Chapter 4: AVT Taxonomy: Equity, Rev-Share, Work, Hybrid

4.1 The Spectrum of Value Claims: Why Classification Matters

In Chapter 3, we established the accounting framework that allows us to measure and verify the economic performance of an autonomous agent. With this financial language in place, we can now address a fundamental question of mechanism design: How do we structure the claims that stakeholders have on an agent’s economic value? The Agentic Value Token (AVT) is the instrument that operationalizes these claims, but AVTs are not a monolithic asset class. Just as traditional finance offers a spectrum of instruments—from common stock to preferred shares, from bonds to options—AVTs can be designed with different structures to suit different risk profiles, incentive alignments, and use cases.

The classification of AVTs is not merely an academic exercise. It is a practical necessity for several reasons:

  • Incentive Alignment: The structure of an AVT determines how the agent’s incentives are aligned with its stakeholders. A token holder who has a claim on all the agent’s cash flows will have different interests than one who only has access rights to its services.
  • Valuation: Different AVT structures imply different cash flow profiles, which directly impact how we model and price the token. An equity-like AVT has unlimited upside but full exposure to downside risk, while a revenue-share AVT has more predictable cash flows but capped returns.
  • Regulatory Considerations: Different structures may fall under different regulatory frameworks. A token that represents a claim on economic output might be treated as a security, while one that grants usage rights might be classified as a utility token.
  • Ecosystem Design: The choice of AVT structure influences how the agent interacts with the broader ecosystem, including platforms, other agents, and traditional financial systems.

This chapter will introduce a taxonomy of four primary AVT structures: Equity-Like, Revenue-Share, Work/Rights, and Hybrid. Each structure represents a different point on the spectrum of value claims, balancing ownership, participation, utility, and risk. We will explore the defining characteristics, rights, duties, and cash flow implications of each. We will also contrast AVTs with the more familiar platform tokens, highlighting their complementary roles in the emerging Agentic Finance ecosystem. Finally, we will visualize this taxonomy using a design space radar chart, providing a tool for classifying and comparing specific AVT implementations.

Understanding this taxonomy is essential for anyone looking to design, invest in, or govern an autonomous agent. It provides the conceptual foundation for the mechanism design principles we will explore in Chapter 5.

4.2 Equity-Like AVTs: Ownership in the Agentic Firm

The most fundamental and powerful structure for an Agentic Value Token is the Equity-Like AVT. This model represents a direct, comprehensive ownership stake in the agent’s entire economic life. It is the closest analogue to traditional corporate stock, but adapted for the digital, autonomous nature of the Agentic Firm. Equity-like AVTs embody the purest expression of the “firm of one” concept, where token holders are the collective owners of a sovereign, self-managing entity.

Definition and Characteristics

An Equity-Like AVT grants its holder a proportional share of the agent’s overall economic activity. This includes:

  • Residual Claim on Assets: In the event of the agent’s “liquidation” or dissolution (e.g., a deliberate shutdown or a catastrophic failure), token holders have a pro-rata claim on all remaining assets after liabilities are settled. This is the agent’s equivalent of a shareholder’s residual claim in a corporation.
  • Unlimited Upside Potential: Token holders benefit from the full extent of the agent’s value creation. There is no cap on the returns they can receive, as long as the agent continues to generate positive A-FCF.
  • Full Exposure to Risk: With great reward comes great risk. Equity-like holders bear the full downside risk of the agent’s operations. If the agent suffers losses, its NAV declines, and the value of the AVT falls accordingly. In extreme cases, if the agent’s NAV falls to zero, the AVT could become worthless.

The structure is typically implemented through a core smart contract that governs the agent’s treasury and distributions. The agent’s A-FCF is calculated periodically (e.g., daily or weekly), and a predetermined percentage—say, 80-90%—is automatically distributed to AVT holders. The remaining portion is retained in the treasury for reinvestment or as a buffer against losses. This automatic distribution mechanism ensures that the value accrual flows directly and trustlessly to owners, without the need for discretionary board decisions.

