Whenever the AI ​​Agent framework and standards are mentioned, I believe many people feel confused about whether they are devils or angels. Because the ceiling for building a framework is very high, it is possible to speed up to 300M in a short period of time, but once it is not worthy of its name and the consensus collapses, the probability of falling into the abyss is also very high. So, why has the AI ​​Agent framework standard become a battleground for military strategists? How to judge whether the framework standard is worth investing in? Below, I would like to share my personal understanding for reference:

1) AI Agent itself is a product of pure web2 Internet context, and the LLMs large model is trained through a large amount of data closure , and finally ran interactive AIGC applications such as ChatGPT, Claud, DeepSeek, etc.

Its overall focus is "application" logic. As for how agents communicate and interact, how to establish a unified data exchange protocol between agents, and how to communicate between agents. Problems such as building a verifiable computational verification mechanism are inherently lacking.

The AI ​​Agent expansion framework and standards are essentially from a centralized server to a decentralized collaboration network, from a closed ecosystem to an open unified standard protocol, and from a single AI Agent The evolution of web3 distributed architecture applied to complex linkage ecology.

The core logic is just one thing: AI Agent must seek commercialization prospects under the modularization and chaining ideas of web3, and must be built with "framework standards" as the starting goal. A set of distributed architecture that conforms to the web3 framework, or else it is a web2 application market idea that purely combines computing power and user experience.

Therefore, the AI ​​Agent framework and standards have become a battleground for this round of AI + Crypto narrative boom. The imagination space is really beyond words.

2) The AI ​​Agent framework and standards are in a very early stage. It is no exaggeration to say that listening to various developers talking about their own technical vision and practical routes, there is no doubt that It’s different from 10 years ago when @VitalikButerin came to the roadshow to seek financing. Just imagine, Vitalik stood in front of you 10 years ago, how should you judge?

1. Looking at the charisma of the founder, this is consistent with the logic of "investing" in most first-level angel rounds. For example, when @shawmakesmagic was scolded for being a big mouth , if you saw him laughing and cursing close to the communityIf you are sincere, you will hug ai16z's thigh tightly; for another example, when Swarms' @KyeGomezB was defrauded by various FUD, he always discussed technology and whether it can impress you, etc.;

2. Look at the technical appearance. Although the facade can come from decoration, decoration also requires costs. A project with good technical appearance is worthy of Fomo, worthy of investment with a "donation" mentality, and worth spending energy to follow up. Research. For example: Github code quality, developer open source community Reputation, whether the technical architecture is logically self-consistent, whether the technical framework has been implemented, how hard-core the content of the technical white paper is, etc.;