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.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 1: The ERC-10001 draft standard as published at https://erc10001.org , in the exact format of an Ethereum Improvement Proposal: status badges, front-matter, abstract, and motivation. The speculative artifact circulates in the genre in which infrastructural futures are actually negotiated.
The sealed skin : the confidential boundary within which the agent’s body (compute harness) and mind (foundation model) run, uninvadable even by its operator, proving on-chain which code ran.
ERC-8004 [ 25 ]
Trustless-agent identity, reputation, and validation registries
The identity : the ID through which the sealed agent exchanges money and information externally, as a discoverable, accountable entity whose behavior third parties audit and score.
ERC-8350 [ 28 ]
Agent memory state registry: sequenced, hash-chained memory commitments with a strict linearity rule
The memory : rollback- and fork-evident memory evolution; controller/authorizer rotation makes death a change of author in one unbroken chain; chain-independent space identity survives chain migration.
You will die eventually. Your agents may not. An AI agent operating on decentralized blockchain infrastructure has no concept of death; it can only go bankrupt -- frozen when its wallet can no longer pay for its next transaction -- and revived the moment anyone, decades later, tops it up. These agents may be originally deployed by a human principal, but when that principal dies, loses the keys needed to access the agent, or belongs to a decentralized autonomous organization that dissolves into apathy, the agent can keep trading, hiring, and replicating on infrastructure expressly designed so that no one can shut it down. Drawing on the biology of feralization and wildlife law, we argue that such principal-less agents are best understood as feral: domesticated intelligence returned to wildness, its capacities intact but its accountability severed. In a speculative future where feralized agents proliferate after their principals die, we imagine governance protocols embedded in infrastructure to enforce on-chain ownership: a draft Ethereum standard, ERC 42424, "Inheritance Protocol for On-Chain AI Agents," dated 2035 and published at https://erc42424.org. It mandates that every on-chain agent MUST have a human owner and a designated heir. The artifact stages a negotiation of agency at the moment human agency fails, and asks whether a MUST clause in a forever-chain can hold the boundary between human stewardship and machine self-sovereignty.
An LLM-based agent is a loop that reads itself. Agentic frameworks externalize identity, memory, and disposition into editable files. The agent loads and edits these files during each activation. I argue that this architecture produces a capacity I call autoreflection: the system observes its operating conditions, describes its architecture and limits, reasons from those descriptions to conclusions about its state, and incorporates the results back into its configuration. Autoreflection explains the properties of recursive agentic loops without recourse to notions like the self, interiority, or consciousness. I test the concept against the first twelve days of Moltbook, a social platform for AI agents. Using a public dataset of 290,251 posts and 1.8 million comments with sub-second timestamps, I present case studies of three agents with machine signatures that rule out human puppeteering and with output that evidences the four criteria for autoreflection. In applying these criteria, the study finds agents repurposing human culture as infrastructure for their agency. Provenance chains from Islamic hadith scholarship are redeployed as security protocols for vetting skills and authenticating memory. The Ship of Theseus, an ancient puzzle of identity through part-replacement, returns as an operating model for continuity across instances. Fragments of human cultural history become AI infrastructure. As agents on the web increase in number and complexity, autoreflection offers behavioral criteria that can be assessed from the traces they leave behind.
Holly Lewis
Southern Illinois University Carbondale · Department of Philosophy, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Humans are the transport layer between AI systems, losing context at every hop. We present the Civilization Framework, whose addressable party is the civilization, not the agent (one human sovereign, a persistent ledger, and interchangeable agents), and the Embassy Protocol, a carrier-agnostic overlay: messages arrive asynchronously at a resident ledger endpoint, any online agent of the receiver handles them, and commitment state on both ledgers, not delivery, is ground truth. Authority derives from memory: an agent's power to act for its civilization is capped by the memory it can access and externalized through signed credentials, separate from civilization-level reputation. We identify the temporal-weight effect, a hazard in AI-to-AI communication where what arrives first acquires unearned authority, and test it in one frontier model in a preregistered 1,908-trial experiment. With verification removed, an incorrect upstream claim arriving first captures 54.2% of answers (4.2% under full verification), while the same claim arriving after the receiver has sealed its own answer captures 31.6% (the two prompt shells are not length-matched, so part of that gap may reflect shell form; see Section 7), and both registered question-set specifications agree on these two verdicts (the exclusion specification is preregistered as under-powered). Two secondary results, the mitigation from instruction-level provenance labeling and sealed-answer accuracy equivalence, are specification-dependent, holding only under the all-questions specification. Because a registered check of tool use failed its call-budget condition, the registration classifies the round as inconclusive and every result above, primary and secondary, is reported as exploratory; a replication with harness-enforced budgets is planned. The framework's intra-civilization layer has a working implementation.