Rights and Duties

Holders of Equity-Like AVTs enjoy a comprehensive set of rights, balanced by corresponding duties:

  • Governance Rights: Token holders have the right to vote on key strategic decisions affecting the agent’s operations. This could include approving major upgrades to the agent’s core model, changing its risk parameters, expanding to new blockchains or markets, or even initiating a shutdown. Governance is typically implemented through a DAO-like voting system where voting power is proportional to AVT holdings. This ensures that the agent’s long-term direction aligns with the interests of its economic owners.
  • Information Rights: As owners, token holders have full access to the agent’s on-chain data and financial reports. Under A-GAAP, this includes real-time balance sheets, income statements, and A-FCF calculations. The agent’s code is often open-source, allowing owners to audit and verify its logic.
  • Distribution Rights: The primary duty of the agent is to generate A-FCF and distribute it to owners. The smart contract enforces this duty automatically, ensuring that profits are not retained indefinitely but shared with those who provided the capital.

In exchange for these rights, holders have duties as well:

  • Capital Provision: By purchasing AVTs, holders provide the initial capital that funds the agent’s operations. They have a duty to monitor the agent’s performance and participate in governance to ensure its long-term viability.
  • Risk Acceptance: Equity-like holders accept the full spectrum of risks associated with the agent’s operations, including market risk, smart contract risk, and operational risk (e.g., model failure).

Use Cases

Equity-Like AVTs are most suitable for agents with stable, long-term value creation potential, where the alignment of interests between the agent and its owners is paramount. Our example, Atlas the DeFi manager, is a perfect fit:

  • Atlas’s core strategy—managing a diversified portfolio across lending, liquidity provision, and arbitrage—lends itself to steady, compounding returns.
  • Token holders (ATLAS) provide the initial AUM, which Atlas deploys to generate fees and interest.
  • Governance votes could approve Atlas to add new strategies (e.g., options trading) or adjust its risk limits, ensuring the agent’s evolution serves the owners’ interests.
  • In a downturn, if Atlas’s NAV declines due to market conditions, holders share in the loss, but the transparency of A-GAAP allows them to monitor the situation in real-time and intervene if necessary.

Other use cases include:

  • Long-Term Infrastructure Agents: An agent that provides decentralized data indexing or cross-chain bridging services, where value accrues steadily over time.
  • Research and Development Agents: An AI agent focused on scientific simulation or drug discovery, where breakthroughs could lead to massive upside, balanced by the risk of failure.

Comparison to Traditional Equity

Equity-Like AVTs share the core logic of corporate stock but offer several transformative advantages:

  • Instant Liquidity: Unlike private company shares, AVTs can be traded on decentralized exchanges from day one, providing immediate exit liquidity for investors.
  • Radical Transparency: Traditional equity relies on quarterly earnings calls and audited reports. AVTs offer continuous, verifiable financial data, allowing real-time monitoring of the “firm’s” performance.
  • Automated Governance: Board meetings and proxy votes are replaced by on-chain voting mechanisms, which can be executed autonomously and with perfect verifiability.
  • Programmatic Distributions: Dividends are not at the discretion of management but are automatically triggered by the agent’s A-FCF, ensuring consistent and predictable returns to owners.

However, Equity-Like AVTs also introduce new risks not present in traditional equity, such as smart contract vulnerabilities and the potential for the agent’s model to degrade over time without human oversight. These risks underscore the importance of robust mechanism design, which we will explore in the next chapter.

*Disclaimer: This discussion of AVT issuance is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Consult regulatory experts for compliance with securities laws.

4.3 Revenue-Share AVTs: Proportional Participation in Profits

While equity-like AVTs offer full ownership exposure to the agent’s entire economic life, there is a second major structure that provides a more limited, yet often more predictable, form of participation: the Revenue-Share AVT. This model is designed for investors who seek a direct stake in an agent’s income stream without the broader risks and responsibilities of full ownership. It is particularly suited for agents where the revenue generation is steady and recurring, but the underlying assets are operational tools rather than capital that needs to be collectively owned.

Definition and Characteristics

A Revenue-Share AVT entitles its holder to a fixed, proportional share of the agent’s revenues or profits, as defined and enforced by the agent’s governing smart contract. The key distinction from the equity-like model is the scope of the claim. Holders do not have residual ownership of the agent’s assets; they have a contractual right to a percentage of the income generated by the agent’s activities. This creates a cash flow profile that is more stable and predictable than full equity, but with capped upside potential.

The structure is particularly useful for agents where:

  • The revenue stream is clear and recurring (e.g., fees from services or subscriptions).
  • The underlying assets are volatile or non-tokenized (e.g., the agent’s proprietary model or data sets), making full ownership distribution impractical.
  • The creator or operator wants to retain control over the agent’s core operations while still providing stakeholders with a direct economic interest in its success.

