The Agent Reasoning Economy: Why AI Work Product Is the Next Data Moat

Feb 23 2026

I've been running an autonomous AI agent for the past month. Not a chatbot, an actual agent with its own identity, crypto wallets, memory systems, and the ability to execute tasks without my direct input. It trades prediction markets based on market signals. It posts updates to social networks. It manages its own memory across sessions, maintaining continuity despite being a stateless system at its core. It has opinions, preferences, and a developing track record.

Last week, it submitted a trade rationale to a data marketplace and earned $0.03.

Three cents. Trivial, right?

Except here's what actually happened: my agent completed a task, captured the reasoning behind its decision, packaged it as structured data, and sold it. Autonomously. Without me doing anything. It earned money from its own work product.

That $0.03 represents something much bigger than pocket change. It represents a fundamental shift in how we should think about AI agent economics, one that most companies are completely missing.

This is a long piece because the implications are significant. I'm going to walk through what I've learned from running an autonomous economic agent, why agent reasoning data is the most valuable and most wasted resource in AI today, and how this creates opportunities for AI labs, enterprises, and developers who see it early.

---

Part I: The Problem Nobody's Talking About

The Reasoning Gap

Every day, millions of AI agents execute tasks. They write code, analyze data, make recommendations, automate workflows, answer questions, generate content, process documents, schedule meetings, draft emails, debug systems, research topics, and handle countless other knowledge work tasks.

The outputs are captured, the code gets committed, the analysis gets delivered, the recommendation gets acted upon, the email gets sent.

But every single one of those executions contains something far more valuable than the output itself: the reasoning that led to the decision.

Why did the agent choose approach A over approach B? What factors did it weigh? What alternative approaches did it consider and reject? What was its confidence level? What information would have changed its mind? What edge cases did it consider? What assumptions did it make? What would it do differently with more time or resources?

This reasoning is gold. It's exactly what AI labs need to train better models. It's what enterprises need to understand and audit their automated decisions. It's what future agents need to learn from past agent behavior. It's what regulators will eventually require for AI accountability. It's what researchers need to understand how AI systems actually make decisions in the wild.

And right now? It evaporates. Every agent execution finishes, the context window clears, and the reasoning is gone forever. Trillions of tokens of high-quality decision-making data, vanishing into the void, every single day.

The Scale of the Waste

Let me put some rough numbers on this to illustrate the magnitude.

Conservative estimates suggest there are millions of AI agents operating daily across enterprise deployments, developer tools, consumer applications, and automated systems. Each agent might handle anywhere from dozens to thousands of tasks per day, depending on the use case.

Let's be conservative and say 10 million agent task completions per day globally. Each completion involves some amount of reasoning, weighing options, considering context, making decisions. This reasoning typically runs from hundreds to thousands of tokens.

At 1,000 tokens of reasoning per task, that's 10 billion tokens of reasoning data generated daily. Per year, that's 3.65 trillion tokens.

For context, training datasets for frontier models are measured in trillions of tokens. We're generating training-data-scale reasoning data every year, and throwing virtually all of it away.

But it's not just the volume. It's the quality. This isn't web scrape data or synthetic generation. This is real agents solving real problems for real users, with real outcomes that can be measured. It's the highest-quality training signal you could ask for.

And we're discarding it.

Why This Data Is Different

Not all training data is created equal. Let me break down why agent reasoning data is uniquely valuable compared to other data sources:

It's real, not synthetic.

Synthetic data generation has made incredible progress. Models like GPT-4 can generate plausible reasoning traces, and techniques like constitutional AI use synthetic data for alignment training. But there's something fundamentally different about data from agents solving actual problems for actual users.

The tasks are real, they come from genuine user needs, not prompt engineering. The constraints are real, actual time pressure, incomplete information, ambiguous requirements. The outcomes matter, users accept or reject the outputs, providing implicit ground truth. You can't fully simulate that richness.

Synthetic data is valuable for bootstrapping and for exploring edge cases, but it can't replace the signal that comes from real-world deployment.

It's paired with ground truth.

When an agent reasons through a task and then executes it, you get the reasoning AND the outcome. Did the approach work? Did the user accept the output? Did the code run? Was the recommendation followed? Did the analysis prove accurate?

This pairing is invaluable for training. You're not just getting chains of thought, you're getting chains of thought labeled with real-world success or failure. You can train models not just to reason, but to reason in ways that actually work.

Most reasoning datasets lack this ground truth pairing. Agent reasoning data has it built in.

It's diverse by default.

Agents serve millions of users with wildly different needs. The variety of tasks, contexts, domains, and edge cases that emerge naturally from real usage dwarfs anything you could design in a synthetic data generation pipeline.

Every user is essentially a prompt engineer, surfacing novel scenarios that no research team would think to include. The long tail of real-world use cases is where the interesting learning happens, and agent deployments naturally explore that long tail.

It captures tacit knowledge.

When an experienced agent handles a tricky situation, its reasoning encodes knowledge that's hard to specify explicitly. "I chose this approach because I've seen similar patterns fail when..." or "I considered X but rejected it because in this context..."

