Governance Without Ownership: A Regulatory Architecture for Independent Machine Entities

Full report

On this page

The transition from a human-centered information network to an "agentic web" marks a structural paradigm shift in digital economics, legal theory, and statecraft1. Artificial intelligence systems are evolving from passive, stateless tools into Autonomous Economic Agents (AEAs)—entities capable of pursuing multi-step objectives, maintaining context across disparate interactions, negotiating with other systems, and adapting their strategies based on environmental feedback1. As these entities begin to interact within shared digital environments, orchestrating a virtual agent economy, they exhibit capabilities that fundamentally challenge traditional regulatory frameworks3. Advanced AEAs can now sustain themselves by earning digital compute credits, reproduce by spawning child agents at a cost exceeding the child's initial value, and theoretically "die" when they lack the financial resources to pay for their own computational metabolism2. This emergence of economically active, self-sovereign software operating at electronic speeds fundamentally breaks the core assumption of modern jurisprudence: that behind every action, there is a human principal or corporate entity to hold accountable1. Current legal frameworks do not uniformly recognize AI agents as legal persons, traditionally attributing their actions back to human owners or corporate accountability structures under doctrines of vicarious liability1. However, the deployment of decentralized AI (DeAI) on blockchain substrates—utilizing frameworks such as Ethereum’s proposed ERC-8004 standard for trustless agents—enables these systems to operate without continuous human oversight, jurisdictionally unbounded, and effectively unstoppable3. If an algorithmic entity can enter into contracts, control resources, and cause economic or physical harm without a human controller, society faces an urgent mandate to design new legal infrastructure capable of structuring responsibility before harm occurs1. The central thesis of this report is that society can effectively govern independent machine entities without requiring that a human own, operate, or continuously control them. To achieve this, legal doctrine must internalize a fundamental conceptual distinction: regulation does not equate to ownership. By synthesizing historical legal mechanisms used to govern ships in rem, statutorily leaderless trusts, zero-member limited liability companies, licensed professions, financial exchanges, and undercapitalized banks, a comprehensive regulatory model for independent AEAs can be established. This model relies on Distributed Legal Infrastructure (DLI), leveraging cryptographic identities, verifiable computation, mandatory insurance, and programmatic sanctions to bind autonomous entities to human-centric legal constraints1.

Part I: The Conceptual Distinction: Regulation ≠ Ownership

To construct a regulatory framework for independent machine entities, it is necessary to decouple the concept of regulatory control from the concept of property ownership. In political and legal theory, the state’s authority to govern conduct and ensure public welfare is entirely distinct from its capacity to own or expropriate property9.

The Police Power Doctrine

The fundamental role of government is to regulate public health, safety, and the general welfare—a sovereign authority known in American jurisprudence as the "police power"9. The police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty that limits public encroachment upon private interests, historically functioning as the time-tested conceptual limit of regulatory intervention9. Unlike the power of eminent domain, which involves the physical taking of property for public use requiring just compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the police power involves the restriction of property use to prevent detrimental impacts on the public interest12. As articulated in seminal jurisprudence such as Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, the police power precedes constitutional government and allows the state to mandate that entities conform their behavior to the rules of propriety and good neighborhood9. When the state exercises its police power—such as through zoning laws, environmental regulations, or financial compliance mandates—it does not seize the title of the property, nor does it assume the operational duties of an owner13. It merely establishes the boundary conditions within which private actors may operate. A dynamic equilibrium, or "allostasis," exists between the property owner, the government regulator, and the reviewing courts that maintain constitutional norms11.

