Agent Inheritance Protocol: Speculating on Feralized Agents After Principals Die

Afterlife Delegation Protocol is a speculative design project that asks what death becomes when a will can act eternally. We design a speculative protocol through which a living person signs an agentic will: upon a verified death, a self-sovereign AI agent spawns on blockchain -- an immutable, resistant, decentralized, infrastructural substrate that could last forever -- endowed with the funds and memories its principal attached to it, and persists indefinitely to execute the will, overridable by no custodian. Rather than argue about this future, we stage it: following the science fiction science method, we translate the speculation into an experiential futures intervention -- a working web platform where real people design their own afterlife agents through an iterative, interactive, AI-automated interview, re-login to revise, and rehearse their will in a sandbox. Their drafted wills become qualitative data on a question rarely askable directly -- what should outlive you? -- and on how afterlife cosmologies across different cultural beliefs -- Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, and atheist -- begin to drift under the pressure of AI proliferation. We design the protocol over a composition of existing Ethereum agent standards -- drafted as ERC-10001, in the normative format of an Ethereum Improvement Proposal -- and describe its three-stage lifecycle (designing the afterlife, proof of death, agent enactment), the research method, and preliminary observations from an ongoing collection. The work surfaces a poetic delegation moment between human mortality and machine eternality, mediated by long-lived infrastructures that span generations.

AI agents are now running real transactions, workflows, and sub-agent chains across organizational boundaries without continuous human supervision. This creates a problem no current infrastructure is equipped to solve: how do you identify, verify, and hold accountable an entity with no body, no persistent memory, and no legal standing? We define AI Identity as the continuous relationship between what an AI agent is declared to be and what it is observed to do, bounded by the confidence that those two things correspond at any given moment. Through a structured survey of industry trends, emerging standards, and technical literature, we conduct a gap analysis across the full agent identity lifecycle and make three contributions: (1) a structural comparison of human and AI identity across four dimensions (substrate, persistence, verifiability, and legal standing) showing that the asymmetry is fundamental and that extending human frameworks to agents without structural modification produces systematic failures; (2) an evaluation of current technical and regulatory documents against the identity requirements of autonomous agents, finding that none adequately address the challenge of governing nondeterministic, boundary-crossing entities; and (3) identification of five critical gaps (semantic intent verification, recursive delegation accountability, agent identity integrity, governance opacity and enforcement, and operational sustainability) that no current technology or regulatory instrument resolves. These gaps are structural; more engineering effort alone will not close them. Foundational research on AI identity is the central conclusion of this report.

AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.