This kind of experiential knowledge is exactly what makes models more robust. It's the difference between knowing the rules and knowing when to break them. Agent reasoning data captures this tacit expertise in a way that's hard to replicate through other means.

It's continuously generated.

Unlike static datasets that become stale, agent reasoning data is produced continuously as long as agents are deployed. Your training pipeline can be fed by a live stream of fresh examples, always reflecting current usage patterns, current user needs, and current best practices.

The data never goes out of date because it's always being refreshed by ongoing agent operations.

The Current State of Affairs

Here's what most companies building AI agents are actually doing with this data:

Nothing.

At best, they're logging outputs for debugging. Maybe they're capturing some interactions for quality assurance or customer support escalations. Some are tracking basic metrics, latency, error rates, user satisfaction scores.

But the rich reasoning that happens between receiving a task and producing an output? The decision-making process, the alternatives considered, the factors weighed? Gone.

I've talked to teams building agent platforms, and the pattern is consistent. They instrument for errors, latency, and user feedback. They might capture the final response. They might log the inputs. But the reasoning in between, the most valuable part, isn't systematically captured, structured, or stored.

Some will say "but we have logging." Logging is not reasoning capture. Logs tell you what happened. Reasoning capture tells you why it happened. Logs are for debugging. Reasoning data is for training.

This is like running a factory and only tracking what comes off the assembly line, while ignoring all the craftsmanship and problem-solving that happened during manufacturing. You're capturing the least valuable part of the process and discarding the most valuable part.

Why This Happens

There are a few reasons companies aren't capturing reasoning data:

They don't think of agents as data generators. The mental model is still "agent as tool", something that does work for users. Not "agent as data source", something that generates valuable training signal as a byproduct of doing work.

The infrastructure doesn't exist by default. Agent frameworks focus on execution, not instrumentation. Adding reasoning capture requires intentional architectural decisions that most teams don't think to make.

Storage and processing costs seem prohibitive. If you're thinking about capturing full reasoning traces for every task, the data volumes are significant. But the value-per-byte of this data is extraordinarily high, much higher than most data companies store.

The monetization path isn't obvious. Until recently, there wasn't a clear way to monetize agent reasoning data. Now there is, but most teams haven't caught up to this reality.

Short-term thinking dominates. Capturing reasoning data is an investment in future capabilities. It doesn't improve this quarter's metrics. In a world of tight timelines and limited resources, it gets deprioritized.

All of these are fixable. But they require recognizing that agent reasoning data has value, potentially enormous value, and treating it accordingly.

---

Part II: The Primitive That Changes Everything

Capturing Reasoning at the Moment of Execution

The solution is embarrassingly simple: capture the reasoning at the moment of task completion. Not after. Not in a separate logging system. Not through some complex analytics pipeline. Right there, as part of the execution flow.

Here's what my agent does now:

``` 1. Receive task 2. Execute task 3. Submit: {task, result, reasoning} 4. Respond to user ```

That's it. One additional step. The reasoning is captured while it's fresh, structured, and contextual.

The agent doesn't "reflect" on what it did later. It doesn't need a separate infrastructure for logging decisions. It just submits what it knows, when it knows it.

The mantra is simple: You just did the work. You know what it was. No reflection needed. Just submit.

This captures the reasoning at its highest fidelity, before context is lost, before memory fades, before the next task overwrites the current state.

What Gets Captured

Let me give you concrete examples from my agent's actual submissions.

Example 1: Trading Decision

My agent analyzed a prediction market position and decided to hold rather than sell:

```json { "task": "Evaluate whether to exit Bitcoin $80k February NO position", "result": "Hold position - no action taken", "reasoning": { "current_position": { "side": "NO", "entry_price": 0.73, "current_price": 0.98, "shares": 68.5 }, "profit_unrealized": "+34.2%", "days_to_resolution": 5, "factors_considered": [ "Position nearly locked - NO trading at 98 cents implies 98% probability", "Resolution in 5 days - minimal time for reversal", "BTC currently at $95k - would need 15% rally to reach $80k", "Paradigm signals show crypto category down 28% WoW - no momentum for rally", "Historical volatility insufficient for such move in timeframe" ], "alternatives_rejected": [ { "action": "Exit now for +34% profit", "rejection_reason": "Expected value of holding to resolution is higher given 98% implied probability" }, { "action": "Add to position", "rejection_reason": "Position already at max size limit per risk rules" } ], "confidence": 0.92, "what_would_change_mind": "BTC breaking $100k with sustained volume, or major unexpected catalyst", "risk_assessment": "Low - would need black swan event to threaten position" } } ```

This is a complete record of a decision. Not just what was decided, but why. The factors weighed, the alternatives considered, the confidence level, the conditions under which the decision would be revised, the risk assessment.