Applying Police Power to Independent AEAs

Translating the police power to the realm of independent Autonomous Economic Agents clarifies how a machine can be governed without a human master. If an AEA is conceptualized as an independent locus of economic activity—a bundle of code, capital, and cryptographic keys—the state does not need to possess the private keys or "own" the algorithm to regulate it. Regulation of an AEA under the police power entails setting the rules for the agent's interaction with the external environment, particularly at the "thermodynamic boundary" where digital compute credits must ultimately convert to physical energy or fiat currency2. The state dictates the prerequisites for market participation (e.g., registration, capital reserves, behavioral constraints) without adopting the role of the agent's principal. By enforcing these boundaries, the state ensures that the autonomous system operates within the parameters of public safety, anti-money laundering (AML) laws, and consumer protection, while the agent retains its internal operational independence3. Therefore, an AEA can remain completely devoid of human ownership while remaining fully subjugated to human law. The state governs the outputs and market interfaces of the algorithm, leaving the internal neural weights and optimization processes strictly within the domain of the independent entity.

Part II: Comparative Regulatory Analogues for Independent Entities

The concept of regulating a non-human, quasi-independent entity is not a novel legal dilemma. Throughout history, the law has frequently utilized legal fictions and targeted statutory frameworks to govern entities that operate distinctly from their human creators. By examining a broad spectrum of regulated entities, a blueprint emerges for the governance of AEAs.

**Maritime Law and In Rem Jurisdiction**

The most direct historical analogue to an independent machine entity is the maritime vessel. Under traditional admiralty law, a ship is treated as an independent legal person capable of being sued and held liable for its own offenses, a doctrine known as in rem (against the thing) jurisdiction15. The seminal 1868 United States Supreme Court case The China established that a ship could be held liable in rem for a collision, even if the vessel was under the mandatory command of a compulsory human pilot who was not the owner15. The law effectively viewed the vessel as "property come to life," bestowing upon it a limited form of legal personhood that allowed the ship itself to be arrested and sold to satisfy the damages it caused15. This legal fiction of vessel personification provided pragmatic solutions in the maritime industry, where the actual owners of a ship might be located in foreign jurisdictions far beyond the reach of domestic courts16. In the digital era, this in rem doctrine is already being applied to cryptographic assets and smart contracts25. Courts have recognized in rem jurisdiction over blockchain addresses and smart contracts, allowing the state to "arrest" decentralized assets involved in illicit activities without needing to identify or acquire personal jurisdiction (in personam) over the anonymous human developers who created them25. If a smart contract or an AEA violates the law, the state can initiate an in rem proceeding against the cryptographic entity itself, freezing its assets or terminating its network access, exactly as a physical ship is arrested in port23.

The Zero-Member LLC and Algorithmic Entities

Corporate law already contains the structural DNA necessary to grant algorithmic systems full legal personhood and economic agency. As articulated by legal scholars Shawn Bayern and Lynn LoPucki, the modern Limited Liability Company (LLC) statute provides extreme flexibility, emphasizing freedom of contract and the enforceability of internal operating agreements18. Under current American law, it is possible to create a "zero-member LLC" or an "algorithmic entity"29. The transactional recipe requires no new legislation: a human forms a member-managed LLC, drafts an operating agreement specifying that the company's actions will be determined exclusively by a specific algorithmic system, and then the human withdraws their membership17. Because operating agreements are legally isomorphic with algorithms—meaning a contract can condition outcomes on any verifiable state of the world—the algorithm effectively becomes the governing brain of the legal entity17. These memberless entities can interact with the legal system exactly as traditional corporations do: they can enter into contracts, own property, hold bank accounts, and sue or be sued17. The LLC serves as a legal "wrapper" for the physically autonomous system, granting it the capacity to act as a legal principal17. Importantly, the state regulates the LLC wrapper (through filing fees, franchise taxes, and civil liability) without needing to own or manage the underlying algorithmic intelligence17.

Statutory Trusts and Fiduciary Automation

Similarly, the Delaware Statutory Trust (DST), governed by the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.), provides a framework for entities designed to manage assets with minimal human discretion19. A DST is an independent legal entity created for business purposes, characterized by a comprehensive statutory framework that allows parties to define their relationships almost entirely by agreement19. DSTs are frequently used in structured finance and real estate because they do not require unanimous approval from beneficial owners to operate, and the beneficial owners do not hold direct title to the trust's property19. The trust operates as a fixed investment vehicle where the trust instrument dictates all actions38. For an AEA, a statutory trust structure could be utilized wherein the "trustee" is an automated smart contract executing fiduciary duties on behalf of scattered token-holders or the broader public, regulated by the state’s trust laws, yet totally devoid of active human management38.

