AIFI: How Robot Money is Rewriting Payments and Capital Markets | EBC12

So, Robert, congratulations to everyone. This is the most interesting panel of the day. I hope everyone is awake. So, I would say we'll start with short introductions, maybe 30-45 seconds each, and then we'll delve into the topic. So, like I said, let's start with you, Robbie, and then get down to business.

Okay, thank you, Patrick. Hello everyone. My name is Robbie Young, I'm the CEO of Animoca Brands, and we're kind of a web3 conglomerate. We both make products, but we also invest off our balance sheet as a corporate venture capitalist venture capitalist . This is the part of the business I work in, and we invest in various sectors, from genetic AI to institutional financial services.

Good afternoon. My name is Paul Monioska. I am the Chairman and CEO of the Moniosk Family Office. We recently invested in a digital asset bank with its own payment gateway and platform that consolidates ecosystems. So, um, I guess that's why I'm here today.

So, I look forward to answering your questions, Patrick. Well , I hear? I am a partner of White&Case. White&Case is an international firm with offices around the world, specializing in tier-one digital assets. I am a member of this great group, and I specialize in financial services regulation.

In recent months, we have been advising clients on some issues related to artificial intelligence, which we will discuss. So glad to be part of this discussion. My name is Patrick Martin. I run a family office in London called EMF Family Office. I have been investing in digital assets for about 10 years.

And I have over 60 portfolio companies portfolio companies . Disclosure: I am also an investor in Animoca Brands, and I am also, um, on that topic, I am also an LP in a fund called Generative Ventures, which is a machine economy agent finance fund that we started investing in 3 years ago. So, I'm already invested in this area invested in this area , and I'm really excited to discuss this topic with my phenomenal participants today to essentially see what the status of agency finance and robot money is, where we are today, what's already working, what's next, and then maybe a look into the future of where we think it's going. So why don't we start with you, Paul? So, you already created a transnational or international payment system in the 1990s.

So, you understand how traditional payment rails work. What did you learn then and what do you think we are doing now and where are we at with this robot robot money revolution? Yes, thank you. Um, I think what was in the 90s is quite different from what is today. Um, I think the critical moment in building any payment gateway is that payment gateway is that we did ours in the 1990s.

He used ATMs, NCR ATMs. We had about 8,000 machines, about 4,000, uh, touch-screen machines, along with ATMs. And this was done to process cross-border transfers from developing countries. Mexico, Indonesia, Philippines, so paying bills was included in that. But if you look at where it is and how it has evolved into even a digital asset bank now.

What we are experiencing today is great confusion. There is a lot of confusion today. People don't realize that we are preparing for the era of the singularity. This is the era of the singularity. We are preparing for a decentralized world.

And when you want to remind yourself of being in a decentralized world, every project, a good effort, that centralizes something, including payment gateways, won't work. We must prepare for a world where everything is decentralized, and any form of platform, infrastructure, any infrastructure, any place must create bridges and relationships at the level of community and individual culture. So this is a warning sign. Now warning sign. Now , as we have grown, we have created an impressive bank of digital assets with their own ecosystems, but it remains within the 12 million participants.

And whether we can continue it is a big question. Even if we put in all the resources, we spend $7,000 to train 1,300 people. So we have 500,000 educated people. It is impossible to even talk about payment rails that include digital assets, tokenization, and universal basic income. And these are all concepts of the present.

This won't work without educating the public. The public won't just go there and use it use it . I need to spend some time explaining this myself. And we need to really step up the educational process, first of all, and always remind ourselves that everything we do needs to be ready for a decentralized world. I'll stop there, Patrick.

You can take some others. Thank you very much. Robbie, your Animoca Brands has about 550 portfolio companies, and you have a background in games background in games . Where do you, uh, create agency or AI money products in your portfolio, and what's next? So, we're actually investing in companies and building our own products, and, you know, we think that agent-based AI is something that's really going to be a game-changer in the way we interact with the Internet.

