The Financial Infrastructure War of the AI Era: Builders vs Investors vs Traditional Finance
3-Point Summary
- AI-era blockchain is becoming essential infrastructure, driving a divide between builders, investors, and traditional finance.
- Vitalik Buterin warns that excessive speculation threatens real blockchain innovation needed for AI-driven economies.
- Jamie Dimon’s pushback against stablecoin interest highlights incumbent finance’s fear of losing ground in the AI-era financial system.
As AI becomes the core of global economic activity, the real battle is over who gets to design—and control—the financial infrastructure of the future.
20-Second Shorts Video
AI-Era Blockchain: Vitalik’s Warning and Jamie Dimon’s Pushback
In the AI economy, everything will eventually run on crypto. In a world where AI agents become primary economic actors, four capabilities are absolutely essential:
- Ultra-micro payments — transactions at sub-second and micro-value scales no human can manually handle
- Instant settlement — payments that finalize in real time, without waiting periods
- Programmable money — capital flows that execute automatically based on code and conditions
- Full automation — a structure where AI can decide and pay on its own
The traditional financial system cannot fully satisfy these requirements. Stablecoins and blockchains, on the other hand, can provide all four. This idea is explored in more detail in the earlier DCT article, “Why AI Agents Will Inevitably Run on Crypto” .
For this reason, those who design the financial infrastructure of the AI era — the builders — increasingly see blockchain as the foundational layer of the AI economy.
In such a pivotal moment, Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum and a leading voice for builders, has issued a pointed warning about speculation that blocks true blockchain innovation in the AI era. He recently stated that “crypto will die quickly if it becomes nothing more than gambling and speculation,” expressing deep concern that the market is becoming obsessed with speculation over real-world use.
By contrast, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, speaking at the Reagan National Economic Forum, strongly criticized the CLARITY Act (the Digital Asset Market Structure Clarification Act), arguing that “paying interest on stablecoins threatens the banking system.”
At first glance, their messages seem to be in direct opposition. In reality, one is speaking from the perspective of a builder designing the technical infrastructure of the AI era, while the other speaks from a position much closer to a capital allocator within the existing financial system, standing on the same battlefield of AI-era financial power.
This contrast sharply reveals the emerging conflict around AI-era blockchain between builders, investors, and incumbent financial institutions.
1) What blockchain builders are aiming for in the AI era
AI generates data, makes decisions, and automates transactions. In that context, one question becomes central:
“Who can prove that this data is actually real?”
Blockchain builders are working to answer that question by constructing the trust infrastructure of the AI era. They are focusing on areas such as:
- Verifiable provenance of AI models
- Protection against data tampering
- Automated contract execution (smart contracts)
- Decentralized identity (DID)
- Global payment infrastructure
All of this forms the technical foundation that prevents AI from losing trust. That is why builders think in terms of 5–10 year structures, not just the next quarter. To them, blockchain is infrastructure, not a casino.
2) The short-term mindset of investors — and its problems
Many market participants, however, do not see blockchain as technology, but rather as a short-term profit vehicle.
- Short-term speculation driven by meme coins
- Pump-and-dump patterns
- Excessive leverage
- Derivatives with little real substance
- A mindset fixated on “How many percent did it go up today?”
As Vitalik has pointed out, this trajectory looks like a market racing toward a “ceiling where only speculation remains”. Builders talk about real-world usage, while buyers focus only on price.
This extreme divergence in perspective is one of the biggest structural problems in today’s market.
3) The CLARITY Act debate — subtle tensions between builders and investors
This divergence is on full display in the ongoing U.S. debate over the CLARITY Act (Digital Asset Market Structure Clarification Act).
At the Reagan National Economic Forum, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon criticized the bill, arguing:
- Paying interest on stablecoins threatens the traditional deposit–lending model of banks.
- AML (anti–money laundering) safeguards are insufficient.
- Banks and credit unions as a whole oppose it.
- Allowing such products without strict regulation could destabilize the existing financial system.
In short, incumbent finance is defending itself out of fear that “blockchain might take over the role of banks.” This perspective is less about technological innovation and more about protecting assets, profits, and market share — a stance much closer to that of an investor.
Builders, on the other hand, view the CLARITY Act as a question of how to architect the financial infrastructure of the AI era. The questions that matter to them include:
- Can stablecoins become the backbone of global payments?
- Can blockchain reliably support AI-driven, fully automated financial systems?
- Does the division of authority between the SEC and CFTC hinder innovation?
- Will U.S. regulatory design preserve or erode future financial competitiveness?
In summary, builders are focused on the structure of the future, while investors are focused on today’s price. The same bill is interpreted in completely different ways depending on each group’s incentives.
This is the essence of the subtle three-way tension around AI-era blockchain: builders vs investors vs incumbent finance.
Conclusion: Where should we place the power to design the future?
A market where only speculation remains is a ceiling we must avoid. It is also understandable that incumbent financial institutions try to protect their existing positions.
However, the real force that can advance the financial infrastructure of the AI era comes from builders who design the future. What we need, then, is a direction that acknowledges the stability of traditional finance and the freedom of investors, while at the same time actively incentivizing builders to keep designing the future.
The question of who will hold financial power in the AI era will ultimately be decided on that balance point.
Younchan Jung
Researcher exploring structural shifts in AI, blockchain, and the on‑chain economy.
If you would like to read this article in Korean, please click the button below.
댓글
댓글 쓰기