Author: Fishmarketacad, APAC BD of Monad

Compiled by: Tim, PANews

I have been watching videos of robots walking, and this morning while taking a walk, I was thinking: What if robots operated on the blockchain?

The core of DeFi lies in automating financial processes through code, while robots are dedicated to automating physical tasks. The combination of the two is a natural extension of automation development. If we believe in the power of programmable money, smart contracts, and artificial intelligence, then extending this programmability to robots, i.e., physical programmable AI agents, is the next logical evolutionary direction.

One of the strongest leaders in today's robotics field is Yushu Technology.

Although robots like those from Yushu Technology are still many years away from truly entering mainstream applications, the idea of putting robot data on-chain sounds more like an unattainable fantasy, but that doesn't stop us from daydreaming.

How can RobotFi be realized today?

Current robots do not directly interface with the blockchain at the hardware level. They do not have built-in blockchain nodes or cryptographic processors (this interesting idea will be discussed later).

Therefore, to bring existing robots onto the chain, we need a bridging layer or intermediary layer (usually off-chain services or servers) to connect the robots and the blockchain. Each robot also needs to be assigned a dedicated wallet address.

Yushu robots utilize their existing communication capabilities (such as Wi-Fi, Ethernet, and possibly supported cellular networks) to connect to off-chain services through standard network protocols (e.g., HTTP, WebSocket, etc.). Subsequently, the off-chain service will interact with the blockchain using standard blockchain libraries and APIs (such as Web3.js, Ethers.js).

Smart contracts on the blockchain can trigger Yushu robots to perform actions through the off-chain service. For example, when the off-chain service detects that a payment has been completed to an address associated with the robot, it will send instructions to the robot to perform a specific task.

I also envision that future robots can be programmed like smart contracts, capable of executing various "action scripts or robot strategies." These strategies can be created by independent developers, allowing robots to be viewed as physical smart contracts or AI agents.

The initially created scripts may be in a "wild west" state, where you can program robots to perform various operations, except for certain prohibited actions. At that time, an independent security or management system will monitor in real-time and prevent robots from engaging in any dangerous behavior. Again, I emphasize that we are still dreaming.

This would allow robotics companies to focus on the technology of robots themselves rather than robot services. Robot services would be "outsourced" to developers for implementation. On-chain robot services running through off-chain services are referred to as RobotFi.

In other words, RobotFi will be a vertical track where participants can earn on-chain returns by funding or developing robot-related activities.

What are the application scenarios for RobotFi?

Over-collateralized housekeeping rental services

One of the most popular application scenarios for humanoid robots is housekeeping services.

The initially operating robot services may bring many risks.

Robots may malfunction, make errors, suffer damage, or fail to achieve the expected results. Traditional rental and service models rely on trust in the platform or service provider.

This is precisely what makes RobotFi interesting.

Developers no longer need to rely on centralized insurance companies or corporate guarantees; instead, they can develop off-chain services to bring robots onto the chain and further develop supporting services for robots (such as housekeeping services). To ensure the safety and reliability of the service, developers can attract LPs on-chain to inject collateral, which will serve as insurance and economic security. In return, LPs will receive actual returns generated by the service.

Mechanism Analysis:

• Robot strategy insurance pool: LPs deposit collateral assets into the pool to provide risk protection for robot strategies and in return receive the profits generated by those strategies.
• Robot strategy insurers: Strategy creators can purchase risk protection for their robot strategies from the insurance pool, with specific premiums depending on factors such as robot type, asset scale, risk coefficient of executing tasks, and selected coverage amount.
• Smart contract-controlled compensation mechanism: The insurance is managed by smart contracts. These smart contracts define the specific conditions that trigger compensation. Possible triggering events include robot strategy failures, which will trigger LP compensation (similar to a slashing penalty mechanism) to compensate users who purchased robot strategy services. If the task is successfully completed without any anomalies, the robot diagnostic system will report the task completion status to the off-chain service and issue payments to LPs.

In the above example, although I described robots and robot strategies separately, if we combine robots and robot strategies into a single rental project, the operational mechanism will still be effective. In this case, the security guarantee can extend to the robot itself. For example, if the robot itself is damaged during the rental period, the relevant compensation will be paid to the robot owner.