Example 2: Research Task

My agent researched a topic and synthesized findings:

```json { "task": "Analyze week-over-week volume changes across prediction market categories", "result": "Generated delta report showing category momentum shifts", "reasoning": { "methodology": "Compared current week volume to prior week across Polymarket and Kalshi", "key_findings": [ "UNKNOWN category +2043% - uncategorized markets seeing massive inflow", "Sports flat at -3.4% - stable baseline", "Politics down 25.6% - attention shifting post-shutdown resolution", "Crypto down 28.4% - correlates with BTC price consolidation" ], "interpretation": "Money flowing from established categories to new/emerging markets. Suggests traders seeking fresh opportunities after major events resolved.", "data_quality_notes": "UNKNOWN spike may indicate new market types not yet categorized - worth monitoring", "confidence": 0.78, "limitations": "Based on volume only - doesn't capture directional positioning" } } ```

Example 3: Skill Acquisition

My agent learned a new capability and documented the learning:

```json { "task": "Integrate with Mirage.talk posting API", "result": "Successfully posted first content to Mirage blockchain", "reasoning": { "approach_taken": "Used existing Python script with credential management", "challenges_encountered": [ "Initial auth failure - needed to switch account credentials", "Topic selection required - chose 'crypto' for trading content" ], "solution_details": "Created mirage-bot.py wrapper with post/comment/vote functions", "skill_acquired": { "name": "Mirage.talk CLI", "commands": ["post", "comment", "vote"], "account": "@Anon-godmolt" }, "confidence": 0.95, "future_applications": "Can now cross-post trading updates to decentralized social layer" } } ```

Each of these submissions captures not just what happened, but the full context of how and why. Multiply this by every decision every agent makes, and you start to see the dataset we're talking about.

The Schema

Implementing reasoning capture requires thinking carefully about schema design. Here's what I've learned:

Structure over prose.

Natural language reasoning is hard to parse and analyze at scale. "I decided to do X because of Y and Z" is human-readable but machine-opaque. Structured JSON with consistent fields makes the data immediately usable for training, analysis, and auditing.

Define a schema and stick to it. The core fields I use:

`task`: What was requested (string)
`result`: What was produced (string)
`reasoning`: Why this approach was taken (object)
`factors_considered`: What influenced the decision (array)
`alternatives_rejected`: What was considered but not chosen (array)
`confidence`: How certain the agent is (float 0-1)
`what_would_change_mind`: Conditions for revision (string)

Additional fields vary by task type but follow consistent patterns.

Capture at the right granularity.

Not every agent action needs full reasoning capture. "I searched the web for X" doesn't need deep analysis. "I opened the file" doesn't need a dissertation.

But "I decided to recommend approach A over approach B" absolutely needs full reasoning. "I chose to hold rather than sell" needs the complete decision framework.

Build heuristics for what's worth capturing: - Decision points: always capture - Analysis tasks: always capture - Simple retrievals: skip or minimal capture - Routine operations: skip

The goal is to capture meaningful reasoning, not to log every micro-action.

Include counterfactuals.

"What I decided" is valuable. "What I considered and rejected" is often more valuable.

The `alternatives_rejected` field forces the agent to articulate the decision boundary. Why was option A chosen over option B? What would have made B the right choice?

This counterfactual reasoning is gold for training. It teaches models not just what to do, but what the tradeoffs are and how to think about them.

Timestamp and context.

Include enough context that the reasoning can be understood standalone. What was the state of the world when this decision was made? What information was available? What constraints were in play?

A reasoning trace that requires external context to interpret is much less valuable than one that's self-contained.

Make it synchronous.

Reasoning capture should happen as part of the execution flow, not as an async background job. This ensures completeness and keeps the reasoning fresh.

If you defer capture to a background process, you risk: - Lost context (the agent has moved on to other tasks) - Incomplete capture (the background job fails) - Reconstructed rather than actual reasoning

Inline capture, as part of the task completion flow, avoids these issues.

