Cryptopolitan Report: Would You Hand An AI Agent The Keys To Your Wallet? Most Of Our Readers Said No, But It’s Closer Than You Think
Massive names have recently shipped wallets built for AI agents. Metamask announced its AI agent wallet just last week and Coinbase has been running one since February. The infrastructure is well and truly here, working and processing millions of transactions. We ran a poll on whether our readers would actually use it.
What Has Actually Changed In the Past Six Months
If we look back to a year ago, the thought of an AI agent being able to control and move your crypto around on its own felt farfetched. That shift happened faster than most people in the industry gave it credit for and it’s worth pausing on some of the developments that have come into existence.
The most recent news came from MetaMask. On June 8, the Consensys-owned wallet provider that burst onto the scene in 2016, opened early access to Agent Wallet. This is a self-custodial wallet purpose-built for AI agents to execute trades and DeFi interactions on their own. The product gives access to swaps, perpetual futures, prediction markets and liquidity provision across nine EVM chains and Hyperliquid. The user of the wallet keeps their keys and can set pre-defined rules or set of instructions for the agent to follow. This includes daily spend limits, allowlisted protocols, mandatory 2FA on anything outside the rules. MetaMask also highlighted the security side of things in their press release stating that every transaction would be threat-scanned and that any transaction that is deemed safe is guaranteed a $10,000 coverage.
That said, MetaMask is by no means the only one here nor are they the first. Coinbase launched Agentic Wallets back in February this year, billed as the first wallet infrastructure built from the ground up for non-human operators. The Coinbase product runs on x402, a payments protocol the company built specifically for machine-to-machine transactions, and the keys themselves sit inside hardware-isolated Trusted Execution Environments so the agent never actually touches them. As of June 2026, the x402 protocol has crossed 480,000 active agents and processed over 165 million transactions worth more than $50 million in cumulative volume. Over the past three months, there has been a noticeable up trend in total weekly transactions from around 548K to 2 million. That is around a 265% increase in weekly transactions since March.
Source:
MoonPay integrated Ledger wallets for AI transactions and rolled out the Open Wallet Standard with backing from PayPal and the Ethereum Foundation. Cobo shipped its Agentic Wallet earlier this year using MPC security. The x402 Foundation, which sits under the Linux Foundation, now counts Google, Visa, AWS, Circle, Anthropic, Stripe, Cloudflare, and the Solana Foundation among its backers. This is no longer reserved for just the crypto corner of the world. It is becoming basic plumbing for what Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has started calling “the agentic economy”, something that could potentially be even bigger than the human economy.
What These Wallets Let An Agent Do
An AI agent that has access to control crypto wallets can essentially keep tabs on on-chain conditions through the day, place a swap when a specific price target hits, routes through the cheapest DEX, take a position on a perp exchange, provide liquidity to a pool, close a position, claim rewards and even rebalance. All of this can be done overnight, while you’re not on tradingview, across multiple chains. The MetaMask product also opens up prediction markets, which is its own can of worms, agents trading on Polymarket-style events at speeds no human can match.
The pitch or idea behind the capabilities and utility of Agentic wallets is actually very simple to understand. Crypto is a 24/7 market and humans simply cannot function as 24/7 traders. Agents can help in closing that gap. The catch that the industry is grappling with at the moment is what happens when the agent gets it wrong and hallucinates or when it’s hacked?
That is exactly why the question we raised in our newsletter is so pertinent in today’s world: do you trust this enough to let it touch your money?
Poll Result: A Split Down The Middle, And A Trust Problem In Plain Sight
These are readers who hold crypto positions, run DeFi strategies, follow protocol launches, and in many cases have spent years getting comfortable with self-custody. Asking this group whether they would let software move their money is a more loaded question than it might sound. The fact that no single option pulled away from the others is the first aspect worth flagging. This is not a community that has made up its mind.
Nope (30.22%): The leading response, and the one most aligned with crypto’s original instincts. Nearly a third of readers want nothing to do with handing wallet control to an agent, full stop. The instinct here is not technophobic. It is custodial. If the whole point of crypto was to remove intermediaries, plugging an autonomous third party into the signing flow is a step in the wrong direction philosophically, even if the agent never actually holds the keys. This cohort is drawing the line where many in the space have always drawn it: my keys, my coins, my decisions.
Yes, but from a trustworthy company (~25.9%): The second largest response and probably the most revealing. About one in four readers are not opposed to the idea, they just want a brand behind it. Translated, this is the MetaMask/Coinbase vote. The user is willing to hand off execution provided the rails come from somewhere with skin in the game and a public reputation to protect. This is also the response that explains why MetaMask put $10,000 in transaction insurance on the launch and why Coinbase built TEE isolation into Agentic Wallets from day one. The companies are reading the same sentiment we are seeing in our poll.
Yes (~23.7%): Around a quarter of readers are part of the early-adopter cohort, the people who already potentially run bots, automate strategies and probably already have an agent doing something on-chain that the rest of us have not got around to setting up yet. Worth noting how close this group is in size to the unconditional “Nope” cohort. The community is genuinely split, not leaning one way and pulling the other along, but actually divided.
Maybe but with guardrails (~20.1%): One in five readers are open to it but want the safety rails first. This is the wait-and-see vote, and it lines up almost exactly with the design philosophy MetaMask and Coinbase have both built around. Spending caps, protocol allowlists, simulation checks, 2FA on flagged transactions, insurance backstops. This cohort wants exactly what the products are now offering. Which raises an interesting question: does this group move into the “Yes” column once they actually try the new products, or does the friction of setup keep them on the sidelines longer than the industry would like?