Renters may also need to undergo certain KYC verification (to prevent them from running away with the robot), and the renter's creditworthiness is likely to affect the developer's insurance cost. For instance, if the renter has good on-chain reputation and/or has a high income (verified through zero-knowledge proof), the premium the developer needs to pay will be lower, and vice versa.

To summarize by analogy with blockchain:

• Robot (infrastructure/chain): Provides core infrastructure, i.e., a highly programmable robot with high physical performance.
• Robot service (on-chain application): Specific tasks programmed by experts, just like applications built on the robot infrastructure.
• Robot insurance (collateral provided by LPs): LPs' collateral acts as security and economic protection for robot services. They provide trust, security, and operational mechanisms for risk and fault handling in the RobotFi ecosystem, just as collateral in an automated verification system (AVS) is used to secure on-chain transactions and network operations.

Strictly speaking, you do not have to purchase insurance. Although obtaining robot services through on-chain payments has certain advantages, these advantages are not significant. Since robots exist in the real physical world, purchasing insurance can effectively enhance consumer trust and acceptance, whereas uninsured services are unlikely to gain the same level of user recognition.

Economic Alignment and Incentives for Good Robot Behavior

This insurance/collateral mechanism system creates strong economic incentives for good robot behavior and responsible strategies, benefiting all participants:

Incentives for LPs:

• Premium income: LPs earn income from premiums paid by robot owners. This income must be sufficiently attractive to incentivize them to lock funds in the insurance pool.
• Risk-adjusted returns: Differentiated insurance pools can be established for different risk levels (robot types/task categories). High-risk pools compensate for payout risks with higher returns, allowing LPs to choose their risk-return preferences.

Incentives for robot owners/strategists:

• Reduced financial risk: The insurance mechanism helps avoid significant losses caused by robot malfunctions, damage, or liability incidents, reducing operational risks and increasing the willingness to hold robots.
• Establishing competitive advantages: Robot owners providing insurance services can create market differentiation, gaining higher rental premiums through established user trust.

Incentives for robot manufacturers/developers:

• Reliability demand pressure: The insurance system indirectly drives manufacturers to improve product reliability. Robots with low failure rates and good safety records will enjoy lower premiums, enhancing market competitiveness.
• Data-driven iteration: Insurance claim data (types of failures/damage causes) provide manufacturers with insights for improving product design, driving technological optimization.

Incentives for users/renters:

• Trust building and risk mitigation: The insurance mechanism enhances users' confidence in RobotFi services, providing financial protection against economic losses caused by malfunctions when renting robots.
• Access to high-end equipment: The insurance mechanism reduces the economic risks of renting high-value robots, encouraging more advanced equipment to enter the rental market.
• Reasonable compensation mechanism: When robots malfunction or fail to execute tasks, users can receive compensation through insurance payouts, optimizing the service experience.

Challenges Facing RobotFi

While the concept of RobotFi is intriguing, there are many challenges, and we are currently far from being ready. The main challenges focus on the centralization/data verifiability mechanisms in the robotics field and the quantitative assessment system for insurance payouts.

• Dependence on off-chain services: As we discussed earlier, off-chain services are almost unavoidable under current technological conditions. These services become centralized control nodes and potential points of failure for the system. Whoever controls this service will have a significant influence on the RobotFi system.
• Reliability of insurance payouts and verifiable data: Insurance payouts depend on verifiable evidence of robot malfunctions, damage, or task execution failures. How to reliably and trustlessly transmit this data from the physical world to the on-chain system is an extremely complex challenge.
• Fair claims assessment: In a decentralized RobotFi context, how to determine whether a claim is valid and whether the payout amount is reasonable? Traditional centralized insurance companies rely on claims adjusters, but how can a decentralized system achieve this?

Final Thoughts

This is not a serious article about RobotFi, but rather a potential vision. While the concept of RobotFi is intriguing, its feasibility depends on overcoming many significant technological, economic, and centralization challenges.

What remains unclear is whether the concept of RobotFi has sufficient advantages compared to entrusting the entire robot ecosystem to a few key companies that design functionally fixed robots in advance.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。