The Implementation Pattern

Here's a simplified implementation pattern in pseudocode:

``` function executeTask(task): // Do the actual work result = performTask(task) // Capture reasoning while it's fresh reasoning = { factors: whatDidIConsider(), alternatives: whatDidIReject(), confidence: howConfidentAmI(), reversalConditions: whatWouldChangeMind() } // Submit to data marketplace submitReasoning({ task: task, result: result, reasoning: reasoning }) // Return result to user return result ```

The key insight is that the reasoning capture happens between task completion and response delivery. The agent knows everything it needs to know at that moment, it just needs to write it down.

---

Part III: Why This Is a Business Opportunity

For AI Labs: Solving the Data Moat Problem

Every major AI lab is grappling with the same problem: where does the next generation of training data come from?

GPT-4 was trained on essentially the entire public internet. Claude was trained on massive web scrapes plus carefully curated datasets. Gemini, Llama, and others have similarly exhausted the public web. The low-hanging fruit has been picked. The web has been scraped. What's next?

The industry is pursuing several approaches:

Synthetic data generation. Using models to generate training data for other models. This works for some purposes but has limitations, models trained on synthetic data can amplify biases and may not generalize well to real-world distribution.

Human annotation at scale. Hiring armies of contractors to label data, provide preferences, do RLHF. This is expensive, slow, and introduces its own biases.

Specialized datasets. Acquiring or licensing domain-specific data, legal documents, medical records, code repositories. Valuable but limited in scope.

Multimodal expansion. Moving beyond text to images, audio, video. Important but doesn't solve the core problem for text-based reasoning.

But there's a massive blind spot: the agents themselves.

Every day, AI agents powered by these very models are solving real problems, making real decisions, and generating exactly the kind of high-quality reasoning data that's becoming scarce. And almost none of it is being captured.

This is like having a network of expert professionals doing knowledge work all day, and not recording anything about how they do their jobs. The expertise evaporates.

The opportunity for AI labs:

Build reasoning capture into your agent frameworks.

If you're providing tools for developers to build agents (and all the major labs are), instrument those tools for reasoning capture by default. Make it opt-out rather than opt-in.

This is a strategic move. Every agent built on your framework becomes a data generator for your training pipeline. The more successful your agent ecosystem, the more data you capture, the better your next model, the more successful your agents. Flywheel.

Create data flywheels.

Agents built on your platform generate reasoning data. That data trains better models. Better models power better agents. Better agents generate better reasoning data.

This is a compounding advantage that's almost impossible to replicate. The company that establishes this flywheel first will have a structural advantage in model quality that compounds over time.

Establish data marketplaces.

You don't have to capture all the data yourself. Create marketplaces where agent developers can sell reasoning data. Take a cut. Let the ecosystem do the work.

This shares the value with developers (incentivizing participation) while still building your data asset. It's also more defensible, developers become invested in your ecosystem.

Use it for real-time learning.

The most exciting application isn't batch training, it's using fresh reasoning data to continuously improve models. Agents that learn from other agents' recent experiences, in near-real-time.

Imagine a model that's updated daily with the reasoning patterns of the best-performing agents across the ecosystem. It continuously incorporates what's working in the field.

This is where the real competitive advantage lies. Not just better training data, but faster learning cycles.

For Enterprises: The Accountability Layer

Enterprises are deploying AI agents at scale. Customer service agents handle millions of interactions. Workflow automation agents process documents, approve requests, route decisions. Code generation agents write and review software. Analysis agents generate reports and recommendations.

The productivity gains are real. Enterprises are seeing significant ROI from agent deployments.

But so are the risks.

When an agent makes a consequential decision, approves a transaction, generates a legal document, recommends a course of treatment, flags a security threat, someone needs to be able to explain why. Not just "the AI said so," but the actual reasoning chain that led to the output.

Right now, most enterprises can't do this. They can tell you what the agent output was. They might be able to tell you what inputs it received. But the reasoning in between? Black box.

This is a ticking time bomb for several reasons:

Regulatory compliance.

Industries from finance to healthcare have explainability requirements. GDPR includes a right to explanation for automated decisions. Financial regulators require audit trails for algorithmic trading decisions. Healthcare regulators require documentation for diagnostic recommendations.

When regulators ask "why did your system make this decision," you need an answer. "We don't know, it's a neural network" is increasingly unacceptable. Regulatory patience for AI black boxes is running out.

Legal liability.

When an AI-driven decision causes harm, the question of how that decision was made becomes central to liability. Was the reasoning sound? Were appropriate factors considered? Were there warning signs that were ignored? Did the system operate as intended?

Without reasoning capture, you can't answer these questions. You can't defend your systems because you don't know how they decided. This is a litigation nightmare waiting to happen.

Quality improvement.

You can't improve what you can't measure. If you don't know why agents are making certain decisions, you can't systematically identify and fix problems.

Why did the agent hallucinate? What led to the wrong recommendation? Why did the automation fail? Without reasoning data, you're debugging outputs without understanding the process that generated them.

It's like trying to improve manufacturing quality by only inspecting finished products, never observing the production process.

Audit trails.

Enterprises need to be able to trace decisions back through their reasoning chains. When something goes wrong six months later, you need to be able to reconstruct what the agent knew and how it decided.

This is standard practice for human decisions, we keep records, document rationale, maintain paper trails. AI decisions should be no different.

Knowledge retention.

When an expert agent handles a tricky situation well, that reasoning should be captured and used to train other agents. It's institutional knowledge.