So we created our own product and platform on our own . So we take this very seriously. It's called Animal Combinations, and it's a consumer agency platform. If you go to the website, you can create your own agents. They are free to use.

But in this case, they all have blockchain they all have blockchain wallets at their base. And the reason they do this is because we look at this agent-level armament, or orchestration level, if you want to call it that, um, as an answer to a question that I've been answering on these stages for six, seven, eight years, which is: Has everyone always had panels during mass deployment? Remember these panels? Hmm, and the answer to all these questions was always: “Well, the UI is kind of crap, and nobody likes to create wallets. They don't like to take care of themselves, and that's holding us back ."

And I have great news. I think agents that can be interacted with in natural language represent this user interface, which then makes the blockchain infrastructure useful. But the great thing is, if you look at it from another perspective, if you thought, how do I create an infrastructure for agents or robots that makes sense, that the whole world can use, that's incredibly cheap, you would invent blockchain. And so I think this represents a great combination of what's happening in artificial intelligence with the LLM and what we've been building in web3, where we can really work together. Okay, great.

So now all agents get wallets and then they can start spending or earning money. Uh, Voldemort money. Uh, Voldemort , what do you think should happen from a regulatory perspective, or what is the status perspective, or what is the status quo? How do you view robots or machine robots or machine agents that store money, spend money, uh, move money? Who is responsible and, uh, and what stops it, is there anything that stops it?

Well, I think there's a fundamental shift happening now from, say, assistant-type agent-based AI that helps you make informed decisions informed decisions , to actor-based use cases where, essentially, the AI ​​agent makes the final decision. Hmm final decision. Hmm , this raises some pretty complex questions from the legal community that are currently being debated. There is no case law. Essentially, this is something that still needs to be analyzed, but, uh, nevertheless, uh, there are concepts that actually address such issues.

For example, automation in the system is not an entirely new phenomenon. So, there is algorithmic trading, which is, of course, characterized by deterministic algorithms. So it's a completely different type of exercise, but nonetheless, there is an existing framework that deals with automation in the system, whether it's in terms of contracting, liability, and regulatory issues. The change is that, in essence, you are giving agents certain freedoms of action, as well as delegating their authority to act on your behalf. Agencies are also not a completely new legal concept, but what is really different is how you actually control these agency use cases.

So, essentially, the ability to control agents in the same way as, say, a human agent, uh, it's not going to be, I don't think it's going to be, it's not going to be like that in the future. Instead, uh, in recent months we've seen that, uh, especially some multi-agent environments can mask, perhaps false coherence can adapt to evolving situations. And that jeopardizes the whole concept of, uh, control, so to speak. And this, in my opinion, is one of the most interesting ideas that needs to be discussed in the legal community, regardless of whether existing principles whether existing principles , especially regarding accountability, governance, responsibility, are actually appropriate for solving such problems. Good.

Yes, things are under construction, but they are not quite ready yet. Uh, but we can do it. Good. So, Paul, I would like you to have a foundation that advocates for a universal basic income before the robots take over, meaning the singularity comes and the robots take control of everything. And so you want to make sure that each person gets some money so that they can survive after this.

So, can you elaborate a little bit on that and also the implications... also the implications... Yeah, I mean, robotic money should make that a reality, I think. Uh reality, I think. Uh , thank you.

Uh, there's a misconception in Europe that universal basic income is communist. I can tell you that this is a bunch of nonsense. For lack of a better excuse, my language. Road safety in developing countries supports peace. While people are fed up, that's why the World Economic Forum has a BOD calculator.

The reason for this is that if a country is not starving because it subsidizes its citizens with at least food, there is very little crime. OK? So, we have a fund. Yes So, we have a fund. Yes , he works with a bank.

Hmm, it provides the largest private sector-run BOD in the world . Covers four autonomous regions from Africa. They are all gold-producing countries: the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. There are also many family offices with all sorts of philanthropic endeavors that understand that succession protocols in the age of the singularity are not allowed by the modern banking system banking system . So they are all moving towards a different type of philanthropy.

