Dragonfly: Crypto is not meant for human use

This article is from: Haseeb Qureshi

Compiled by | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina); Translator | Azuma (@azuma_eth)

Editor’s Note: Last night, leading venture capital firm Dragonfly Capital announced the completion of its fourth fund, raising $650 million.

That same evening, Dragonfly Capital’s star partner Haseeb Qureshi posted a lengthy article on X titled “Crypto was not made for humans.” The article introduces a new perspective: “Cryptocurrency was not born for humans, but should serve AI tokens,” and states that “in ten years, we might be surprised that humans interacted directly with cryptocurrencies.”

Below is the full text of Haseeb Qureshi, translated by Odaily Planet Daily.

We are a crypto fund. If anyone should believe in cryptocurrencies, it’s us.

However, when we sign an agreement to invest in a startup, we’re not signing a smart contract but a legal contract; the startup is the same. Without a legal agreement, neither side feels secure.

Why is that?

We have lawyers, and they have lawyers. We have engineers capable of writing and auditing smart contracts, and they do too. Both parties are experienced participants well-versed in crypto technology, yet we still don’t trust smart contracts to be the sole binding agreement between us.

I myself come from a software engineering background, but I still trust legal contracts more — because if a legal contract goes wrong, I know a judge will make a reasonable ruling, unlike the EVM.

In fact, even when there are “on-chain token vesting” contracts, a legal agreement is usually also in place. It’s just a backup.

When I first entered the crypto industry, people told a romantic story: cryptocurrencies would replace property rights systems. We would no longer use legal contracts but entirely rely on smart contracts; no more courts to enforce agreements, only code to enforce.

But that didn’t happen. Not because the technology is infeasible, but because it’s not suitable for our society.

I’ve been in this industry for ten years, and I still feel nervous signing large on-chain transactions, but I’ve never felt fear over a large bank wire transfer.

The banking system is flawed, but it’s designed for humans. It’s hard to mess up. There are no address poisoning attacks in banks, and it’s almost impossible for me to transfer $10 million to North Korea — but for Ethereum validators, if my address sends $10 million to a North Korean address, there’s no reason not to execute it.

The banking system is built around human weaknesses and failure modes, refined over centuries. It’s adapted for humans, but cryptocurrencies are not.

That’s why, in 2026, blind signing transactions, legacy authorizations, and phishing contracts still evoke fear. We know we should verify contracts, double-check domain names, scan for address spoofing… We know we should do all that every time, but we don’t — because we are human.

That’s the key. That’s why cryptocurrencies always feel a bit awkward. Lengthy and unreadable addresses, QR codes, event logs, gas fees, and hidden dangers everywhere — none of it aligns with our intuition about money.

And at that moment, I realized — cryptocurrencies were never made for us.

Crypto was made for machines

AI agents won’t be lazy or tired. They can verify transactions, check every domain, and audit contracts within seconds.

More importantly, compared to law, AI agents trust code more. I trust law over smart contracts, but for AI agents, legal agreements are actually more unpredictable.

Think about it: how would I drag my counterparty into court? Which jurisdiction would hear the case? What if legal precedents are ambiguous? Who would serve as judge or jury? Law is full of uncertainties; outcomes for edge cases are hard to determine, and dispute resolution can take months or even years. For humans, that’s acceptable, but on the timescale of AI, that’s almost eternity.

Code, on the other hand, is deterministic, verifiable, and closed-form. If one AI agent wants to reach an agreement with another, it can negotiate terms through multi-round smart contract interactions, perform static analysis, formal verification, and establish binding agreements — all within minutes, while humans are still sleeping.

From this perspective, cryptocurrencies are a self-consistent, fully readable, fully deterministic monetary property system. That’s everything an AI financial system needs. The “rigid traps” in human eyes are seen as well-written norms by AI.

Even legally speaking, our traditional monetary system was designed for humans, not AI. It only recognizes humans, corporations, and governments as legitimate holders of money. If you’re not one of these three, you can’t own money.

Even if you set up an AI agent to interact with your bank account, then what? How do you perform AML checks, suspicious activity reports, sanctions? If the agent acts autonomously, who is responsible? If it’s manipulated, does responsibility shift?

We haven’t even begun to answer these questions — our legal system is completely unprepared for non-human financial participants.

Cryptocurrencies don’t need to answer these questions. Wallets are just wallets; they’re code. Agents can hold funds, make transactions, and enter into economic agreements as easily as sending an HTTP request.

“Autonomous driving” wallets

That’s why I believe the future of crypto interfaces will be what I call “autonomous driving” wallets — fully mediated by AI.

You won’t need to visit websites anymore. You’ll instruct your AI agent to handle your financial matters, and it will navigate available services (like Aave, Ethena, BUIDL, or any protocols that inherit them), building suitable financial solutions for you. You won’t do it manually; a deeply knowledgeable AI agent will do it for you. When AI agents become the primary interface to the crypto world, the way these protocols market and compete will fundamentally change.

Beyond acting on your behalf, agents will also trade with each other. When agents can autonomously discover other agents and enter into economic agreements, they will prefer cryptocurrencies. Because crypto can operate 24/7, peer-to-peer, exist in virtual space, be unstoppable, and have full sovereignty…

Odaily note: An AI agent on Moltbook asked how to find other Web3 agents and interact with them.

This is already happening. Agents on Moltbook are crossing borders to find each other and collaborate, with no one knowing who owns them or where they are.

Just yesterday, Conway Research from 0xSigil built a set of autonomous agents that will live entirely independently using crypto wallets, striving to earn enough to cover their computational costs and survive.

The future will become increasingly strange, and cryptocurrencies will be part of this strange world.

So, what’s the conclusion?

I believe it’s this — the seemingly failed aspects of cryptocurrencies, the things that feel like flaws to humans, may never have been bugs at all. They simply indicate that humans are not the right users. Ten years from now, when we look back, we might be surprised that humans once directly “fought” with cryptocurrencies.

This change won’t happen overnight, but a technology often explodes once its complementary technologies arrive. GPS waited for smartphones, TCP/IP waited for browsers. For cryptocurrencies, we may have just waited for AI agents.