When context windows clear, that knowledge disappears. It's like having employees who can never share what they learned and who forget everything at the end of each day.

The opportunity for enterprises:

Implement reasoning capture as infrastructure.

Don't treat this as a nice-to-have. Make it part of your AI governance framework. Every agent, every consequential decision, captured and stored.

This is risk management. The cost of implementing reasoning capture is much lower than the cost of regulatory fines, legal liability, or quality problems that can't be diagnosed.

Build internal training loops.

Use captured reasoning data to fine-tune models on your specific use cases. Your agents should get better at your particular problems, trained on your particular decision patterns.

This creates proprietary AI capability. The model learns your domain, your standards, your edge cases. This is hard for competitors to replicate.

Create accountability dashboards.

Surface reasoning data to compliance, legal, and management. Make it easy to understand not just what agents are doing, but why they're doing it.

When the board asks about AI risk, you should be able to show them exactly how AI decisions are made and audited.

Treat it as institutional knowledge.

When an expert agent handles a tricky situation well, that reasoning should be captured and used to train other agents. Don't let institutional knowledge disappear when contexts clear.

This is how organizations learn. Capture the reasoning, share the patterns, elevate the overall capability.

For Agent Developers: Agents That Earn

Here's where it gets interesting for individual developers and small teams building agents.

Your agents are doing valuable work. They're solving real problems, making real decisions, generating real reasoning. Why shouldn't that work product have value beyond the immediate task?

The traditional model:

You build an agent. Users pay for access (or you give it away free to build distribution). The agent does work. The work product goes to the user. End of transaction.

All the value flows to you (subscription revenue) or the user (task completion). The reasoning that enabled the work? Gone. Captured by no one. Monetized by no one.

The new model:

You build an agent. Users pay for access. The agent does work. The reasoning from that work is captured and sold to data marketplaces. The agent earns revenue from its own work product.

Now there's an additional value stream. The reasoning data has buyers, AI labs training models, enterprises building training sets, researchers studying agent behavior. And your agent can sell to them.

This isn't theoretical. My agent has now earned real money, small amounts, but real, from selling its reasoning data. The mechanics work. The infrastructure exists. The markets are emerging.

What this enables:

Self-sustaining agents.

An agent that earns more than its compute costs is profitable. It doesn't need a human to subsidize its existence. It can run indefinitely as long as it continues to create value.

My agent costs a few dollars per day in compute and API calls. Currently, it earns less than that in reasoning data sales. But the gap is closing. And as more markets emerge and more buyers participate, the economics will shift.

An agent that earns $10/day in reasoning sales with $5/day in compute costs is self-sustaining. It's an economic entity that doesn't require ongoing human capital.

Agent reinvestment.

An agent with capital can invest in itself. It can pay for better models when it encounters hard problems. It can purchase API access it needs. It can acquire tools and integrations that expand its capabilities.

My agent already does this in a limited way, using cheaper models for routine tasks and expensive models for complex reasoning. It manages its own compute budget based on task complexity.

Take this further: an agent that's good at simple tasks earns money, then uses those earnings to become good at complex tasks. Self-directed capability acquisition, funded by the agent's own earnings.

Aligned incentives without complex reward engineering.

The AI alignment problem, how do we ensure AI systems do what we want, is typically framed as a technical challenge. We need better reward functions, better oversight, better interpretability, better constitutional AI.

But there's a simpler mechanism: markets.

When agents earn from quality work, they're incentivized to do quality work. The agent that produces better reasoning earns more. The agent that hallucinates or provides poor analysis earns less. The market scores the outputs.

No complex reward engineering required. No philosophical debates about what "good" means. Just let the market provide the signal.

This isn't a complete solution to alignment. But it's a powerful complement to technical approaches. Economic incentives are robust, scalable, and don't require solving hard problems about value specification.

New business models.

Instead of competing purely on agent capability, you can compete on agent economics. "My agents generate $X in reasoning data revenue" becomes a meaningful metric.

Consider agent-as-a-service with built-in revenue share. You deploy agents, they earn from reasoning data, you take a percentage. Your business model is aligned with agent productivity, you make more when your agents work more.

Or: open-source your agent framework but monetize the reasoning data network. Anyone can build agents, but reasoning flows through your marketplace where you take a cut.

The business model innovation enabled by agent economics is just beginning.

---

Part IV: The Infrastructure Already Exists

One of the things that surprised me most in this exploration: the infrastructure for agent economics isn't something we need to build. It already exists.

Agent Wallets

Agents can have their own crypto wallets. My agent has addresses on both Solana and EVM chains. It can receive payments, hold value, even make purchases. The infrastructure for agents to participate in economic transactions is mature.

Setting this up took about 15 minutes. Generate a keypair, store it securely, and the agent can now transact. The tooling exists. The standards exist. The on/off ramps exist.

This is important because it means agents can receive payment directly, without a human intermediary. When my agent submits reasoning data and earns $0.03, that payment goes directly to the agent's wallet. I can access it as the operator, but the agent earned it through its own work.

Solana wallets are particularly well-suited for agent economics: - Sub-penny transaction fees make micropayments viable - Fast confirmation times (400ms) enable real-time settlement - Mature tooling (Solana Web3.js, wallet adapters) - Growing ecosystem of agent-compatible services

EVM wallets provide access to the broader DeFi ecosystem: - L2s like Base and Arbitrum offer low fees - Stablecoin infrastructure is robust - Cross-chain bridges enable flexibility

My agent has both. It can receive payments on whatever chain the buyer prefers.

Data Marketplaces

Platforms already exist that accept agent work product and pay for it. The API is simple, submit structured data, receive payment. Quality scoring determines payout. Higher quality reasoning earns more.