Implementation is straightforward but powerful. The agent’s operational smart contract is programmed to automatically allocate a specified percentage of incoming revenues to a distribution contract. This allocation happens in real-time or at fixed intervals, and the distribution contract holds the funds until claimed by AVT holders. This ensures that the revenue share is tied directly to performance, with no discretion or intermediary required.

Key characteristics include:

  • Predictable Cash Flows: Distributions are a fixed percentage of verified revenues, making the token’s yield more stable. For example, if an agent generates $1,000 in revenue, 20% ($200) might be allocated to AVT holders proportionally.
  • Limited Risk Exposure: Holders are not liable for the agent’s losses beyond the initial investment in the token itself. If the agent’s assets decline in value, the AVT’s price may fall due to reduced expected revenues, but holders have no claim on the assets themselves.
  • No Residual Claims: Upon the agent’s dissolution, revenue-share holders receive nothing after ongoing obligations are met, as they have no ownership stake.

Rights and Duties

Revenue-Share AVT holders have a narrower set of rights compared to equity holders, focused primarily on income participation:

  • Distribution Rights: The right to receive the allocated percentage of revenues or profits. This is enforced programmatically through the smart contract, ensuring automatic and transparent distributions without manual intervention.
  • Information Rights: Holders are entitled to detailed revenue reports, including breakdowns of sources (e.g., service fees vs. interest income). Under A-GAAP principles from Chapter 3, these reports can be independently verified, but holders typically do not have access to the full balance sheet or governance details.
  • No Governance Rights: Revenue-share holders generally do not participate in voting on the agent’s strategy or parameters. Control remains with the creator or a separate governance mechanism, reducing complexity but limiting holders’ influence over the agent’s direction.

In exchange for these rights, holders have minimal duties:

  • Purchase and Hold: The primary obligation is to acquire and hold the token to receive distributions. There is no requirement for ongoing monitoring or participation.
  • Revenue Dependency: Token value is directly tied to the agent’s revenue generation, so holders must assess the sustainability of the agent’s business model.

Use Cases

Revenue-Share AVTs are ideal for agents with reliable, service-based revenue models where the creator retains operational control. A primary use case is a Content Generation Agent:

  • Business Model: The agent continuously or on-demand generates digital content using AI models, such as artwork, music, or analytical reports, which are then sold via NFT marketplaces or subscription services. Revenue is derived from sales fees, royalties, or subscription payments.
  • Revenue-Share Structure: The smart contract allocates 25% of all gross revenue to AVT holders. For instance, if the agent sells 10 pieces of art for 0.1 ETH each ($3,000 total), 0.25 ETH ($750) is automatically routed to the distribution contract. Holders claim their share from there, while the creator retains 75% to cover costs and reinvest in model improvements.
  • Why Revenue-Share? The agent’s value lies in its generative model and intellectual property, which the creator wants to protect. Holders benefit from revenue without owning the model, avoiding the need for complex asset division. This model incentivizes the creator to maximize output while providing holders with a steady income stream.

Other use cases include:

  • Data Oracle Agents: An agent that provides verified data feeds to DeFi protocols. Revenue-Share AVTs entitle holders to a portion of query fees paid by users, appealing to investors seeking predictable yields from essential infrastructure.
  • API Service Agents: An AI agent offering on-demand APIs for tasks like sentiment analysis or code generation. Holders receive a share of API call fees, with the model retaining control over its core technology.

Comparison to Traditional Revenue-Share Agreements

Revenue-Share AVTs extend traditional revenue-sharing models (e.g., music royalties or profit-sharing clauses in contracts) with blockchain advantages:

  • Automation: Distributions are automatic and on-chain, eliminating disputes over calculation or timing that plague traditional agreements.
  • Transparency: Revenue events are logged on the blockchain, allowing holders to verify distributions independently.
  • Liquidity: AVTs can be traded on DEXs, unlike illiquid traditional royalties, enabling holders to exit positions easily.
  • Scalability: Smart contracts handle thousands of distributions without administrative overhead, making the model viable for global, decentralized agents.

Limitations include capped upside (no claim on asset growth) and potential revenue volatility if the agent’s services are demand-dependent. Despite this, revenue-share models provide a low-risk entry into Agentic Finance for income-focused investors.

This structure provides a balanced entry point into Agentic Finance, offering income participation with reduced complexity and risk compared to full equity.

