Talking about AI agents and automatically interacting on-chain is definitely getting hotter lately—but honestly, I’m a pretty unsophisticated person. No matter how good the automation looks, as long as it involves “security fallbacks” and “responsibility assignment,” I always feel that a human’s seat still has to stay anchored somewhere. For example, in governance proposals where key-frame parameters are adjusted: no matter how well the AI computes it, who ultimately decides? Who signs that? For on-chain risk management, that boundary baseline—no matter how mechanical the action is—once the authority behind a muti-sig or a timelock is handed over, it’s “a person” providing the fallback. This isn’t me looking down on machines. It’s just that the rules are originally written by people, and people can change them.

As for the whole re-staking drama, I don’t need to say much more. Whether it’s a nesting “matryoshka” structure or compounding yields, let me tack on a quick bit of reflection: when people hype agents as replacing humans for continuous decision-making, I actually think it’s easier for this to turn into “nested risk”—an agent directing another agent, and who covers the losses? It’s definitely not the code. Go more slowly, at least make sure you see exactly where the cash is flowing.