AI Agents, Blockchain Convergence, and the Unanswered IP Questions of the Machine Economy

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire has argued that artificial-intelligence agents and blockchain networks will converge into a global machine economy powered by stablecoins — one where blockchain is becoming more relevant as it becomes less self-contained, connecting programmable assets and open networks with regulated finance, artificial intelligence, government policy, and familiar consumer experiences.

This convergence is already underway. Agentic AI systems are being deployed to execute financial transactions, manage digital asset portfolios, interact with smart contracts, and generate content autonomously. The legal framework for what these agents create, own, and are liable for does not yet exist in coherent form.

The IP ownership gap in agentic AI systems

The US Copyright Office has established that AI-generated content cannot be copyrighted without meaningful human authorship. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter confirmed that only human beings can hold copyright authorship. These principles were developed in the context of generative AI producing creative works — text, images, music.

The convergence of AI agents with blockchain creates a more complex set of IP questions that existing doctrine does not cleanly address.

When an AI agent autonomously executes a transaction that involves the creation of a digital asset — a token, a smart contract, a digital representation of a real-world asset — who owns the resulting asset? If the creation of that asset required intellectual effort that would, if performed by a human, generate copyright protection — does the absence of human authorship mean the asset is unprotected? And if so, what prevents anyone from copying, reproducing, or exploiting it?

When an AI agent interacts with a branded digital asset or a tokenized trademark — executing transactions that involve the brand without explicit human authorization in each instance — does that constitute unauthorized use of the trademark? Who bears liability for the interaction?

The liability gap in autonomous blockchain transactions

Leading AI governance recommendations now include updating vendor agreements to shift liability for IP infringement and autonomous errors back to AI providers — recognizing that the default liability framework does not automatically assign responsibility in the AI-blockchain convergence context.

This recommendation reflects a practical reality: when an AI agent acting autonomously infringes a trademark or patent in the course of a blockchain transaction, the existing frameworks for assigning liability were not designed for this scenario. The human who deployed the agent? The company that built the AI system? The platform that hosted the transaction? All three have potential exposure under different legal theories — and courts have not yet established which applies.

What founders and businesses should do now?

The window to build legal architecture around AI-blockchain convergence before disputes force ad hoc resolution is narrowing. Three specific actions are worth taking now.

First, document the human oversight structure for any AI agents operating in your digital asset infrastructure. The more clearly human decision-making is embedded in the agent's operating parameters, the stronger the argument that IP created or managed by the agent reflects human authorship and authorized use.

Second, review trademark coverage for any brand that AI agents will interact with autonomously. If your brand is a digital asset in a blockchain ecosystem, the trademark protection for that brand needs to anticipate autonomous agent interactions — including unauthorized ones.

Third, structure vendor agreements to address AI-generated IP and liability explicitly. Updating vendor agreements to shift liability for IP infringement and autonomous errors back to AI providers is now standard governance advice — and it should be reflected in contracts with any AI platform operating in a blockchain context.

At Name & Fame, we work with founders building at the intersection of AI and blockchain to structure the IP and liability frameworks that this convergence requires. At IRAIET, we track the research questions that this convergence generates — because the quality of the legal frameworks that will govern the machine economy depends on the quality of the independent analysis that informs them.

Business inquiries: namefame.us Research collaboration: IRAIET on LinkedIn