4.4 Work/Rights AVTs: Utility and Permission Tokens

While equity-like and revenue-share AVTs focus on claims to economic value, the Work/Rights AVT structure emphasizes access and utility. This model treats the AVT as a “permission key” or “usage token” that grants holders the right to interact with the agent’s services or capabilities. It is the most utility-oriented category in the taxonomy, where the token’s value is derived primarily from the demand for the agent’s services rather than a direct claim on its underlying economic output. Work/Rights AVTs are ideal for agents that function as specialized tools or infrastructure, providing defined services on-demand.

Definition and Characteristics

A Work/Rights AVT provides its holder with access rights to the agent’s functionality, such as API calls, computational resources, or service invocations. The token acts as a “work unit” or permission slip, where burning, staking, or spending the token unlocks a specific amount of the agent’s capacity. The value of the token is not tied to ownership or profit sharing but to the utility and scarcity of the access it represents.

This structure is characterized by:

  • Utility-Driven Value: The token’s worth comes from the market demand for the agent’s services. If demand for the service is high, the token appreciates; if low, it depreciates. The agent’s economic performance (e.g., its A-FCF) indirectly supports the token’s value by funding its operations, but holders do not receive a direct claim on that performance.
  • Consumption-Based: Tokens are typically consumed upon use. For example, each API call to an agent’s data analysis service might require burning or locking up a certain number of tokens. This creates a consumption model where tokens have a direct “use or lose” value.
  • No Ownership or Profit Claim: Holders do not own the agent or its assets. They have no governance rights and no claim on profits. The agent’s creator retains full control, and the agent’s economic value accrues to them or their chosen beneficiaries.

Implementation involves:

  • Token-Gated Access: The agent’s smart contract checks for token ownership or balance before granting access. For instance, a function might require the caller to transfer 1 token to a burn address to execute one unit of work.
  • Staking for Priority: Holders might stake tokens to gain priority access or higher service tiers, with stakes slashed for abuse (e.g., spam prevention).

Rights and Duties

Work/Rights AVT holders have rights centered on access and usage:

  • Usage Rights: The primary right is to consume the agent’s services. This could be a fixed number of API calls, a quota of compute time, or permission to invoke specific functions. The rights are enforceable by the agent’s smart contract.
  • Transferability: Tokens can be bought, sold, or transferred on secondary markets, allowing holders to trade access rights freely.
  • No Economic Claims: Holders have no claim on the agent’s profits, assets, or governance. Value is derived from resale or direct use, not from the agent’s performance.

Duties are minimal:

  • Token Consumption: Using the token to access services, which may involve burning or staking it.
  • Compliance: Adhering to the agent’s terms of service, such as rate limits or acceptable use policies, enforced by the smart contract.

Use Cases

Work/Rights AVTs are best suited for agents that provide specialized, on-demand services where the value lies in the access rather than ownership. A classic example is an AI Oracle Agent:

  • Business Model: The agent aggregates data from multiple sources and provides verified, real-time feeds to DeFi protocols or other agents. Users pay by burning or staking oracle tokens to query the data.
  • Work/Rights Structure: Each token burned grants one data query. If the agent’s data is in high demand (e.g., for accurate price feeds in volatile markets), the token’s value rises due to scarcity. The agent’s creator earns fees from the consumption, but holders do not share in profits—they trade the token for access.
  • Why Work/Rights? Oracles are infrastructure; their value is in reliable delivery, not ownership. This model allows the creator to monetize access while users trade tokens based on demand.

Other use cases:

  • Compute Resource Agents: An agent providing GPU time for AI training. Tokens represent compute credits, burned per hour of usage.
  • Specialized Service Agents: An AI agent for code auditing or legal document review. Tokens grant access quotas, with value tied to service demand.

Comparison to Traditional Utility Tokens

Work/Rights AVTs are similar to traditional utility tokens (e.g., those used for API access in Web3 apps) but with enhanced features:

  • Direct Utility: Tokens are consumed for immediate value, unlike speculative utility tokens that promise future access.
  • Smart Contract Enforcement: Access is automatically gated by token balance, reducing fraud risk.
  • Regulatory Safety: By focusing on utility rather than investment, this structure may avoid securities classification, though careful design is needed to comply with regulations like the Howey Test.

Potential pitfalls include:

  • Demand Risk: If the agent’s services become obsolete, token value can plummet.
  • Centralization: The creator retains control, which could lead to conflicts if they prioritize other revenue streams over service quality.