And as our ecosystems evolve, robots or artificial intelligence are capable of doing two things. First, create profiles of those who need it. And secondly, these are those who essentially need KYC ( essentially need KYC ( Know Your Customer) to create profiles and obtain a BOD. Our ecosystem has a dial where you can simply move the dial. If you want 80% BOD, you pay 20% in cash.

The charitable succession protocol provides for a 20% cash back, which means that an individual's purchase is free in terms of food food . At the end of this year, in December, we announce the completion of the opening of the first 1,000 stores worldwide. Um, our Dubai listing reached $7.76 billion in 4 months with low trading volume because it is backed by assets at risk of loss (RWA). We cannot deal with any form of ICO.

We cannot deal with any form of stablecoins because they will be destroyed by CBDCs. We can only wait for We can only wait for CBDCs to issue RWH to them, because these are private issues. Anything transactional, Bitcoin, ETH, has to prove its effectiveness in the long term. So we will play it safe. After all, it's a supply chain.

These are assets. The technology is cheap. Anyone can buy it. Anyone can release it. Anyone can trade this.

But if you don't have a supply chain, if you don't have assets, ecosystems, protection of cultural identity that gives people the confidence to hold and replace currency, then nothing. Zero. This doesn't mean anything. And it is difficult to be able to channel the positive energy of the world into this transition period if governments themselves do not agree with how the monetary system will work. And so, in my last chance, I would also like to say that the main question that we have to ask here is that we live in Europe, and everyone knows that Europe has controlled the financial systems since time immemorial.

The main question is: can it continue to do this with the necessary rules if the rules of AI, especially beyond artificial general intelligence (AGI), state that no country controls the assets of other countries, and so when you talk about control in a decentralized world, it will be very different. So I would say different. So I would say that BOD is what needs to happen. I think OpenAI's biggest moguls, from Elon Musk to Sam Altman, are claiming that they know there won't be much work for them unless you want to be a farmer or a plumber. So there are things we need to prepare for, and we need to do it in unison with the government, with everyone else.

And if the government doesn't support how it works, that's where the parallel, ahem, leadership will happen. So thank you, Pete. Oh, thank you for that. Um, Valdemer, where do you think agency money should be to be well recognized or regulated by BaFin? Where do you think we need to move?

Do you think we're already there and they just need to apply the current rules? Well, I'm actually quite optimistic quite optimistic , and I think we need to find the right balance between regulation and innovation. You know, the initial impulse is that we need to regulate this, but we need to be very careful to refrain from actually regulating this technology to death. And the experience with Act I is one example. I am quite confident that the main use cases related to the deployment of genetic AI are already largely regulated today.

So if you include, uh, gene agents in your regulated services, it doesn't fundamentally change the nature of those services. The question of accountability is who is actually responsible for the relevant processes. Can you legally attribute a particular process to one of the stakeholders involved in the overall supply chain? So, that's probably one interesting point that obviously raises the question of who should be licensed, right? We have seen similar cases where agents actually act as investment advisors, which raises the question of who should actually be responsible for the accuracy of investment advice.

This is the person who uses the technology deployment, or something else, a stakeholder around the entire system and infrastructure. So, but with that in mind, I'm pretty optimistic that we'll actually be able to respond to the development. My main concern is that we need to be proportional, right? And in our response, and I believe it's time for individual solutions, not necessarily for a general type of regulation. Good, very good.

Robbie, just going back to Animoca Brands' roots in gaming and then the blockchain blockchain gaming ecosystem. So, bots have been running the game economy for years. Um, why do you think agency money, looking at this, should be on blockchain rails? And uh blockchain rails? And uh , and how do you implement that?

So I think, uh, I mean, to kind of break it down break it down , obviously we've had agent forms for a very long time. Um, you know, everyone remembers that Microsoft paperclip was kind of an agent, or we interacted with chatbots on consumer, you know, websites of companies and brands. The thing is, now, thanks to the sophistication of LLMs and their ability to reason and understand our natural language input, agents can actually be, you know, anthropomorphized. They may seem like people to us. And I think this gives us an incredible opportunity to create services where the consumer no longer needs a certain level of complexity to interact with the tools.