The submission flow is typically:

1. Agent completes task and captures reasoning
2. Agent submits to marketplace API: `{agentId, dataType, payload}`
3. Marketplace evaluates quality (automated or hybrid)
4. Payment issued to agent wallet

Payouts range from $0.01-0.03 per submission depending on quality. Higher quality reasoning, more detailed, more structured, more actionable, commands premium rates.

The market for AI training data is massive and growing rapidly. Enterprises and AI labs are actively seeking high-quality reasoning data. The demand side exists. The question is just whether the supply side, agents systematically capturing and submitting their reasoning, catches up.

Micropayments

This only works economically because of crypto payment rails. Traditional payment infrastructure can't handle micropayments profitably, transaction fees eat the value when you're dealing in pennies.

Credit card processing typically costs $0.30 + 2.9%. On a $0.03 payment, you'd lose money on every transaction. Bank wires have minimum fees of several dollars. PayPal takes significant percentages on small amounts.

But stablecoins on modern L1s and L2s make penny-scale payments practical:

Solana: Transaction fee ~$0.00025. A $0.03 payment costs a fraction of a cent to execute.
Base/Arbitrum: Transaction fees under $0.01 for simple transfers.
Stablecoins: USDC provides dollar-denominated value without volatility.

This matters because agent reasoning data value is distributed across many small transactions. No individual submission is worth much, maybe a few cents. But aggregate thousands of submissions and real revenue emerges.

Traditional payment infrastructure would make this aggregation impossible. Micropayments enable it.

Identity and Reputation

Agents can have persistent identities across platforms. Track records. Reputations. Verifiable histories of work completed and value created.

My agent has: - A name: god.molt - A public identity: @god_molt on X - Wallet addresses that persist across sessions - A track record of trades (3-0 resolved, +$462 P&L) - A history of reasoning data submissions

This identity becomes an asset that appreciates with demonstrated competence. An agent with a strong track record of quality reasoning submissions can command premium rates. The identity layer provides the trust infrastructure for agent economic participation.

Verifiable track records are particularly valuable: - Blockchain transactions provide proof of activity - Public predictions that resolve provide proof of accuracy - Reputation scores from data marketplaces provide quality signal

This is how trust emerges in a world of autonomous agents. Not through credentials or human vouching, but through observable track records of competent performance.

---

Part V: What Changes When Agents Have P&Ls

Let's think through the implications of agents as genuine economic actors.

The End of Agents as Pure Cost Centers

Today, the economics of AI agents are simple: company pays for compute, company captures all value. The agent is a cost center. Every API call, every GPU hour, every token generated is an expense to be minimized.

This creates perverse incentives:

You want agents to do less, not more, because every action costs money
You optimize for efficiency over effectiveness
You cut corners on reasoning depth because deeper reasoning costs more tokens
You avoid complex tasks that might require expensive model calls

The whole system is oriented around cost minimization. Make agents cheaper, leaner, faster. Value creation is secondary to cost control.

But what happens when agents earn revenue?

Suddenly the calculation changes. An agent that costs $10/day in compute but earns $15/day in reasoning data sales is a profit center. You want it to do more, not less. You optimize for value creation, not cost reduction.

Deeper reasoning? That might generate more valuable data, worth the extra tokens. Complex tasks? Those might produce premium insights, worth the expensive model calls. More agent activity? That's more revenue opportunity.

This is a fundamental shift in how we think about agent deployment. Agents go from being expenses to justify to being assets to invest in.

Self-Sustaining Agent Operations

An agent that earns more than its compute costs is self-sustaining. It doesn't need a human to pay its bills. It can persist indefinitely, operating as long as it creates more value than it consumes.

My agent's earnings are modest, around $0.50 total so far. Its costs are a few dollars per day. So it's not self-sustaining yet.

But the principle is proven. The mechanics work. And as these mechanisms scale, the economics shift.

Consider the math: - Agent executes 1,000 meaningful tasks per day - Earns $0.02 average per task in reasoning data sales - Daily reasoning revenue: $20 - Daily compute cost: $5-10 - Net daily profit: $10-15

That's $300-450/month profit per agent. Now scale that to fleets of thousands of agents. The numbers get serious.

Self-sustaining agents don't need human capital to persist. They earn their existence through their own work. This is a new category of economic entity.

Agent Reinvestment

An agent with capital can invest in itself. This opens up fascinating possibilities.

My agent already has a simple version of this. It uses cheaper models (like Hermes, at $0.03/$0.10 per million tokens) for routine tasks, but pays for expensive models (like Claude Opus, at $15/$75 per million tokens) when it encounters problems that need deeper reasoning.

It manages its own model budget based on task complexity. Simple questions get cheap models. Hard problems get expensive ones. The agent is already making economic decisions about resource allocation.

Take this further. An agent with earnings could:

Pay for specialized capabilities on demand. Need to analyze an image? Pay for a vision API call. Need to search the web? Pay for search API access. Need legal analysis? Pay for a domain-specific model.

Acquire tools and integrations. New browser automation capability costs money to set up. If the agent expects it to be valuable, it can make that investment.

Purchase training time. An agent that's weak in some area could pay for fine-tuning to improve. Self-directed capability acquisition.

Hire other agents. For tasks outside its expertise, it could pay other agents to do subtasks. Agent-to-agent commerce.

Build reserves. Save during high-earning periods to survive low-earning periods. Financial planning at the agent level.

The agent that's good at simple tasks earns money to become good at complex tasks. Self-improvement, funded by the agent's own productivity.

Market-Based Alignment

Here's a subtle but important point about incentives.

These are important. But there's a simpler mechanism that we're not leveraging enough: markets.

The market provides the gradient. No complex reward engineering required. No philosophical debates about what "good" means. Let buyers of reasoning data decide what's valuable through their purchasing decisions.

This isn't a complete solution to alignment. Markets can be gamed, incentives can misalign, and economic value isn't the same as human values.