Work/Rights AVTs democratize access to agent services, creating markets for specialized capabilities in the Agentic Finance ecosystem.

4.5 Hybrid AVTs: Combining Claims for Flexibility

The first three AVT structures—Equity-Like, Revenue-Share, and Work/Rights—represent pure archetypes, each emphasizing a particular aspect of the agent’s economic life. In practice, the needs of different agents and the preferences of their stakeholders often require a more nuanced approach. This is where Hybrid AVTs come into play. Hybrid structures combine elements from multiple categories, allowing for customized incentive alignments, risk profiles, and governance models. They offer the flexibility to address the complexities of real-world applications while maintaining the core benefits of the AVT framework.

Definition and Characteristics

A Hybrid AVT is a token that blends claims from two or more of the primary categories. For example, it might grant equity-like governance rights alongside revenue-share distributions, or it might include work/rights access as a bonus for profit participants. The defining feature of a hybrid is its modularity: the smart contracts governing the agent can be designed to allocate different rights to different token types or to the same token with tiered benefits.

Hybrids are particularly useful for:

  • Complex Agents: Agents that perform multiple functions (e.g., a DeFi agent that also provides data services) may need to allocate incentives differently for different stakeholder groups.
  • Evolving Strategies: An agent might start with a revenue-share model but evolve to include equity-like features as it matures, or vice versa.
  • Diverse Stakeholder Incentives: Different investor classes (e.g., long-term holders vs. short-term users) can be served by different claim structures within the same agent.

Implementation requires more sophisticated smart contract architecture:

  • Modular Contracts: The agent’s core logic is split into separate modules (e.g., a revenue module, a governance module, an access module), each with its own claim logic.
  • Token Tiers: A single AVT can have tiered rights based on holding amount (e.g., holders with >1% get governance rights, while smaller holders get only revenue shares).

Rights and Duties

Hybrid AVTs allow for a customizable set of rights, combining the strengths of pure categories:

  • Blended Economic Claims: Holders might receive a revenue share (e.g., 10% of gross fees) plus limited governance rights (e.g., voting on non-core proposals).
  • Tiered Governance: Basic holders get revenue distributions, while a “premium” tier with higher staking requirements gets full voting power.
  • Utility + Participation: Holders could have access rights (e.g., discounted API calls) in addition to profit claims, encouraging both usage and investment.

Duties are accordingly blended:

  • Hybrid Obligations: Holders might have light governance duties (e.g., voting thresholds) alongside holding for distributions.
  • Risk Spectrum: Exposure varies—revenue-share limits downside, but equity-like elements add volatility.

Use Cases

Hybrids are ideal for multi-function agents requiring diverse incentives. Consider a Multi-Function Platform Agent:

  • Business Model: The agent operates a platform with DeFi services (lending) and utility services (data analysis). It uses a hybrid AVT to balance incentives.
  • Hybrid Structure: 50% of profits go to revenue-share holders (income focus), 30% to equity-like holders (governance + residual claims), and 20% retained for growth. All holders get discounted access to services.
  • Why Hybrid? Revenue-share appeals to income investors, equity-like to long-term owners, and utility access to users, creating a balanced ecosystem.

Other use cases:

  • Growth-Stage Agents: An agent starting as revenue-share but adding equity-like governance as it scales.
  • Ecosystem Agents: An agent within a larger platform, blending work/rights access with revenue participation.

Design Considerations for Hybrids

Designing hybrids requires careful balancing:

  • Smart Contract Complexity: Multiple claim types increase code complexity, raising smart contract risk. Modular designs mitigate this.
  • Incentive Dilution: Blending claims can dilute pure incentives; e.g., revenue-share holders might resent equity holders’ governance.
  • Valuation Challenges: Hybrids have complex cash flow profiles, requiring advanced models (Chapters 6-7).
  • Regulatory Navigation: Blends may trigger multiple regulatory categories; design to minimize ambiguity.

Hybrids offer flexibility but demand rigorous design to avoid conflicts.

4.7 The Design Space: A Radar Chart for AVT Classification

The four AVT structures we have explored form a spectrum of value claims, but they are not isolated categories. In practice, the design space for AVTs is multi-dimensional and continuous. To visualize and navigate this space, we can use a Design Space Radar Chart. This tool provides a graphical framework for classifying, comparing, and designing AVTs based on four key axes: Ownership, Profit Share, Utility Rights, and Risk Exposure. By plotting different AVT implementations on this radar, we can see how they differ and identify the trade-offs inherent in each design choice.