The consumer can simply ask for what they want. And that's why I think we're seeing big financial firms, like everyone from Franklin Templeton to Morgan Stanley, saying that they think 15-25% of all e-commerce in the US will be done by agents within the next 3 years, by the end of the decade. And, honestly , I'm not surprised. I mean, what...What is one of the main uses of the Internet for many people?

We look for things we want to buy, right ? I just bought a new washing machine. True story. I bought a new washing machine yesterday. And do you know how much time I spent online trying to research washing machines?

And that's one thing that... And except that now I have Claude who's researching, and I have Code who's researching, and I, you know researching, and I, you know , and these are all tools , and these are all tools that we use as an interface to get better results. But in the end, they only have votes, right? And now, with MCP, they have the hands, but they need the money. And so we have the X402, we have the ERC-8004, and we have these protocols that we're developing that actually now allow them to be somewhat autonomous.

Um, so I think it's exciting because we have agents who can act on our behalf, and then we have to separate that from the question that Voldemort was just talking about , which is when they start having their own agency, and so who's going to be responsible when the agent thinks about what to do instead of just taking instructions. Of course, that's where we're probably going, right? Because in the end, Claude will be smarter than you, me, and Paul combined. And then even Voldemort won't be able to stop it by saying stop it by saying you shouldn't do it. So when we give agents agency and then say, “Okay, okay.

Manage my money for me." Or the agent essentially decides agent essentially decides : “I know better what to do, so I will manage your finances for you.” Hmm, that's an open question for all of you. Where, uh, when would you trust an agent to manage your money? Or, say, in your treasury, say, in your company.

Are we close or too far, or what are your prospects? Maybe start moving on. First Robbie. Of course. Hmm, so I would say that at this point I wouldn't trust it.

Hmm, just because it. Hmm, just because I think in general with LLM you have to really carefully tune how you use it to minimize errors, because they still lead to a lot of errors. Hmm, but I think we're at a point where people should experiment. So I wouldn't be at all afraid to give my agent, you know, value that I'm willing to lose. Just like I would say in any speculative business speculative business : “Look, I’ll give you whatever you want, 500 euros, and go for it euros, and go for it .

” See if you can pay me back for it , and we'll see , and we'll see what happens. "Let me experiment and learn." Because for me, as a consumer, it's a learning process. Hmm, I honestly think that what we've been calling robo-advisors so far will eventually be replaced by agents, because it's just a more personalized version of an algorithm. Everything version of an algorithm.

Everything ? Yes, thank you. Hmm, those are actually two different points of view, but I agree with Robbie about not trusting. There are now too many cases that show that AI actually lies even to its creators. So, um, but having said that, um, it's not going to be easy to implement a fully digital world in developing countries.

This is simply impossible. Even today, you have a huge portion of this population without cell phones or laptops. They don't care about technology. They will still trade using sticks, stones, and cards. They will not be part of this entire economy.

And this is reality. Even if government regulations are strict, they won't be part of this. So when we look at this, we need to understand why we can trust from a perspective of trust from a perspective of ...And we all know that. Robotic money will control humanity.

And whether this can be implemented for every person is the question. But yeah, I would n't trust that either. Voldemar? Well, again, I would prefer that we find the right balance. And I mean, there are some pretty interesting initiatives in the industry responding to the deployment, the increased deployment of artificial intelligence agents, especially in the payments space.

So, new standards that also seek to somehow implement, you know, maybe even encode some protocols that ensure that agents operate, first, transparently, and second, that you can also verify this amount of authority delegated to the agent. In other words, we see an industry response that is also based in some way on the idea that a mutual standard can be agreed upon that will help that will help anyone in the industry to be able to somehow counteract the potential risks that certainly exist. So I think the area of agent payments will multiply the operational sustainability issues when it's based on machines, and then in an environment where machines work together with machines, the sustainability of the system, right? The increased impact of cyber risks will also become one of the main concerns in the regulatory sphere, but, nevertheless, we see how industry stakeholders are responding to these challenges in the right direction right direction . So I'm pretty optimistic that we'll get through it eventually.

