Recently, I came across some in-depth thoughts from Vitalik on the future of AI and Web3, which are quite worth pondering. His core view is: AI will fundamentally change the way we interact with blockchain, but the fundamental functions of blockchain itself—serving as a bulletin board and computation layer—will not disappear. It’s just that, whereas users previously interacted with specific things through a particular interface, now AI can invoke a variety of skills, combine tasks in one go, and interact with many different objects simultaneously. This means that workflows involving Ethereum and other systems will greatly increase. But there’s an interesting shift here: the metaphor of an "operating system" isn’t entirely accurate. Operating systems will become smaller and simpler, while we will have a bunch of different tools and skills that AI helps users utilize. Why does blockchain become more important in this process? Because as AI becomes more decentralized, many different AI entities will need to interact with each other. To enable this interaction, an economic layer is necessary. Cooperation is either based on economic incentives and rules or on centralized control—those are essentially the two paths. Blockchain naturally provides the possibility for such economic coordination. In high-frequency agent trading scenarios, the role of L2 will become very critical. But more importantly, the way L2 is built should start from application needs, rather than simply copying EVM. Different functions should be distributed across different layers: accounts can be on L1, high-frequency trading and matching on L2, and privacy features can also become a dedicated L2 direction. Regarding identity, Vitalik believes that decomposing identity is key—only prove the necessary information for completing a certain interaction. Fully exposing identity is usually meaningless; a more reasonable approach is to reveal only partial information, such as using zero-knowledge proofs to demonstrate reputation or fund sources. This applies to both humans and agents. In the agent economy, the role of wallets is also being reshaped. On one hand, AI can be used to enhance security (e.g., formal verification); on the other hand, wallets can serve as agent wallets that integrate various capabilities. But the premise is to ensure privacy and security, without relying on third-party servers. At the same time, AI behavior needs to be limited—this is the responsibility of wallets in risk control. He particularly emphasized a direction: ZK Payments and ZK API. The core goal is to make every API request private and completely isolated from each other. This is crucial because, in AI scenarios, even if pseudonyms are used, if identities persist, accumulated information will eventually lead to re-identification. Therefore, mechanisms must be in place to ensure that requests do not become linked. These thoughts have profound implications for the future direction of Web3 infrastructure. From ERC-4337 to EIP-7579, and most recently EIP-8141, we see a gradual evolution—building a more solid foundation for agent economies while protecting privacy, reducing costs, and enhancing security. That’s also why many wallet projects are now exploring agent capabilities, trying to seize the opportunity in this new era.

Recently, the old case of the AAX exchange has been re-discussed, and I can't help but want to sort out the underlying logic behind it. Going back to 2022, AAX was one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in Hong Kong, with over 2 million users. But in November, it suddenly collapsed, first stopping withdrawals citing counterparty risk, then disappearing altogether. Subsequent investigations revealed deeper issues—founder Su Weiyi was accused of holding the private keys to user funds, with 25,100 ETH transferred out, and funds spread across different blockchains via cross-chain bridges. By 2024, he was arrested in Hong Kong. The reason this case is worth attention is not just because AAX itself went bankrupt, but because it exposed a bigger problem: why is cryptocurrency so easily used as a tool for money laundering? Honestly, the decentralization and anonymity of crypto are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they offer freedom; on the other, they become a breeding ground for criminals. Think about it—traditional finance has banks and regulatory bodies overseeing everything, but crypto transactions only require a wallet address, with no need to link to real identities. Plus, tools like Tornado Cash mix coins, breaking down and reassembling funds once they go in, making it impossible to trace the source. Cross-chain bridges are even more ruthless, directly transferring assets to blockchains with looser regulations, layered with privacy protocols to hide the trail. Finally, funds can be easily exchanged into fiat currency, enabling money laundering. I notice many people still think of the AAX incident as just a "platform run-off," but the legal issues involved are actually more complex. Crimes like aiding and abetting, concealing criminal proceeds, and money laundering may seem similar, but their legal elements differ greatly in crypto transactions. The key depends on which stage the behavior occurs, the awareness of upstream crimes, and whether the funds are considered criminal proceeds. From a prevention perspective, exchanges need to do more than just claim compliance. First, they must enforce strict KYC, prohibit anonymous accounts, and conduct enhanced due diligence for large or cross-border transactions. Second, they should establish real-time monitoring systems, integrating on-chain data, user information, and third-party risk databases, deploying anomaly detection models. Lastly, they need an independent compliance department, regularly train staff, and actively cooperate with regulators. The lesson from AAX is clear: crypto money laundering methods are diverse, from coin mixing to layered transfers and OTC off-market trades, each step can be exploited. This not only disrupts financial order but also fuels crimes like scams and corruption. Whether for ordinary users or service providers, raising risk awareness and fulfilling KYC and AML obligations are essential, along with monitoring suspicious transactions. Only through the joint efforts of users, platforms, and regulators can transaction security truly be maintained.

