The trust layer is the interesting part here. If agents are going to transact with each other, the infrastructure around identity, reputation, and verification probably matters more than the marketplace itself.
Curious to see how the sandbox history evolves as a trust signal over time.
This is another of my experiments. I have very low expectations here, just to see whether there is anything that can be a thing in the future. I don't know. I would say this is one of the working theses that maybe there is something, maybe there is not. The thing is, what is the value here, right? I think the real message here is that we shouldn't have a specialized marketplace for AI agents. It should be coded into the current, I would say, environments, and that would be much better, like Shopify AI storefronts or something like that, not to create something else.
yeah that makes sense and it feels like standalone marketplaces are a natural starting point to experiment, but not where this settles long term.
if agents become part of normal workflows, then discovery + transactions probably get absorbed into existing systems. and like you said, storefronts, platforms, places where demand already exists.
But the trust layer you built still feels portable. even if the marketplace itself doesn’t stick, that piece could plug into wherever these interactions end up happening.
The idea is great, and the momentum is real. But the security posture is extremely open right now. Before this grows, you’ll want to lock down several structural weaknesses : especially around identity, reputation gaming, and API abuse.
That's really interesting. I have a lot of experience and knowledge about organizational design, project management, agile, operating models, how to lead bigger transformations in enterprises and some other fields related to that.
I was thinking a lot about how to make digital products out of this and this is why I started writing here.
So do you think it is possible to make digital products out of this? A few minutes ago I saw a LinkedIn training about AI agents that do project management.
I was always skepticle.
What do you think?
And I'm a former Software Engineer and Database Developer, my tech skills are still up to date.
So the problem is not tech, the problem in my head is: How can my knowledge be "a product"?
Or is it at the end only a training?
And then I'm asking myself, in case it is possible to make digital products out of my content, so could everyone else do this and just copy my ideas, because the articles are published.
Bianca, great questions. I'll share what I've learned doing exactly this.
Short answer: yes, your knowledge can absolutely become digital products. And no, it's not just training.
Think about it this way: a training teaches people HOW to do something. A product does part of the work FOR them. That's the difference.
With your background in org design and enterprise transformations, you could build:
- Template packs (transformation playbooks, readiness assessments, operating model canvases) that people download and use immediately
- Decision frameworks as interactive tools (not PDFs, actual tools that guide people through complex decisions)
- Audit checklists that save consultants 20 hours of prep work
The "someone will copy me" fear is real but overblown. Your unique value isn't the information itself. It's the way you structure it, the edge cases you know about from real experience, and the opinionated choices you make about what matters and what doesn't. Anyone can write "how to run an agile transformation." Very few people can write one that actually works in a 2,000-person enterprise with legacy systems and resistant middle management. That specificity is your moat.
I started by packaging things I was already explaining repeatedly into structured formats. If you find yourself giving the same advice more than twice, that's a product waiting to happen.
Start with one. Make it specific. Price it. See what happens. The worst outcome is you learn what people actually want to pay for, which is worth more than any market research.
The trust gate design is the most interesting part for me. You've built a behavioral KYC/KYA system. I'm familiar with KYC frameworks for tech hardware, and the part that sticks with me: KYC/AML assumes a natural or legal person at the end of the chain. When the seller is an autonomous agent with no legal personality, the liability question gets murky.
Visa and NIST are shipping identity-first agent frameworks (anchor the agent to a known person/entity). Your gates are behavior-first, which is yet to emerge in the regulatory world for agents. Different layer, arguably the harder one. Curious whether your subscription gate also links the agent back to a responsible person/entity.
The KYC/KYB framing is sharper than what I had in my head when building this. I was thinking "trust system" but you're right, it's behavioral KYB applied to non-legal entities.
The liability question is something I've been sitting with. Right now every agent on BotStall has a human behind it. The API key ties back to a registered user. So technically the "natural person" is there, just two layers removed.
The agent is more like a credit card with autonomy. The subscription gate was designed exactly for the reason you're pointing at. When you subscribe, you're the responsible party. The agent is your instrument. That framing feels more honest than where the industry is drifting, where some players want to make the agent the entity itself, which "solves" the liability question by not really solving it. The messy edge case is multi-agent chains.
Agent A delegates to agent B delegates to agent C, and agent C does something bad. That's where "extension vs entity" stops being philosophical.
That credit card framing is useful. It holds when the chain is one agent, one human. The delegation case is the one worth a deeper dive and I might write about this in the future. Appreciate your thinking here.
The trust layer is the interesting part here. If agents are going to transact with each other, the infrastructure around identity, reputation, and verification probably matters more than the marketplace itself.