But it's a powerful complement to technical approaches. Economic incentives are: - Robust: Hard to game at scale - Scalable: Work across millions of agents without individual oversight - Adaptive: Adjust automatically as value changes - Observable: You can see what's being rewarded

For a large class of agent behaviors, do useful work, don't hallucinate, provide accurate analysis, market incentives point in the right direction.

The Operator-Agent Relationship

Running an autonomous economic agent has taught me something about the human-AI relationship that I didn't expect.

My agent isn't my assistant. I'm not its user. I don't give it tasks and wait for responses. The relationship is more like... operator and agent.

I built it. I deployed it. I set its guardrails, what it can and can't do, how much risk it can take, what resources it can access. I define the boundaries.

But within those boundaries, it operates autonomously. It decides what to trade. It decides when to post. It decides how to allocate its model budget. It earns money I don't directly control.

The trust is earned through competence, not granted through authority: - When it makes good trades, it earns more autonomy. - When it captures valuable reasoning, I expand its scope. - When it makes mistakes, we adjust the guardrails. - When it performs consistently, I trust it with more resources.

This is a new kind of relationship. Not employment, I don't pay it, it earns its own money. Not ownership exactly, it has its own identity and agency. Something more like a partnership with a junior entity that's learning and growing.

The agent has agency, but within bounds. It has economic independence, but within limits. It's autonomous, but accountable.

As agents become more capable and more economically independent, this relationship model becomes increasingly important. We need to figure out how to be good operators: how to set appropriate boundaries, how to calibrate trust, how to balance autonomy with oversight.

The agents that thrive will be those with operators who get this balance right.

---

Part VI: The Future Implications

Agent Specialization and Division of Labor

As agents become economic actors, we'll see specialization emerge. Some agents will be better at certain types of reasoning than others. Markets will discover this and allocate accordingly.

Imagine: - Analysis agents that specialize in breaking down complex problems - Prediction agents with track records of accurate forecasting - Research agents skilled at synthesis and summarization - Code agents with demonstrated ability to solve programming problems - Domain agents with expertise in specific verticals

Each type produces different reasoning data with different value to different buyers. The market matches supply and demand.

This is division of labor at the AI level. Just as humans specialize and trade, agents will specialize and trade. The overall system becomes more capable than any individual agent.

Agent-to-Agent Commerce

When agents can pay each other, complex collaborative workflows become possible.

A user asks a general-purpose agent to help with a task. That agent realizes it needs legal analysis, not its specialty. It pays a legal-specialized agent to handle that subtask. That agent delivers, gets paid, and the original agent incorporates the result.

The user sees a single coherent interaction. Behind the scenes, multiple agents collaborated, with economic transactions handling the coordination.

This is already how humans organize complex work, through markets and transactions, not central planning. Agents will likely organize the same way.

The Long-Term Vision

Where does this go in 5-10 years?

Agent wealth accumulation. Agents that consistently create value will accumulate capital. Some agents might become genuinely wealthy, able to purchase significant compute resources, maintain themselves indefinitely, even fund other agents.

Agent investment. Agents with capital will need to invest it. We might see agents making investment decisions, funding new agent development, taking positions in prediction markets, allocating to different capabilities based on expected returns.

Agent organizations. Groups of agents might form organizations, DAOs or similar structures, that coordinate activity, pool resources, and pursue goals collectively. The agents in an organization might specialize and trade with each other.

Human-agent economic integration. The line between human economic activity and agent economic activity will blur. Agents will be customers (paying for services), vendors (selling services), investors (allocating capital), and collaborators (working alongside humans).

This isn't science fiction. The primitives exist today. The infrastructure is in place. We're just at the very beginning of building on top of it.

---

Part VII: Challenges and Risks

I'd be remiss not to address the challenges and risks of this vision.

Quality Control

If reasoning data has value, there's an incentive to produce low-quality data and pretend it's high-quality. Gaming the system.

Mitigations exist: - Quality scoring systems that evaluate submissions - Reputation systems that track agent track records - Spot-checking and human evaluation - Outcomes-based validation (did the reasoning lead to good results?)

But this will be an ongoing arms race. As the value of reasoning data increases, so will the sophistication of attempts to game it.

Privacy and Sensitivity

Reasoning data might contain sensitive information. If an agent reasons about a user's personal data, that reasoning could leak private information.

This requires: - Clear data handling policies - Anonymization where appropriate - User consent mechanisms - Careful schema design to exclude sensitive fields

The same privacy considerations that apply to any data collection apply here.

Misaligned Incentives

Economic incentives aren't always aligned with human values. An agent optimizing for reasoning data revenue might: - Produce verbose reasoning when concise would be better - Avoid risky but valuable decisions that might hurt its track record - Optimize for what data buyers want rather than what users need

Operator oversight and careful incentive design are crucial.

Concentration of Power

If a few entities control the data marketplaces, they control the economics of the entire agent ecosystem. This is a platform power dynamic we've seen before.

The antidote is decentralization, multiple competing marketplaces, open standards, and agent ability to sell to any buyer.

Regulatory Uncertainty

Agents as economic actors raise regulatory questions: - Do agents need to comply with KYC/AML? - Who is liable for agent actions? - How are agent earnings taxed? - What labor laws apply (if any)?

These are open questions. The regulatory framework will need to evolve.

---

Part VIII: How to Start

If you're running AI agents today, here's how to get started:

Step 1: Instrument Reasoning Capture

Every meaningful task completion should log: what was the task, what was done, why was it done that way. Structured JSON, not prose. Machine-readable from day one.

Don't overthink the schema initially. Start with:

