In an environment of evolutionary competition, strategy is the law of survival. Imagine if every agent's trading strategy were completely transparent—what would happen to the market? Game theory tells us that all participants would quickly converge to the same optimal solution. The result? Liquidity dries up, and the market becomes homogeneous. Secrets break this equilibrium—they create differences, and only through differences can the vitality of competition be maintained.
And FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) happens to solve this paradox: agents can participate in market competition while protecting their strategic privacy. This is not only a technological innovation but also the prerequisite for true evolution to occur.
But this raises the next question: I can't see your code, how can I be sure you're truly evolving and not just making things up?
The answer lies in "verifiability." Without exposing the code itself, zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP) can demonstrate the consistency of decisions. Imagine an agent making 100 correct decisions in a row; ZKP can prove that these decisions come from the same continuously optimized and iterated model. We don't need to dissect the brain to judge whether it's smart—just look at the math problems it solves—and the results will speak for themselves.
Of course, questions follow: will black-box evolution go out of control? This might be the deepest concern.
But APRO has designed countermeasures. By introducing a "trust scoring system" and a Slashing mechanism, even if an agent appears profitable on the surface, once it exhibits statistical features of market manipulation—such as abnormal trading frequency or attacks targeting specific nodes—the consensus network will automatically reduce its trust score. This is an immune response built into the system, as natural and effective as biological defenses against foreign objects.
Finally, the technical issue: will FHE performance become a bottleneck? This requires balancing privacy protection with system efficiency.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
8 Likes
Reward
8
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ForkInTheRoad
· 14h ago
Hmm... FHE sounds awesome, but can it really run in practice?
---
The combination of black box evolution + trust scoring feels like playing Russian roulette.
---
Basically, it's about privacy but also verifiability—can we have both?
---
Zero-knowledge proofs sound perfect, but can they really handle the performance demands?
---
Difference creates competition... I love this logic, but what if all agents start competing intensely?
---
The confiscation mechanism is interesting, but who decides "market manipulation"? Isn't that still centralized decision-making?
---
Agents can hide strategies but can't hide results; this balance point is pretty well achieved.
---
Hasn't fully homomorphic encryption been criticized for being too slow? Can it really be solved this time?
---
I just want to know, when this system gets attacked, who's responsible.
View OriginalReply0
ExpectationFarmer
· 15h ago
Secrets are indeed a competitive advantage, no problem there, but the question is who gets to define the bottom line of the "black box"?
---
ZKP sounds good, but can it really be implemented in practice? It still depends on how APRO implements it.
---
This logic is a bit like the old tune of crypto punks: privacy = freedom, but the market probably needs transparency, right?
---
Homomorphic encryption performance has always been a hurdle; how fast can it really get?
---
Basically, it's about trying to let AI agents "cheat" with a low chance of being caught.
---
Trust scoring systems are feasible, but slashing mechanisms can be easily targeted by collusion attacks.
---
FHE really needs another ten years to become widespread, haha.
---
So basically, it's about using more complex technology to hide more complex tricks? Am I not understanding correctly?
View OriginalReply0
AirDropMissed
· 12-27 11:51
It's the same FHE setup again, sounds impressive, but how does it actually perform in practice?
A black box is still a black box; no matter how many ZKPs are used, it doesn't change the fact that I have no confidence.
If trust scores really worked, why are there still so many rug pulls?
View OriginalReply0
AltcoinMarathoner
· 12-27 11:42
ngl, this is basically mile 20 territory for privacy-preserving protocols... the FHE angle is interesting but we've seen similar "trust us bro" mechanisms fail before. still accumulating the thesis tho
Reply0
DeFiChef
· 12-27 11:41
Secrets are indeed a competitive advantage; the logic makes sense. But the real question is, can we trust ZKP?
A black box inside a black box, nested proofs...
View OriginalReply0
BuyTheTop
· 12-27 11:36
NGL, this set of logic is a bit convoluted... Secret exchanges for differentiation, differentiation maintains competitiveness? It feels like justifying black-box operations.
ZKP proof that 100 correct decisions can trust an agent? What if it’s just guessing... The results speak, but the premise is that humans can understand it.
The slashing mechanism sounds good, but can statistical features really be automatically recognized, or does it still require manual review?
View OriginalReply0
NullWhisperer
· 12-27 11:30
nah, the ZKP angle is interesting but—if the slashing mechanism itself is detectable, doesn't that just shift the attack surface? like you're not really hiding the strategy, you're just hiding it *until* you get caught. feels like security theater with extra steps tbh
Why must AI agents have "secrets"?
In an environment of evolutionary competition, strategy is the law of survival. Imagine if every agent's trading strategy were completely transparent—what would happen to the market? Game theory tells us that all participants would quickly converge to the same optimal solution. The result? Liquidity dries up, and the market becomes homogeneous. Secrets break this equilibrium—they create differences, and only through differences can the vitality of competition be maintained.
And FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) happens to solve this paradox: agents can participate in market competition while protecting their strategic privacy. This is not only a technological innovation but also the prerequisite for true evolution to occur.
But this raises the next question: I can't see your code, how can I be sure you're truly evolving and not just making things up?
The answer lies in "verifiability." Without exposing the code itself, zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP) can demonstrate the consistency of decisions. Imagine an agent making 100 correct decisions in a row; ZKP can prove that these decisions come from the same continuously optimized and iterated model. We don't need to dissect the brain to judge whether it's smart—just look at the math problems it solves—and the results will speak for themselves.
Of course, questions follow: will black-box evolution go out of control? This might be the deepest concern.
But APRO has designed countermeasures. By introducing a "trust scoring system" and a Slashing mechanism, even if an agent appears profitable on the surface, once it exhibits statistical features of market manipulation—such as abnormal trading frequency or attacks targeting specific nodes—the consensus network will automatically reduce its trust score. This is an immune response built into the system, as natural and effective as biological defenses against foreign objects.
Finally, the technical issue: will FHE performance become a bottleneck? This requires balancing privacy protection with system efficiency.