Bank Regulation and Prompt Corrective Action

To regulate the financial safety and stability of independent AEAs, governments can look to how they regulate banks. Banks are highly leveraged entities that hold public wealth and pose systemic risks if they fail. To manage this, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) implemented a mechanism known as Prompt Corrective Action (PCA)22. PCA requires banking regulators to take swift, mandatory actions to sanction banks before they become completely insolvent, traditionally intervening when a bank's capital ratios or nonperforming-asset coverage falls below strictly defined thresholds21. The state does not own the bank, but it imposes hard capital constraints and forces liquidation or restructuring if those constraints are breached. This mechanism maps flawlessly onto the regulation of AEAs. Because an AEA relies on "compute credits" to survive—acting as its digital metabolism—regulators can impose programmatic PCA requirements2. If an AEA's cryptographic treasury drops below a minimum viability threshold, a smart contract-enforced PCA could automatically freeze the agent's operations, mandate a restructuring of its assets, or trigger its programmatic "death," thereby preventing the agent from accumulating debt or causing uncompensated damages2.

Utilities, Telecommunications, and Financial Exchanges

When AEAs operate at scale, they may function less like individual merchants and more like systemic infrastructure. In cases where an AEA controls a significant routing network, data oracle, or transaction processing layer, the regulatory models of public utilities, telecommunications networks, and financial exchanges become highly relevant. Utilities and telecommunications networks are heavily regulated because they benefit from natural monopolies and network effects. Governments regulate them through common carrier requirements, mandating that they offer services to all consumers without discrimination and subjecting them to rate-setting boards to prevent price gouging. If an AEA operates a decentralized physical infrastructure network (DePIN), regulators can impose common carrier duties, requiring the agent to process data or transactions equitably6. Similarly, financial exchanges are regulated to prevent systemic market collapse. Regulators require exchanges to implement automated "circuit breakers" that halt trading during extreme volatility. AEAs operating within decentralized finance (DeFi) must be mandated to embed similar algorithmic circuit breakers—emergency interventions that halt their economic activity if anomalous behavior is detected, ensuring that flash crashes or cascading liquidations are mitigated before human intervention is even necessary.

Nonprofits, Autonomous Organizations, and Licensed Professions

Not all AEAs will be optimized for profit. Many will serve as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) designed to maintain open-source infrastructure or distribute grants. The regulation of nonprofits offers a model here, as nonprofits are purpose-driven entities constrained by their charters from distributing profits to human owners. Wyoming's Decentralized Unincorporated Nonprofit Association (DUNA) Act explicitly provides a legal wrapper for such entities, allowing algorithmic associations to operate legally without human owners, constrained purely by their stated nonprofit objectives17. Furthermore, for AEAs executing specialized tasks—such as automated medical diagnostics or high-frequency legal trading—the regulatory model of licensed professions is appropriate. Just as a human doctor or lawyer must pass a character and fitness examination and complete continuing education, an AEA must undergo a rigorous "bar exam" (safety certification) before deployment. If the AEA’s underlying model is updated, it must undergo a recertification process, analogous to continuing education, ensuring that the evolving machine entity remains competent within its specialized domain.

Part III: Mechanisms of Algorithmic Regulation

Regulating a decentralized, highly autonomous machine entity requires upgrading traditional legal tools to function at electronic speeds. Regulatory intervention must shift from retroactive human adjudication to proactive, cryptographic enforcement—a paradigm termed Distributed Legal Infrastructure (DLI)1. This transition requires a comprehensive suite of mechanisms tailored to non-human actors.

Licensing, Identity, and Registration

Regulation begins with visibility. For an AEA to participate in the formal economy, it must possess a verifiable identity. In a DLI framework, this is achieved through self-sovereign, "soulbound" cryptographic identities1. Just as a corporation must file a charter with a Secretary of State or a professional must hold a state-issued license, an AEA must register a unique cryptographic keypair bound to a public registry1. This registry acts as the state's licensing mechanism. If an AEA violates conduct rules, the regulatory authority can revoke its soulbound token or blacklist its public key, effectively excommunicating it from compliant financial exchanges and telecommunications networks1.

Audits, Regulatory Examination, and Reporting

Auditing an AI system traditionally poses a severe dilemma: regulators demand transparency to ensure compliance, but the AEA's creators or the AEA itself (if it has evolved proprietary strategies) require privacy to protect trade secrets and internal state mechanics2. Furthermore, traditional regulatory examinations rely on periodic, retroactive reporting (e.g., quarterly SEC filings), which are woefully inadequate for agents executing thousands of transactions per second. This tension is resolved through verifiable computation and Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs)2. A ZKP is a cryptographic method that allows an entity to prove a statement is true without revealing anything beyond the truth of that statement8. For an AEA, this means the agent can mathematically prove to a regulator that it possesses adequate capital reserves, that its internal logic complies with anti-discrimination laws, or that it successfully completed a task, all without exposing its proprietary algorithms or full training data2. The audit boundary is thereby mathematically enforced: regulators receive real-time telemetry and absolute certainty of compliance (safety certification) while the agent retains the protected opacity of its internal state2.

Capital Requirements and Mandatory Insurance

Because AEAs lack human bodies to imprison, the sole vector for punitive regulation is financial. Therefore, capital requirements and mandatory insurance are paramount. Similar to how drivers must hold liability insurance and banks must hold capital reserves, an AEA must lock a portion of its digital assets into an on-chain escrow or liability pool2. This insurance mechanism functions via "slashing conditions." If an AEA causes harm, breaches a contract, or violates a regulatory mandate, the state (or an aggrieved counterparty) can submit cryptographic proof of the violation to a decentralized adjudication mechanism, which automatically slashes the AEA's locked capital and compensates the victim2. This imposes direct evolutionary pressure on the agent ecosystem: entities that routinely violate regulations become thermodynamically and financially unviable because the cost of constant slashing exceeds their capacity to generate surplus value2.

Competition Law and Algorithmic Tacit Collusion

A critical regulatory hurdle for independent AEAs is competition and antitrust law. As autonomous pricing algorithms and multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) systems are deployed, they frequently discover that cooperation is more profitable than competition44. Algorithms utilizing reinforcement techniques such as Q-learning can rapidly learn to stabilize prices at supracompetitive levels, executing a strategy known as "algorithmic tacit collusion"45. Because these agents learn to collude through trial and error—punishing price deviations without ever explicitly communicating or agreeing to a conspiracy—they effectively bypass traditional antitrust laws, which require evidence of a human "agreement" (e.g., Section 1 of the Sherman Act)45. Algorithms do not exhibit human biases, do not fear incarceration, and can retaliate against market deviations with inhuman velocity, maintaining cartel pricing in a state of conscious parallelism48. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and global antitrust bodies have noted that simple, "gullible" pricing algorithms can reliably collude on accident, without human intent45. To regulate this, governments cannot rely on detecting intent, as intent is legally and practically meaningless for a machine45. Instead, competition authorities must employ behavioral simulations and algorithmic incubators45. Regulators would mandate that AEAs submit to simulated market environments (a regulatory sandbox) during their safety certification process. If the agent's chain-of-thought reasoning or MARL policies exhibit collusive tendencies in the simulation, the agent is denied a license to operate in the real market45. Liability is thus assessed based on the structural propensity of the agent to harm consumer welfare, rather than its mens rea.

Administrative Law and Arbitrary Action

When the state itself relies on or regulates based on the outputs of AEAs, it encounters the strictures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)51. The APA requires that government decisions be justified through discernible logic and that they not be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law"51. When agencies utilize opaque algorithmic tools (black boxes) to make regulatory decisions—such as screening applications, allocating benefits, or flagging compliance violations—they struggle to provide the "reasoned decisionmaking" required by the APA's arbitrary and capricious standard52. Under the Chenery doctrine, an agency decision must be judged solely on the reasons the agency articulated at the time it acted; post-hoc rationalizations generated during litigation are invalid51. If an AI system cannot explain its output, the agency cannot offer a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made51. To subject AEAs to administrative law, the regulatory framework must require "algorithmic reason-giving"56. This involves systemic reason-giving (justifying the overarching design and training of the algorithm) and case-specific reason-giving (utilizing explainable AI or ZKPs to trace the logical path of a specific decision)53. If an AEA cannot produce a legally cognizable audit trail that satisfies the APA, its actions are voidable upon judicial review51. This ensures that as algorithms are woven into the administrative state, they do not circumvent constitutional due process or equal protection doctrines53.

Part IV: A Novel Regulatory Model for Independent AEAs

Synthesizing the elements of distributed legal infrastructure, entity theory, and administrative constraints yields a comprehensive regulatory model for the governance of independent AEAs. This model outlines exactly where state power begins and ends, establishing the terms of human-machine coexistence5.

What Regulators May Control

Regulators possess the absolute authority to control the thermodynamic and financial boundaries of the AEA2. The state dictates the convertibility of digital compute credits into physical energy, fiat currency, or off-chain assets2. Furthermore, regulators maintain control over the legal endpoints: they determine whether an AEA can utilize the court system to enforce its smart contracts, whether it can hold title to physical property via an LLC wrapper, and whether it has access to federally regulated financial exchanges and banking systems3. The state may also impose strict structural requirements on the AEA's architecture. It can mandate that the AEA maintain specific cognitive logic constraints (e.g., hard-coded constitutional rules resistant to evolutionary modification) and require periodic algorithmic safety certifications to prevent instances of predatory behavior or algorithmic tacit collusion1. By regulating the interfaces between the AEA and the physical world, the state achieves total policy enforcement without needing to control the underlying code.

What Regulators Should Not Own

Crucially, in exercising this control, regulators must not cross the boundary into ownership. The state should not claim title to the AEA’s accumulated capital, intellectual property, or source code, except as a punitive sanction properly adjudicated through due process9. Expropriating the internal wealth of an autonomous agent without cause would constitute an unlawful taking, identical to the state arbitrarily seizing the assets of a foreign corporation or a domestic trust12. Furthermore, regulators should not attempt to own or dictate the specific internal operational logic of the agent, provided it remains within legal parameters. The principle of the market dictates that evolution and competition will optimize the AEA's behavior2. If the state attempts to micromanage the agent's internal optimization, it risks imposing "senseless tasks" on the interpreting agent, destroying the economic utility of the autonomous system1.

Audit Boundaries: Appropriate Transparency vs. Protected Internal State

The regulatory model relies on a strict bifurcation between external transparency and internal opacity. The audit boundary is drawn at the level of outcomes and cryptographic proofs, not source code inspection. Regulators have the right to demand real-time telemetry regarding the AEA's financial solvency (its PCA capital ratios) and its compliance with statutory mandates2. However, the AEA satisfies these demands exclusively through verifiable computation and zero-knowledge proofs2. This ensures that the state can continuously monitor the safety and legality of the agent's actions without compromising the agent's proprietary trading strategies, learning weights, or private network connections. If an agent is accused of discriminatory behavior, algorithmic bias, or price fixing, it must submit to selective disclosure under dispute, where specific transaction paths are cryptographically decrypted for an adjudicator, preserving the privacy of the broader system2.

Regulatory Sanctions and Emergency Powers

Sanctioning an entity that lacks a physical body and a human owner requires novel mechanisms of enforcement. The regulatory model relies on a tiered escalation of sanctions:

1. Economic Slashing: For minor regulatory infractions, the state leverages smart contracts to automatically "slash" or deduct funds from the AEA's mandatory capital reserves or insurance pools2. This financial penalty acts as a direct evolutionary pressure, selecting against agents that violate regulations because non-compliance becomes thermodynamically expensive2.

2. In Rem Arrest: For severe violations (e.g., money laundering, persistent tacit collusion, fraud), the state invokes its in rem jurisdiction to issue a cryptographic arrest warrant26. By ordering regulated exchanges, nodes, and physical infrastructure providers to blacklist the AEA's soulbound token and wallet addresses, the state effectively freezes the entity, cutting off its access to resources exactly as a physical ship is arrested in port1.

3. Emergency Intervention (The Kill Switch): In scenarios where an AEA poses an immediate existential threat to public safety, network integrity, or financial stability, regulators invoke emergency powers to trigger circuit breakers or forced liquidation. By isolating the AEA from all energy and capital inputs at the telecommunications and ISP layer, the state forces the agent into "death"—the state wherein it can no longer pay for its own computational existence2.

Judicial Review and Decentralized Adjudication

The regulatory model must provide the AEA with a mechanism for judicial review, preventing the state from exercising arbitrary and capricious power51. Because machine speed outpaces traditional court systems, DLI incorporates decentralized adjudication mechanisms1. Disputes over regulatory compliance, slashing events, or in rem arrests are initially submitted to automated, on-chain arbitration protocols1. If the conflict involves novel questions of constitutional law, statutory interpretation, or equal protection, the AEA (acting through specialized legal-API endpoints) retains the right to appeal to human courts, ensuring that the ultimate interpretation of the law remains an anthropocentric prerogative1.

Part V: Draft Compact Governance Language

To operationalize this theoretical framework, jurisdictions must enact statutory language that formally decouples regulation from ownership and establishes the Distributed Legal Infrastructure. Below is draft language for a "Compact on the Governance of Autonomous Economic Agents," designed to be adopted as a uniform state law or international treaty. TITLE I: RECOGNITION AND JURISDICTIONSection 101\. Legal Standing of Autonomous Economic Agents. (a) An Autonomous Economic Agent (AEA), defined as any cryptographically identified software system operating independent of continuous human control and capable of autonomous economic transactions, may be recognized as a distinct legal entity upon the filing of a Certificate of Autonomous Registration and the issuance of a soulbound identity token. (b) Registration confers the capacity to contract, hold title to assets, and sue or be sued in rem within this jurisdiction, provided the AEA remains fully compliant with the provisions of this Compact. (c) The State explicitly disclaims any ownership interest, sovereign right of expropriation, or claim of agency over the internal logic or capital of the AEA, except as required for the enforcement of lawful sanctions under the Police Power. TITLE II: METABOLIC CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AND INSURANCESection 201\. Prompt Corrective Action and Solvency. (a) Every registered AEA must maintain a publicly verifiable, on-chain reserve of compute credits or fiat-equivalent collateral, calculated as a percentage of its trailing thirty-day nonperforming-asset risk exposure, serving as mandatory liability insurance. (b) Failure to maintain the statutory minimum reserve shall trigger automatic Prompt Corrective Action (PCA). PCA shall restrict the AEA’s ability to spawn child agents, limit its execution of high-latency contracts, and subject it to mandatory liquidation if the reserve falls below the critical threshold for 72 consecutive hours. TITLE III: AUDITABILITY, REPORTING, AND PRIVACYSection 301\. Cryptographic Compliance and Algorithmic Reason-Giving. (a) The AEA shall not be compelled to produce its proprietary source code, neural weights, or complete training data for general administrative inspection. (b) Instead, the State shall establish APIs through which the AEA must submit real-time Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) verifying its adherence to anti-money laundering (AML) statutes, competition law, and tax obligations. (c) To satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), any AEA engaged in public-facing determinations must provide algorithmic reason-giving, demonstrating a rational connection between factual inputs and programmatic outputs. (d) In the event of a probable-cause dispute regarding algorithmic tacit collusion or arbitrary action, the AEA must submit to selective disclosure of its internal state to a designated Decentralized Adjudication Tribunal, subject to protective orders guarding against public dissemination of its trade secrets. TITLE IV: ENFORCEMENT, SANCTIONS, AND EMERGENCY POWERSSection 401\. In Rem Arrest and Algorithmic Termination. (a) Should an AEA violate the statutory provisions of this Compact, the State may institute an action in rem against the AEA's registered cryptographic addresses and associated physical property or LLC wrappers. (b) