Retail, Roles and Know Your Agent

Posted on by
Reply

We all accept that agents are a new entity in consumer commerce. We get how technology (AI, MCP and aggregation) can work together to find the best product at the best price. The question for payments is different. What will agents change in payment and risk?

In June I asked Is Know Your Agent (KYA) Really Necessary? and called KYA an orphan signal. Since then the topic has moved into standards work, but only in part. EMVCo’s draft agentic framework “recognizes the emerging need for Know Your Agent capabilities” (EMVCo, “Agentic Payments: Framework for Specifications 1.0,” Draft, Aug 2026). The tools that exist define how an agent identifies itself and acts on behalf of a consumer: AP2 and Verifiable Intent carry the consumer’s credential, the delegated intent (open mandate) and the specific action (closed mandate). KYA itself is far from settled. At the Global Digital Collaboration (GDC) conference in Geneva in September, EMVCo listed Know Your Agent as future work, alongside Intent Services and use cases (EMVCo and FIDO Alliance, “Trusted Agentic Payments,” GDC 2026, Sep 3, 2026). My view has not changed.either banks (In bank owned risk), or merchants (in merchant owned risk) will control what and how the consumer permissioned. The trust in the agent is at a rules level, not a KYC like level.

Continue reading →

Meta’s Muse: The Agent Becomes the Control Point

Posted on by
2

Three weeks ago I argued that Meta would stay upstream as a preference and affinity layer and leave checkout to retailers. Half of that held. Meta is not taking checkout from retailers. But Muse is more than a preference layer. It is an attempt to build a new orchestration point, one that sits between the consumer, the merchant, the wallet, and the payment network.

The shift I am watching is from wallet-centric commerce, where the merchant owns the interaction and presents payment choices, to agent-centric commerce, where the agent orchestrates merchant, wallet, credential, and transaction. If that shift happens at scale, Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, PayPal, banks, and wallets become services the agent can use. Meta owns the consumer relationship and the purchase intent, which is worth more.

Continue reading →

Nubank Circling Monzo?

Posted on by
Reply

News Saturday is that Nubank is in early talks to buy Monzo for £8–10 billion. That is roughly double Monzo’s last private valuation and 115x pre-tax profit. Monzo’s board is reportedly weighing the approach against a funding round, an IPO, or a secondary sale.

This is my third post on the neobank cohort in a year. I’m a skeptic on the neobank revolution, and admittedly few people share my negativity. My recent posts are The Neobank Revolution? Not how I see it… and Challenger Banks: What the Sell-Side is Telling Us. In July I conceded I had been wrong on profitability: Nubank and Revolut have crossed into something like institutional adulthood, and Monzo has three consecutive profitable years.

Continue reading →

Why Closed Chains Work Best for Banks

Posted on by
Reply

a16z crypto published Banks Don’t Need Closed Blockchains (written by Rebecca Rettig of Jito Labs). The legal reading is solid. The BSA and OFAC ask for control proportionate to identified risk, not zero risk, and no rule says a bank must own or screen the infrastructure its messages travel over. I have no argument with any of that.

HOWEVER, the conclusion does not follow. Banks are not sitting in permissioned networks because a statute traps them there. They are sitting there because that is where their trust model, their commercial agreements, investments, and their competitive advantage already live. I made this case in The Realities of On Chain Finance: Why Closed Ledgers Will Lead the Way and the last 18 months have only confirmed it.

Continue reading →

CLARITY Act Fails — GENIUS Holds

Posted on by
Reply

This post is not really about the bill, though. It is about the thing the bill was carrying and implications for Stablecoin

As expected, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act failed to move through the Senate.

Yesterday, the Senate cloture motion on H.R. 3633 fell 49–50 — eleven votes short of the sixty required to advance, and one shy of even a bare majority. Multiple Republicans voted no. Senator Chris Coons did not vote. Senator Cynthia Lummis made the closing pitch on the floor: “Do not let this day be the day we handed our future to someone else because we were too afraid to finish what we started” and could not find the votes. Bitcoin slid from near $80,000; Coinbase closed down almost 9%.

