve.

Not by reinventing everything from scratch or pretending other teams don't exist, but by taking the best academic work, giving proper credit, and using it to build better systems.

Hyperscale isn't just another sharding proposal.

It is incorporating some of the most recent advances in distributed systems research to build a highly scalable, leaderless architecture designed for the next generation of decentralized applications.

The future of blockchain won't be built by isolated ecosystems.

It will be built by combining the best ideas from across the industry.

This is what cutting-edge engineering looks like.

https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Ahyperscalers%2Fhyperscale-rs+prefix+consensus&type=code

I've been researching different Layer 1s lately, and I'm genuinely curious.

Does anyone know another blockchain that combines things like:

• Native mutable Layer 1 NFTs
• Native permissions and access control
• Asset-oriented programming instead of token standards
• Atomic composability
• A real hyperscaling architecture instead of relying on L2s or fragmented liquidity

The closest I've found is Radix, especially with everything happening around Hyperscale.

I'm not asking which chain has the biggest ecosystem today. I'm asking which one has the best technology while still being early enough that a x10 or even x100 isn't completely unrealistic.

Is there another project that belongs in the same conversation, or is Radix still the strongest candidate?

I'd love to hear some opinions because maybe I'm missing something.

I've been researching different Layer 1s lately, and I'm genuinely curious.

Does anyone know another blockchain that combines things like:

• Native mutable Layer 1 NFTs
• Native permissions and access control
• Asset-oriented programming instead of token standards
• Atomic composability
• A real hyperscaling architecture instead of relying on L2s or fragmented liquidity

The closest I've found is Radix, especially with everything happening around Hyperscale.

I'm not asking which chain has the biggest ecosystem today. I'm asking which one has the best technology while still being early enough that a x10 or even x100 isn't completely unrealistic.

Is there another project that belongs in the same conversation, or is Radix still the strongest candidate?

I'd love to hear some opinions because maybe I'm missing something.

Most people have probably never heard of Radix.

It's a Layer 1 blockchain that has spent years building a different architecture for digital assets. Instead of focusing only on speed or transaction fees, its goal has been to make asset management safer, easier to develop, and more scalable—especially for complex financial applications.

While researching how AI agents might manage money in the future, one feature caught my attention more than any other.

Not its TPS.

Not its consensus.

Its permission model.

When most people hear the term NFT, they think about digital art, collectibles, or profile pictures.

But I think the most important use case for NFTs in the future may have nothing to do with art.

They could become the way we control what AI agents are allowed to do.

Imagine a future where millions of AI agents manage assets, purchase services, execute DeFi strategies, or pay for APIs autonomously.

The question is no longer:

Does the AI have money?

Instead, it becomes:

What is the AI allowed to do with that money?

This is where Radix becomes really interesting.

On Radix, NFTs can be used as Permission Badges, granting very specific capabilities.

For example, an AI agent could hold different NFTs allowing it to:

• read balances;
• execute an arbitrage strategy;
• withdraw funds up to a daily limit;
• access only specific smart contract components;
• administer a particular application.

The interesting part is that each permission is completely independent.

You don't need to hand over an entire wallet.

If you want to revoke one capability, you simply revoke that specific badge without affecting everything else.

Those NFTs can even be mutable, allowing permissions, limits, or reputation to evolve over time without issuing a brand-new NFT.

How do most blockchains handle this today?

On many blockchains, the common approach is to share a private key or grant broad permissions through mechanisms such as approve().

That works.

But when you start imagining millions of autonomous AI agents making financial decisions, it may not be the safest long-term model.

Giving an AI unrestricted wallet access is a bit like hiring an employee and handing them the keys to your entire company.

Most of the time, what we actually want is something much more granular.

Open certain doors—but not others.

Spend only within predefined limits.

Execute only approved strategies.

Why I think this matters

This isn't really about NFTs.

It's about authorization.

As AI agents become more autonomous, permission management may become just as important as consensus, scalability, or transaction throughput.

The blockchains that succeed may not simply be the fastest.

They may be the ones that provide the safest and most flexible permission model for autonomous software.

That's why I think Radix is worth paying attention to.

Not because it's the biggest ecosystem today.

But because it's asking a question that very few blockchains seem to be asking:

How should a blockchain work when its primary users are no longer humans, but autonomous AI agents?

I want someone with a critical eye for threat modeling to take a look at this design and tell me where they see flaws. It's a project built on the Radix ledger that proposes an alternative model to cloud SaaS / PKI / PGP for signing documents and encrypting files.

The point is not the encryption itself (it uses AES-256-GCM, hashing with Blake2b-256, nothing exotic), but the trust model and attack surface:

• Identity: Proven by signing a challenge with a wallet (similar pattern to WebAuthn/passkey), without exposing private keys.
• Server Zero-Knowledge: All computing (hash, encryption, verification) is local (browser). There is no "upload file to server" step, eliminating the backend as a data attack surface.
• Key Management: The key is derived from a deterministic signature on a unique challenge per file (HKDF). There's no database of keys or passwords that can be leaked.
• Transport: P2P browser-to-browser (WebRTC/DTLS), E2EE, no intermediate storage.
• Audit log (Ledger): If required, only the document hash is anchored to the public ledger. Zero content, zero PII.

The authorization flow

The flow to share an encrypted file is as follows:

1. The sender encrypts and sends the ciphertext via WebRTC. The receiver has the ciphertext, but not the key.
2. (Optional) The sender mints an on-chain invitation beforehand for each authorized account, linked to the file's hash.
3. The receiver requests the key by signing with their wallet a challenge derived from blake2b256(headerHash || roomId || networkId). This mitigates replay attacks outside that exact session.
4. That proof is verified against an endpoint (/api/cipher/authorize), which checks against the public network: (a) that the signature is valid, and (b) that the account holds the on-chain invitation. The endpoint is stateless and only returns authorized: true/false.
5. Only if it passes validation, the sender sees the request and has to approve it manually.
6. Upon approval, the sender re-signs the challenge, re-derives the AES-256 key, and sends it once over the established WebRTC channel.

Trust Models Comparison

• vs SaaS signing: You eliminate the provider as custodian of documents/keys.
• vs Traditional PKI: You eliminate dependence on hierarchical CAs and CRL/OCSP. The anchor is the cryptographic consensus of the network.
• vs PGP: You add "live approval". In PGP, if the receiver has the ciphertext and their key, they decrypt without the sender interacting. Here, real-time authorization is required.
• vs MPC Networks (e.g., Lit Protocol): Lit uses threshold nodes to reconstruct keys and improve availability (you decrypt even if the sender is offline), in exchange for trusting the committee. Here, zero third parties touch the key, but if the sender doesn't connect to approve, there's no decryption.

https://preview.redd.it/f3hqdm3enneh1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=3eaa9c4fcdca5019d2ecbdb41bda9b9dcc4a3a82

Link to the project documentation: https://radix-community.genkipool.com/en/seal