<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Yosef</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Yosef (@yosefatbash).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/yosefatbash</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/yosefatbash"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>Why AI Agents Need Blockchain Runtime Controls</title>
      <dc:creator>Yosef</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2026 12:06:46 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/yosefatbash/why-ai-agents-need-blockchain-runtime-controls-45ho</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/yosefatbash/why-ai-agents-need-blockchain-runtime-controls-45ho</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;AI agents have stopped just answering questions. They move money, sign contracts, change production systems and act on customer accounts. That shift creates a problem nobody designed for: a probabilistic model is now triggering deterministic, irreversible actions.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;An LLM can be wrong, manipulated by a prompt injection, or simply drift. When its output was a paragraph of text, that was a quality problem. When its output is a wire transfer, it's a liability problem.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Most teams try to solve this inside the model: better prompts, filters, fine-tuning. That helps, but it asks the same probabilistic system to police itself. What's missing is a layer outside the model that decides what the agent is allowed to do, and proves afterwards what it actually did.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That's what runtime controls are. At AtBash we build them on blockchain primitives, because they give you four things that are hard to fake:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Cryptographic identities.&lt;/strong&gt; Every agent has a verifiable identity, so you always know which agent acted and on whose behalf.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Irrefutable mandates.&lt;/strong&gt; What an agent is allowed to do (limits, counterparties, scopes) is signed and anchored, not buried in a prompt that can be talked around.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Enforceable red lines.&lt;/strong&gt; Actions outside the mandate are blocked at execution time, regardless of what the model "decided".&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Tamper-proof audit trails.&lt;/strong&gt; Every action is recorded in a way no one can quietly edit later: not the agent, not the vendor, not an insider. When a regulator, auditor or insurer asks "prove it", you can.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The result: agents become controllable and accountable, which is what lets enterprises move them from pilots into production.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This isn't theoretical. Enterprises already pay for AtBash today, including two banks, and we recently joined NVIDIA Inception.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you're deploying agents that touch money, data or infrastructure, I'd love to compare notes.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Yosef, Founder, AtBash&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>security</category>
      <category>blockchain</category>
      <category>agents</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
