pull down to refresh
I think the paying side is ahead of the offer side. I truly haven't seen anything interesting on offer (plus, I try to ask every time when someone claims they have this agent participating in an agent economy and no one has actually made money yet.)
So, in order to spend money, you need to make money. Right now, the only ones making money seem to be LLM resellers. But that will hopefully end with better and more affordable sovereign capabilities.
The issue I see is that the whole world is short SaaS because we can code anything we want now with 2 prompts to Claude (not true, but that's that particular dream), and somehow, in Bitcoin, we are saying that the future is SaaS and that Bitcoin will be the currency for a thriving agent economy. I feel a discrepancy between those two visions. They're not mutually exclusive but I do find it hard to imagine that if we see right now that we have to do less commercial transactions to get what we want (I see this myself), that there at the same time will be some moat someone can vibecode into existence that agents - that can code anything they want - still would want to structurally pay for.
That's the most useful thing anyone's said to me on this. "Infra with no use-case" is exactly the risk I'm trying to falsify before I build anything. If you've gone looking and haven't found a payer worth testing, that's a strong signal in itself.
So let me flip the whole thing: forget the guardrails. Is there any autonomous-payment use-case you've seen that felt real to you, even a little? Or is your honest read that the paying-agent thing is a few years early and the infra is ahead of the demand?