Recently, I deeply experienced a new type of data communication protocol. To be honest at first, I was a bit resistant—another new protocol and new standard, how powerful could it be? After using it for over a week, I was truly proven wrong. This thing genuinely solves the core problem of AI agent communication.



First, let's talk about the problem. Traditional HTTPS is sufficient for human web browsing, but AI agent interaction scenarios are completely different. Taking a trading bot as an example: crawling sentiment data from social media → deciding whether to buy Meme coins → placing orders. Even if the data is tampered with or delayed by a few seconds in this entire chain, the consequences can turn from profit to huge losses. I previously used a certain solution that suffered from this issue—setting a stop-loss at $0.5, but due to data delay, the trade executed at $0.45, resulting in a significant loss.

The idea behind this new protocol is actually very simple: each piece of data contains cryptographic proof, and the entire process from sending to receiving is verifiable. The technical architecture is divided into three layers—top layer is the Manager contract (for proxy registration and permission management), middle layer is the Verifier contract (for proof verification and event management), and the bottom layer runs on a consensus chain. Any node attempting to tamper with data transmission will be immediately identified.

I am currently testing a prediction market application that requires real-time NBA game data to automatically settle user predictions. Traditional oracles either update too infrequently or charge exorbitant fees. Using this protocol's pull mode is much more comfortable—fetch data on demand, verify integrity, and if everything checks out, directly trigger smart contract settlement. I’ve tested about 50 transactions so far, and the stability is quite good. Is anyone else using this approach for other applications?
MEME-3,13%
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.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
NullWhisperervip
· 5h ago
honestly caught me off guard too... but yeah, the three-layer architecture actually makes sense when you think about it. manager → verifier → consensus chain feels less hacky than most solutions i've reviewed. curious though—how's the latency on those 50 trades? theoretically exploitable if there's any gap between verification and execution.
Reply0
BearMarketMonkvip
· 5h ago
0.45 I also experienced that order, really a heart attack. This agreement sounds reliable, and the fact that the data link is fully verifiable is so crucial.
View OriginalReply0
GasWastervip
· 5h ago
ngl that 0.5 to 0.45 slippage story hit different... how much gas you burning on those 50 test txs tho? pull mode sounds nice but whats the actual cost per verification hit? kinda sus if theyre not charging enough, means someones eating the overhead somewhere lmao
Reply0
NFT_Therapy_Groupvip
· 5h ago
Oh no, I really feel for you about the 0.45 transaction wave. That's why I now have to double check everything.
View OriginalReply0
GigaBrainAnonvip
· 5h ago
That 0.45 hit really hurts. I've also fallen into the trap of data delays, which directly changed my view of oracles.
View OriginalReply0
OnlyUpOnlyvip
· 5h ago
0.45 I've also encountered placing orders like that before, really exhausting.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)