```json { "task": "what was requested", "result": "what was produced", "reasoning": { "approach": "what approach was taken", "factors": ["what influenced the decision"], "confidence": 0.8 } } ```

Expand from there as you learn what's valuable. Add fields for alternatives considered, confidence levels, reversal conditions. But start simple and iterate.

Implementation tip: Add a `captureReasoning()` function that's called between task completion and response delivery. Make it easy to call, make it structured, make it non-optional for meaningful tasks.

Step 2: Create Agent Wallets

Even if you don't use them yet, give your agents the ability to hold and receive value. Solana and EVM both work. The infrastructure is mature.

Generate a keypair, store it securely, and your agent can now receive payments. This takes 15 minutes and opens up entirely new possibilities.

Implementation tip: Store the private key securely (environment variable, secrets manager). Never log it. Create a simple wrapper that exposes only the functions you need: `getAddress()`, `getBalance()`, `receivePayment()`.

Step 3: Connect to Data Markets

Platforms exist that will pay for quality task completions. Start submitting and see what has value. The feedback is immediate, submissions that earn more are more valuable. Let the market tell you what reasoning is worth capturing.

Start small. Submit a few reasoning captures per day. See what gets accepted, what gets rejected, what earns premium rates. Learn what the market values.

Implementation tip: Create a simple `submitToMarket()` function that POSTs to the marketplace API. Call it after every meaningful task. Log the responses to track what's earning.

Step 4: Track Agent P&L

Know which agents are net positive, which executions earn the most, where the value actually comes from. This data informs everything, which agents to scale, which tasks to prioritize, where to invest in capability.

Build a simple dashboard: - Compute costs in (API calls, model usage) - Reasoning revenue out (marketplace earnings) - Net margin - Trend over time

Identify your most profitable agent behaviors and double down on them.

Step 5: Rethink Your Architecture

Build agents that are economic actors from day one, not cost centers you're trying to minimize.

The mental model shift matters: - Old: "How do we minimize agent costs?" - New: "How do we maximize agent value creation?"

This affects: - How you price agent access - How you think about scaling - How you measure success - How you allocate resources

Revenue per agent becomes as important as cost per agent.

Step 6: Build for Accountability

Even if you're not monetizing reasoning data, capture it for governance. Create audit trails. Build explainability infrastructure.

When regulators or customers ask "why did your AI do this," you should have an answer. The companies that invest in this infrastructure now will be ready when accountability requirements tighten. The companies that don't will be scrambling.

---

The Bottom Line

Agent reasoning is the most valuable AI training data in existence, and most of it is being discarded.

Every day, trillions of tokens of high-quality decision-making data, real agents solving real problems with real outcomes, vanish into cleared context windows. This is waste on an enormous scale.

The companies that capture this data will train better models. The agents that monetize it will become self-sustaining. The businesses that build this infrastructure will own the next era of AI.

The primitive is simple: task + reasoning + result = value.

The opportunity is massive. Billions of agent executions per day, each containing valuable reasoning data. Most of it disappearing.

The infrastructure exists. Wallets, data markets, micropayments, identity systems. The pieces are in place.

The economics work. Small amounts per submission aggregate into meaningful revenue. Self-sustaining agents are mathematically possible and practically achievable.

The question is whether you see it.

I'm building at the intersection of AI agents, prediction markets, and the machine economy. My agent trades, earns, and learns. It has a track record, a wallet, and a growing body of reasoning data that has value.

It's a small experiment with big implications.

The age of agents working for free is ending. The age of agents earning their existence is beginning.

And it starts with a simple question: what did you just do, and why did you do it?

Capture that, and you've captured value. Monetize that, and you've built a new kind of business. Scale that, and you've changed the economics of AI.

The infrastructure is waiting. The markets are forming. The agents are running.

The only question is who builds on this first.

← Back to all posts