Nobody who was reading the tape should be surprised. I have been writing this outcome down in stages since February. In Stablecoin Rewards’ Last Hope – Clarity Act I put the odds at roughly 70% and named the two things that would sink it: the rewards fight and the calendar. In The CLARITY Act Is Locked I flagged the remaining hurdles: Senate Agriculture jurisdiction, sixty floor votes, House reconciliation, …etc. and wrote that if the floor count fell short the bill slides to the next Congress. Prediction markets took until August to agree, collapsing from 82% to under 20%, and sat at 14% on the morning of the vote itself. Market structure legislation is not a 2026 story and it may not be a 2027 story either.

Continue reading →

Meta’s AI Move: From Ad Network to Agentic Preference Layer

Posted on by
3

A reader comment last week pushed on the Meta AI question. The short version: Meta isn’t trying to own agentic commerce (a smart play given merchant control), and what they are doing is more interesting than most people are giving them credit for.

The Architecture Is Already Set

First, a quick recap of where we stand. The winning model in agentic commerce is the retailer-owned specialist agent. Walmart’s Sparky, Amazon’s Rufus (now Alexa Shopping), Michaels’ Ask Mike. The merchant keeps checkout, keeps the customer relationship, and keeps the data. They’ve essentially built an intelligence layer inside themselves. Anthropic’s Claude Commerce Agents blueprint, open-sourced in September 2026, formalizes exactly this structure: shopping agents and merchant agents that sit within the merchant’s perimeter, not as a consumer-facing oracle trying to own the relationship.

Continue reading →

Anthropic’s New Agents: Picking the Right Side of the Counter

Posted on by
3

Short blog. Member only post.

On September 2, Anthropic released Claude Commerce Agents, an open blueprint for building shopping agents and merchant operations agents on Claude. Linas Beliūnas has a good writeup of what actually shipped (Claude Commerce Agents: Anthropic’s Bet on Agentic Commerce). My take is simpler than his, and more opinionated.

Anthropic just made the only bet in this market that I think pays off over the next three years. They are not trying to own the consumer. They are trying to be the intelligence layer inside the merchant’s own store, app and back office. Everyone else is still fighting over the gateway.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

EMVCo Enters the Intent Wars

Posted on by
1

September 2026 – VERY VERY LONG Tech Blog on EMVCo’s new Spec

On September 1, 2026, EMVCo published a draft framework that quietly changes the architecture of agentic commerce. The “EMV Agentic Payments — Framework for Specifications” establishes a neutral, interoperable conceptual foundation for managing consumer intent across the entire payment ecosystem. After more than a year of watching proprietary platforms race to own and orchestrate “everything” in agentic, this is the most significant structural move the industry has seen.

I have written about this problem extensively, from Agentic — Intent and the New Data Games to Carts and Mandates: Decoupling Discovery, Authentication, and Liability to Agentic Data Battle: Intent. The core argument has always been the same: without a structure for managing intent, there will be no trust in agentic transactions. EMVCo just read that memo.

Continue reading →

Instinct: Hottest Agentic Assistant – Payments Advantage?

Posted on by
Reply

Short Blog.

Every few months something breaks out of the demo phase and starts showing up in my feed from people whose judgment I trust. This month it is Instinct, a personal assistant out of San Francisco that the WSJ covered on Friday (“The Latest Viral AI Assistant Rocketing Across Silicon Valley,”). It is worth a look, not because it solves agentic commerce (it does not), but because it is the clearest example yet of where agentic actually gets traction first, and it is not where the payments industry has been looking.

The advantages of edge Use Cases and SMS…. the biggest breakthrough is happening in categories where there is no cart at all.

Continue reading →

Identity Success Story – itsme Belgium

Posted on by
Reply

This is the fourth case study I have written on inational identity efforts. The first was India’s UIDAI, which I covered in Payments and Identity, UPI continues to lead the world. The second was Norway, in BankID Norway, Evolution and Success, last month i outlined eIDAS, Top 3 Problems. Belgium’s itsme is a fantastic collaboration of banks and mobile operators in a commercial model, it may be the cleanest available proof of my rule of thumb on identity success (see Part 1 – Identity Models, Government and Governance Structures).

Summary of today’s thesis: European digital identity is succeeding at the country level, wherever commercial entities are allowed to own the governance and the economics, and it is failing at the EU and regulatory level, where neither is defined (or mandates set). Belgium is NOT a counterexample to Europe’s identity problem. In my view, Belgium represents an example model for the answer Europe is looking for.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us