Add the “Yes” and “Yes with a trusted brand” and “Maybe with guardrails” responses together and you get just under 70% of readers open to agent-controlled wallets in some form. That is a notable number. It says the resistance is not really to the idea itself, it is to the execution, the brand and the trust model. Get those right and most of this audience comes along.
The Bigger Picture
Today there is a shift that is taking place that goes beyond crypto-native users. If Gartner’s projection holds and 40% of enterprise applications embed AI agents by the end of 2026, the question of how those agents pay for things stops being a niche concern. It becomes infrastructure. Visa, Stripe, Google, AWS, and Anthropic did not join the x402 Foundation because they think this is a crypto sideshow. They joined because the future they are building toward includes machines paying machines and the rails that can handle that at scale do not exist anywhere else right now.
The 30% of our readers saying “Nope” today are responding to a product question. The 70% saying yes in some form are responding to where they think this is going. Both are reasonable positions to hold in June 2026. Neither is the final answer. The agents are here, the wallets are shipping, and the only thing still being negotiated is the trust model. That is the actual story underneath this poll, and it is the one worth watching for the rest of the year.
Disclaimer: The content of this article solely reflects the author's opinion and does not represent the platform in any capacity. This article is not intended to serve as a reference for making investment decisions.
You may also like
ROI - For the Trump-led Treasury, the "tail" of the auction is the most difficult part: McKeever
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Reuters columnist Jamie McGeever. Reuters, Orlando, Florida, October 6 – U.S. Treasury auctions are typically dull, predictable, and not newsworthy. But these are not ordinary times, and the Trump administration now faces the risk of sluggish U.S. debt sales making headlines. The U.S. Treasury plans to issue nearly $120 billion in Treasuries this week, the first non-bill bond sales in two weeks: $58 billion in three-year notes on Tuesday, $39 billion in ten-year notes on Wednesday, and $22 billion in thirty-year bonds on Thursday. These auctions would usually be insignificant events, but due to the exceptionally weak performance of auctions from September 22 to 24—especially the five-year note auction on September 23, which triggered the largest spike in bond yields since April last year—they are attracting growing attention. Since then, yields have not only failed to retreat but have surged across most tenors to multi-decade highs. It's worth noting that the possibility of a U.S. Treasury auction "failing" is almost zero. Primary dealers—currently 26 Wall Street banks and institutions authorized by the New York Fed as market makers for Treasuries—are always involved. They effectively underwrite the sales, ensuring the smooth operation of the $30 trillion U.S. Treasury market, the most liquid market in the world. This, in turn, allows the entire global financial system to function, given that trillions of dollars in global debt, assets, and market derivatives are benchmarked against U.S. Treasuries. Treasuries are also the primary collateral for lubricating the financial “pipes” of the U.S. and global markets, including repo agreements, interbank loans, and financing. In short, as long as U.S. Treasuries remain the pillar of the global financial system, there will always be buyers at Treasury auctions. The question, as always, is at what price these bonds will be sold. Currently, borrowing costs in the secondary market are at their highest levels since the mid-2000s, so it's reasonable to expect that the Treasury will pay relatively high rates in the primary market as well. But as recent auctions have shown, negative surprises remain possible. "Too big to be absorbed by the market"? The $70 billion five-year auction on September 23 was among the most worrisome in years. Demand, as measured by the bid-to-cover ratio, was at a nine-year low. The Treasury ended up selling the notes at a yield of 5.033%, more than 3 basis points above the market yield at the close of bidding. Three basis points might not sound like much, but it's exceptional for a five-year note auction. This is the largest so-called "tail" since June 2022. According to JPMorgan analysts, the last time a five-year auction had a three-basis-point tail was back in 2011—amid the brewing debt ceiling crisis that eventually led to a U.S. credit rating downgrade in August that year. Currently, concerns over the U.S.'s daunting fiscal outlook are driving up long-term borrowing costs. As a result, markets generally expect the Trump administration to gradually shift the Treasury’s massive funding needs toward the lower-yield (and therefore lower-cost) short- and medium-term segments of the curve. That's why the five-year note auction two weeks ago sparked such concern. A three-basis-point tail is common in long bond auctions, but not in the "belly" of the yield curve. If the Treasury is forced to pay a higher premium to issue these bonds, then Houston, we have a problem. A large auction tail can be caused by many factors, including market volatility on the day of the auction or more concerning, fundamental issues that may erode demand over time. The two are often hard to distinguish because they are not mutually exclusive. On a brighter note, this unease has not yet spread to the short end of the yield curve. At least, not yet. Three-year and ten-year Treasury yields are up about 50 basis points from the last auction a month ago, hovering around 4.96% and 5.32%, respectively. The thirty-year yield is up roughly 35 basis points to 5.65%. These levels should be high enough to attract strong demand and ensure smooth sales, right? Maybe. But if surprises do occur, volatility and uncertainty could spill over across the market. Investors will be watching developments as closely as hawks. (The views in this article are solely those of the author, a Reuters columnist.) Like this column? Check out Reuters' "Unhedged" (ROI), your essential new source for global finance commentary. Follow ROI on LinkedIn and X. You can also listen to the daily "Morning Bid" podcast on Apple, Spotify, or the Reuters app—subscribe for in-depth market and finance news, seven days a week. US 5-year auction has biggest 'tail' since 2022 https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/dwpkmkzogpm/TAIL.png (For the convenience of non-English speakers, Reuters provides automated translations of its reports
Money market fund inflows plummet to 158 billion—Is short-term US Treasury liquidity flashing a warning sign?
Money market fund inflows have sharply dropped to $158 billion in the first three quarters of this year, driving Treasury yields higher. Increased volatility at the short end has raised market concerns about tightening short-term financing.
TAO crypto price consolidates – Why $318 is Bittensor’s next big test
Crypto prices
More