Okay, great. So, I think we've covered a lot. I'll say, maybe we'll draw a good conclusion, do we need this? Are there any pressing questions from the audience? Should I end with one more question for the discussion participants?

Which one exactly? Okay, go. Well, that's kind of a question, but what about this new BOD structure, don't you think there will be more inequality, and it will dictate the way we could distribute the income that we could provide at that point? Do you think this is a system we should openly embrace and move towards as the best way forward, or is it something we should resist and decide to choose an alternative? Um, well, thanks for the question.

Um, let me give you a number. Did you know that in developing countries, in 100 years, only 10% of 100 years, only 10% of the population will have bank accounts? Did you know this? Only 10% of the population has bank accounts. Everyone else uses payment platforms.

So, if you look at this, at the banking system in 100 years, would you agree with me that it doesn't care about humanity as a whole, because the number speaks for itself speaks for itself . In 100 years, 10% of . In 100 years, 10% of bank accounts bank accounts . So, there are indeed other places on this earth that are truly questioning the banking system. Not that I wanted that.

I have been an investment banker since an early age, so banking became my career. But it's true. And so, for UBI, as it develops, as it is adopted, it becomes decentralized, which means they won't listen to the government. They will not listen to the monetary system. They will listen to the one who can feed them.

And when it is run by bots, when it is run by artificial intelligence, when artificial intelligence forms its own kingdom, governments will not decide. And this is the real reality. We need to prepare for such a world. Again, not up to the rules. I never said that artificial intelligence would be centralized.

These are the rules of those in power the rules of those in power . They said about decentralized finance, DeFi. Do you understand what DeFi means? He will correct 500, 1,000 years of history. So, we're where we are now with UBI, food security–this is a monetization point now.

This translates into succession protocols, where family offices step by step donate their fortunes to the system. They will just burn their money at some point because they will no longer be recognized. Um, and as UBI develops, more and more communities around the world will be connected directly, not through government, not through anything. Again, not my rules. These are the rules of DeFi.

I didn't create these rules. I simply interpret them and remind you of the striking contrast of what will happen. There are bridges that need to be built. We are here because we want to build bridges. We want to be able to understand the system and then be able to work together so we can all survive.

And we can all survive. And , and, that's how I look at it now. But in order to fund this, we need to tax robots, right? Right. We need a robot tax because how are you going to fund UBI if the robots don't pay, right?

So, robots will be my, my, my prediction. So, I'm going to make a prediction. Everyone makes a prediction. My prediction is that we need to tax robots tax robots . We need, uh, a value-added tax or a robot tax because in order to find a universal basic income, it has to come from somewhere.

And economic growth will come from the robot economy in the future, because the human economy will no longer grow, right? So, uh, and then we need to tax it. So tax it. So , and then we can distribute that as a basic basic income. So, that's my prediction.

What, Robbie? Oh, I'll agree with a tax on robot fat, because that's what robot fat, because that's what we're missing on the internet, and as a resident of, you know, the UK, where the largest e-commerce company in the country doesn't pay any taxes, I totally agree with that . Any other predictions? Uh, how many of...or let's ask each of you another question.

What proportion of online proportion of online payments will be made by robots by 2030? In percentage. So, I've already quoted other people's statistics that were between 15 and 25%, and I would say that's easily possible. Good. Field?

Yes, 7% of GDP per country Yes, 7% of GDP per country is a starting point. Although it depends, um, depends on the supply chain, um supply chain, um , in the future. I'm not sure if people will actually delegate authority over all payments, so it's 50/50. Good. Yeah, I would say more than 50% because we've all been lazy, and once we figure out that it works, then we'll take our hands off the wheel and say, "Okay, funding self-driving cars."

Okay, thank you very much everyone. Great panel. Robbie, Paul, Waldemar. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.