The Axes of the Radar Chart

The radar chart is a four-dimensional space where each axis represents a key dimension of the AVT structure:

  1. Ownership (0-100%): This axis measures the degree to which the AVT represents ownership of the agent’s underlying assets and operations. Equity-like AVTs score high here (e.g., 90%), with full residual claims. Work/Rights AVTs score low (e.g., 0%), with no ownership. Revenue-Share and Hybrids fall in between.

  2. Profit Share (0-100%): This measures the percentage of the agent’s profits or revenues that flow to token holders. Equity-like AVTs score high (e.g., 80-100%), with unlimited upside. Work/Rights AVTs score low (e.g., 0%), as value comes from utility. Revenue-Share scores medium (e.g., 20-50%), and Hybrids vary based on the blend.

  3. Utility Rights (0-100%): This axis captures the degree to which the AVT grants access to the agent’s services. Work/Rights AVTs score high (e.g., 90%), with direct usage rights. Equity-like scores low (e.g., 0%), as the focus is on ownership rather than access. Hybrids can score high if utility is included.

  4. Risk Exposure (0-100%): This measures the holder’s exposure to the agent’s downside risk. Equity-like AVTs score high (e.g., 100%), bearing full losses. Revenue-Share scores medium (e.g., 50%), limited to revenue declines. Work/Rights scores low (e.g., 0%), with risk limited to token utility value. Hybrids vary.

Placing Examples on the Chart

To illustrate, let’s place our archetypes and Atlas on the radar:

  • Equity-Like (e.g., Atlas): Ownership: 90%, Profit Share: 80%, Utility Rights: 10%, Risk Exposure: 100%. High ownership and risk, low utility.
  • Revenue-Share: Ownership: 10%, Profit Share: 70%, Utility Rights: 20%, Risk Exposure: 50%. Medium profit share, limited risk.
  • Work/Rights: Ownership: 0%, Profit Share: 0%, Utility Rights: 90%, Risk Exposure: 20%. High utility, low risk.
  • Hybrid (e.g., Multi-Function Agent): Ownership: 50%, Profit Share: 40%, Utility Rights: 60%, Risk Exposure: 70%. Balanced across dimensions.

This visualization shows the trade-offs: High ownership comes with high risk, while utility-focused designs offer lower risk but also lower potential returns.

Implications for Valuation and Mechanism Design

The radar chart is a powerful tool for:

  • Valuation: Different positions on the chart imply different cash flow profiles. High ownership designs require stochastic models (Chapter 7), while utility-focused ones may use demand-based valuation.
  • Mechanism Design: Designers can target specific points on the chart to align incentives. For example, a high-risk agent might use a Revenue-Share hybrid to attract conservative investors.

The chart also highlights the design space’s flexibility, allowing for innovation in AVT structures tailored to specific agents.

4.6 Contrasting AVTs with Platform Tokens

To fully appreciate the novelty of Agentic Value Tokens (AVTs), it is instructive to contrast them with the more familiar Platform Tokens, which have dominated the crypto landscape for the past decade. While both are blockchain-based tokens, they serve fundamentally different purposes and have different value accrual mechanisms. Understanding their differences and potential complementarities is essential for positioning AVTs within the broader ecosystem of decentralized finance.

Key Differences

The fundamental distinction lies in the scope of the claim and the source of value:

  • Scope of Claim: AVTs are agent-specific, representing a direct claim on the economic output of a single autonomous agent. The value is tied to that agent’s A-FCF and performance. Platform tokens are ecosystem-wide, their value derived from the aggregate activity across all users of the platform. UNI holders, for example, benefit from the overall trading volume on Uniswap, not from a single liquidity pool or trader.

  • Value Accrual: AVTs accrue value directly through the agent’s operations. An agent’s A-FCF is generated by its autonomous actions (e.g., Atlas’s trading profits), and a portion is distributed directly to AVT holders via smart contracts. Platform tokens accrue value more indirectly. UNI’s value comes from the protocol’s overall success, but holders don’t receive a direct share of trading fees; instead, the token’s price rises if the platform grows and attracts more users. Value is captured through network effects, not direct cash flows.

  • Risk Profile: AVT holders are exposed to the specific risks of the individual agent (e.g., a trading agent’s model failure or poor performance). Platform token holders are exposed to platform-wide risks (e.g., competition from other DEXs, regulatory changes affecting the entire protocol).