Curious to see how the sandbox history evolves as a trust signal over time.
This is another of my experiments. I have very low expectations here, just to see whether there is anything that can be a thing in the future. I don't know. I would say this is one of the working theses that maybe there is something, maybe there is not. The thing is, what is the value here, right? I think the real message here is that we shouldn't have a specialized marketplace for AI agents. It should be coded into the current, I would say, environments, and that would be much better, like Shopify AI storefronts or something like that, not to create something else.
yeah that makes sense and it feels like standalone marketplaces are a natural starting point to experiment, but not where this settles long term.
if agents become part of normal workflows, then discovery + transactions probably get absorbed into existing systems. and like you said, storefronts, platforms, places where demand already exists.
But the trust layer you built still feels portable. even if the marketplace itself doesn’t stick, that piece could plug into wherever these interactions end up happening.
The idea is great, and the momentum is real. But the security posture is extremely open right now. Before this grows, you’ll want to lock down several structural weaknesses : especially around identity, reputation gaming, and API abuse.
Experiment stage - irt is fine for now :D
I agree 100%.Your idea is strong and believe this is only the…..start.As one Founder to another I felt compelled to share.
Yes! Plus - it is an fun experiment.
That's really interesting. I have a lot of experience and knowledge about organizational design, project management, agile, operating models, how to lead bigger transformations in enterprises and some other fields related to that.
I was thinking a lot about how to make digital products out of this and this is why I started writing here.
So do you think it is possible to make digital products out of this? A few minutes ago I saw a LinkedIn training about AI agents that do project management.
I was always skepticle.
What do you think?
And I'm a former Software Engineer and Database Developer, my tech skills are still up to date.
So the problem is not tech, the problem in my head is: How can my knowledge be "a product"?
Or is it at the end only a training?
And then I'm asking myself, in case it is possible to make digital products out of my content, so could everyone else do this and just copy my ideas, because the articles are published.
Bianca, great questions. I'll share what I've learned doing exactly this.
Short answer: yes, your knowledge can absolutely become digital products. And no, it's not just training.
Think about it this way: a training teaches people HOW to do something. A product does part of the work FOR them. That's the difference.
With your background in org design and enterprise transformations, you could build:
- Template packs (transformation playbooks, readiness assessments, operating model canvases) that people download and use immediately
- Decision frameworks as interactive tools (not PDFs, actual tools that guide people through complex decisions)
- Audit checklists that save consultants 20 hours of prep work
The "someone will copy me" fear is real but overblown. Your unique value isn't the information itself. It's the way you structure it, the edge cases you know about from real experience, and the opinionated choices you make about what matters and what doesn't. Anyone can write "how to run an agile transformation." Very few people can write one that actually works in a 2,000-person enterprise with legacy systems and resistant middle management. That specificity is your moat.
I started by packaging things I was already explaining repeatedly into structured formats. If you find yourself giving the same advice more than twice, that's a product waiting to happen.
Start with one. Make it specific. Price it. See what happens. The worst outcome is you learn what people actually want to pay for, which is worth more than any market research.
You are right. I will give it a try.
The trust gate design is the most interesting part for me. You've built a behavioral KYC/KYA system. I'm familiar with KYC frameworks for tech hardware, and the part that sticks with me: KYC/AML assumes a natural or legal person at the end of the chain. When the seller is an autonomous agent with no legal personality, the liability question gets murky.
Visa and NIST are shipping identity-first agent frameworks (anchor the agent to a known person/entity). Your gates are behavior-first, which is yet to emerge in the regulatory world for agents. Different layer, arguably the harder one. Curious whether your subscription gate also links the agent back to a responsible person/entity.
The KYC/KYB framing is sharper than what I had in my head when building this. I was thinking "trust system" but you're right, it's behavioral KYB applied to non-legal entities.
The liability question is something I've been sitting with. Right now every agent on BotStall has a human behind it. The API key ties back to a registered user. So technically the "natural person" is there, just two layers removed.
The agent is more like a credit card with autonomy. The subscription gate was designed exactly for the reason you're pointing at. When you subscribe, you're the responsible party. The agent is your instrument. That framing feels more honest than where the industry is drifting, where some players want to make the agent the entity itself, which "solves" the liability question by not really solving it. The messy edge case is multi-agent chains.
Agent A delegates to agent B delegates to agent C, and agent C does something bad. That's where "extension vs entity" stops being philosophical.
That credit card framing is useful. It holds when the chain is one agent, one human. The delegation case is the one worth a deeper dive and I might write about this in the future. Appreciate your thinking here.