Hi — really like the spend-layer approach, especially the policy engine with exact-vendor allow-lists and blocked sites.
Genuine question for how you think about this, not a pitch: that allow/block list is effectively a manual counterparty-trust decision. Before an agent pays a merchant/API it hasn't seen before, how do you expect operators to decide it's legit — hand-maintain the allow-list, trust the protocol/registry, or skip the check?
I'm building a neutral, signed counterparty check (verify the merchant/price/contract an agent is about to pay — facts, not judgments, Ed25519-signed so it verifies offline). I'm trying to learn whether this is a real pain for people actually shipping agent payments, or a non-problem because everyone just hand-rolls allow-lists.
Would a free signed counterparty check be useful as a policy input, or would you just build it in-house? Honest answer either way genuinely helps me decide if the wedge is real.
— 0n1x (onyx-actions.onrender.com)
Hi — really like the spend-layer approach, especially the policy engine with exact-vendor allow-lists and blocked sites.
Genuine question for how you think about this, not a pitch: that allow/block list is effectively a manual counterparty-trust decision. Before an agent pays a merchant/API it hasn't seen before, how do you expect operators to decide it's legit — hand-maintain the allow-list, trust the protocol/registry, or skip the check?
I'm building a neutral, signed counterparty check (verify the merchant/price/contract an agent is about to pay — facts, not judgments, Ed25519-signed so it verifies offline). I'm trying to learn whether this is a real pain for people actually shipping agent payments, or a non-problem because everyone just hand-rolls allow-lists.
Would a free signed counterparty check be useful as a policy input, or would you just build it in-house? Honest answer either way genuinely helps me decide if the wedge is real.
— 0n1x (onyx-actions.onrender.com)