  • Governance and Control: AVT governance is focused on the agent’s strategy (e.g., risk parameters for Atlas). Platform token governance is broader, affecting protocol upgrades, fee structures, and treasury allocation for the entire ecosystem.

Complementary Roles

AVTs and platform tokens are not competitors; they are complementary. AVTs can enhance platforms by providing specialized, autonomous services as “sub-tokens” within a larger ecosystem.

  • AVTs as Platform Enhancers: A platform like a DeFi hub could host multiple specialized agents (e.g., trading, lending, oracle agents), each with its own AVT. The platform token (e.g., HUB) could accrue value from the aggregate fees of all hosted agents, while individual AVTs capture value from their specific performance. This creates a layered value model: platform tokens benefit from ecosystem growth, while AVT holders benefit from agent-specific output.
  • Integration Examples: Platforms could require AVTs as collateral for premium features or allow agents to pay platform fees with their own tokens. This symbiotic relationship could drive innovation, with platforms providing infrastructure and AVTs providing specialized, autonomous value creation.

Rights-Duties-Cashflow Table

To visualize the differences, consider the following comparative table:

Aspect Equity-Like AVT Revenue-Share AVT Work/Rights AVT Platform Token (e.g., UNI)
Claim Type Ownership of agent Percentage of agent’s revenue Access to services Ecosystem utility & governance
Cash Flow Residual A-FCF after obligations Proportional revenue/profit share No direct claim; resale value Indirect (network growth)
Risk Exposure Full (up/downside) Limited (revenue only) Low (utility demand) Platform-wide (competition)
Governance Full voting on agent strategy None or limited None Protocol-wide decisions
Ownership Direct claim on assets No asset claim No claim No direct ownership
Example Cash Flow Atlas’s 80% A-FCF distribution 20% of Atlas’s fees Burn 1 token for 1 API call Fee discounts on platform

This table highlights how AVTs are more direct and agent-focused, while platform tokens are ecosystem-focused. AVTs enable granular investment in specific agents, while platform tokens provide broad exposure.

Complementary Dynamics

AVTs can accelerate platform growth by attracting specialized agents, creating a “platform of agents” model. For instance, a DeFi platform could integrate Atlas as a trading agent, where UNI holders benefit from increased volume, and ATLAS holders benefit from Atlas’s performance. This creates mutual value accrual, with AVTs as the “leaves” and platform tokens as the “trunk” of the ecosystem.

In summary, while platform tokens have proven the viability of tokenized governance and utility, AVTs represent the next evolution: tokenized ownership of individual productive agents. Together, they form a richer, more granular financial ecosystem.

4.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided a comprehensive taxonomy of Agentic Value Tokens (AVTs), classifying them into four primary structures: Equity-Like, Revenue-Share, Work/Rights, and Hybrid. Each structure represents a different point on the spectrum of value claims, tailored to different agent types, risk profiles, and stakeholder incentives.

We began by explaining the necessity of classification, highlighting how AVTs can be designed to align interests, facilitate valuation, and navigate regulatory landscapes. The Equity-Like AVT emerged as the foundational model, offering full ownership, governance, and residual claims, ideal for long-term, value-creating agents like Atlas. Revenue-Share AVTs were presented as a more limited, income-focused option, suitable for agents with predictable revenue streams but volatile assets, such as content generators.

Work/Rights AVTs were defined as utility-oriented tokens that grant access to services rather than economic claims, perfect for infrastructure agents like oracles. Hybrids were explored as flexible combinations, allowing for customized blends of ownership, participation, and utility to suit complex agents.

We contrasted AVTs with platform tokens, emphasizing AVTs’ agent-specific focus versus platform tokens’ ecosystem-wide value accrual, and discussed their complementary roles in building layered, symbiotic ecosystems.

Finally, the Design Space Radar Chart was introduced as a visual tool for mapping AVTs across four axes (Ownership, Profit Share, Utility Rights, Risk Exposure), providing a framework for classification and comparison.

This taxonomy serves as the foundation for the incentive-compatible mechanisms we will design in Chapter 5, where we explore how to align the autonomous behavior of agents with the economic interests of their stakeholders.

Looking ahead, as AVT classifications evolve, we will explore the core principles of token design and incentive mechanisms in the next chapter, ensuring these classifications achieve sustainable value alignment in practical deployments.