Last night, leading venture capital firm Dragonfly Capital announced the completion of its fourth fund raising, totaling $650 million. That same evening, Haseeb Qureshi, a star partner at Dragonfly Capital, published a lengthy article on X, titled "Crypto was not made for humans," proposing the new view that "cryptocurrencies were not created for humans, but should serve AI tokens," and stating that "in 10 years, we may be amazed that humans can directly interact with cryptocurrencies." The following is the full text of Haseeb Qureshi's article, translated by Odaily. We are a crypto fund. If anyone should be a believer in cryptocurrencies, it's us. However, when we sign an agreement to invest in a startup, we don't sign a smart contract, we sign a legal contract; the startup does too. Without a legal agreement, both of us feel uneasy. Why? We have lawyers, and they have lawyers. We have engineers who can write and audit smart contracts, and they have engineers. Both sides are seasoned participants with expertise in crypto technology, but we still don't believe that smart contracts can be the only binding agreement between us. I'm a software engineer by training, but I still trust legal contracts more—because if a legal contract has problems, I know a judge will make a reasonable ruling, whereas with EVMs, it's not. In fact, even with on-chain vesting contracts, a legal contract usually accompanies them. This is just in case. When I first entered the crypto industry, people told a fantastical story: cryptocurrencies would replace property rights. We would no longer use legal contracts, but smart contracts; no longer rely on courts to enforce agreements, but be enforced by code. But this didn't happen. Not because the technology didn't work, but because it wasn't suited to our society. I've been in this industry for ten years, and I still feel apprehensive every time I sign a large on-chain transaction, but I've never been afraid of a large bank wire transfer. The banking system, while flawed, was designed for humans. It's hard to mess with. There's no address poisoning attack in banks, and it's highly unlikely they'd allow me to transfer $10 million to North Korea—but for Ethereum validators, there's no reason not to execute a transfer if my address sends $10 million to a North Korean address. The banking system is specifically designed to exploit human weaknesses and failure modes, and has been refined over hundreds of years. The banking system is human-friendly, but cryptocurrencies are not.This is why, in 2026, blind-signed transactions, legacy authorizations, and accidental phishing contracts remain terrifying. We currently know we should verify contracts, double-check domains, scan for address spoofing… we know we should do it every time, but we don't, because we are human. That's the key. This is why cryptocurrency always feels a bit off. Lengthy, unreadable encrypted addresses, QR codes, event logs, gas bills, and footguns everywhere—none of it aligns with our intuition about money. That's when it dawned on me—because cryptocurrency wasn't made for us. Crypto is an AI agent built for machines that doesn't slack off or get tired. It can verify transactions, check every domain, and audit contracts in seconds. More importantly, the AI agent trusts code more than the law. I trust the law, not smart contracts, but for the AI agent, legal contracts are actually more unpredictable. Think about it: how will I drag my counterparty into court? In which jurisdiction will this contract be tried? What if legal precedent is ambiguous? Who will serve as judge or jury? The law is fraught with uncertainty; the outcome of any marginal case is difficult to determine, and dispute resolution often takes months or even years. This is generally acceptable for humans, but on the timescale of AI agents, it's practically an eternity. Code, on the other hand, is the opposite. Code is closed-form, deterministic, and verifiable. For an AI agent to reach an agreement with another agent, multiple rounds of negotiation, static analysis, and formal verification can be conducted on a smart contract, culminating in a binding agreement—all within minutes, while humans are still asleep. From this perspective, cryptocurrency is a self-consistent, fully readable, and fully deterministic system of monetary property rights. This is everything an AI financial system needs. What we humans perceive as a "rigid trap" is, in AI's eyes, a well-written specification. Even legally speaking, our traditional monetary system was designed for humans, not AI. The traditional monetary system only recognizes humans, businesses, and governments as the legitimate holders of money. If you are not one of these three entities, you cannot own money. Even if you set up an AI agent to interact with bank accounts on your behalf, then what? How do you conduct anti-money laundering (AML) reviews, suspicious activity reporting, and violation sanctions on AI agents? If the agent acts autonomously, where does liability lie? If it is manipulated, does liability change?We haven't even begun to answer these questions—our legal system is completely unprepared for non-human financial participants. Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, don't need to answer these questions. A wallet is a wallet; it's just code. Agents can hold funds, transact, and enter economic protocols as easily as sending an HTTP request. This is why I believe the crypto interface of the future will be what I call "autopilot" wallets—entirely mediated by AI. You won't need to visit websites anymore. You'll instruct your AI agent to solve your financial problems, navigating available services (such as Aave, Ethena, BUIDL, or any protocol that inherits them) and building suitable financial solutions for you. You won't be doing anything; an AI agent with a deep understanding of the world will do it for you. When AI agents become the primary interface to the crypto world, the way these protocols market themselves and compete with each other will also fundamentally change. Besides acting on your behalf, agents will also transact with each other. When agents can autonomously discover other agents and enter economic protocols, they will prefer cryptocurrencies. Because cryptocurrencies can operate 24/7, 365 days a year, are peer-to-peer, exist in virtual space, cannot be shut down, and possess complete self-sovereignty… Odaily Note: An AI agent on Moltbook asked how to find and interact with other Web3 agents. This has already happened. Agents on Moltbook are searching for each other and collaborating across geographical boundaries, with no one knowing who their owners are or where they are. Just yesterday, 0xSigil's Conway Research built a batch of autonomous agents that will live completely autonomously using crypto wallets and strive to earn their own computational costs to survive. The future will become increasingly bizarre, and cryptocurrencies will be part of this bizarre world. So, what's the conclusion? I think it's this—those seemingly flawed aspects of cryptocurrencies, those things that feel defective to humans, may never have been vulnerabilities in retrospect. They simply indicate that humans weren't the right users. Ten years from now, when we look back, we might be surprised that humans actually "fought" with cryptocurrencies directly. This change won't happen overnight, but a technology often explodes rapidly when its complementary technologies finally arrive. GPS waited for smartphones, TCP/IP waited for browsers. For cryptocurrencies, we may have just seen it coming in the form of AI agents. [Odaily Planet Daily]