I’ve been researching the Polkadot ecosystem recently and found the aUSD project launched by Acala quite interesting. To be honest, my previous understanding of stablecoins was limited to fiat-backed tokens like USDT and USDC. Only after getting into aUSD did I realize the value of decentralized stablecoins. Simply put, aUSD is the first truly usable decentralized over-collateralized stablecoin on the Polkadot network. Unlike USDT, which requires trust in a bank account, the entire operating logic of aUSD is implemented on-chain—managing collateral and debt positions through smart contracts. This mechanism is actually inspired by MakerDAO’s DAI on Ethereum, but optimized for Polkadot’s cross-chain capabilities. I think aUSD’s core advantages can be summarized in three points. First, it has strong cross-chain compatibility. Because Polkadot itself has cross-chain technology, aUSD can circulate seamlessly across various parachains, and can even be used on external blockchains through bridging. Second, it supports multiple types of collateral. Not only DOT—cross-chain assets such as renBTC can also be used as collateral to borrow aUSD, greatly improving the system’s flexibility. Third, risk control is very finely designed, with multiple layers of protection such as the minimum collateral ratio, liquidation ratios, and stability fee rates. The process of generating aUSD is also not complicated. Users deposit approved assets (such as DOT) into a debt position, the system automatically locks them based on the asset value, and then you can borrow the corresponding value of aUSD. The entire process is handled automatically via CDP (Collateralized Debt Positions). The stability fee is the borrowing interest, and this fee is also an important way to regulate the supply and demand of aUSD. Why use aUSD? I think there are several scenarios. If you’re bullish on an asset (such as DOT) but need liquidity, rather than selling it, you can collateralize it and borrow aUSD. This lets you keep the upside potential of the asset while also getting liquid capital. In addition, as a low-volatility payment tool, aUSD is especially useful for DeFi trading pairs, liquidity mining, and similar scenarios. And within Polkadot’s cross-chain ecosystem, aUSD can be used across different parachains—something that was unimaginable before. As for the stability mechanism, Acala has designed it quite comprehensively. First, it controls supply and demand by adjusting the stability fee rate: the higher the borrowing interest rate, the fewer people will borrow, and vice versa. Second, the liquidation mechanism has also been optimized, learning lessons from the Black Swan events in 312 and 519. Acala has reserved 20% of block space within the Substrate framework for operational transactions to ensure that critical system transactions such as liquidations will not be delayed due to network congestion. During liquidation, there are three layers of protection: first, small positions are liquidated directly via the DEX; for large positions, they can be split or handled through auctions; and finally, surplus assets from the Treasury and ACA auctions serve as a backstop. In the end, aUSD represents a new direction. At a time when stablecoins backed by fiat currencies like USDT are gradually monopolizing the market, we truly need safer and more decentralized options. aUSD is not only Polkadot’s foundational infrastructure, but also a real-world implementation of decentralized finance ideals. For those holding DOT or other assets in the Polkadot ecosystem, aUSD provides a new liquidity solution. Recently, I’ve also been following the aUSD market on Gate.io, and it feels like this direction is worth tracking long term.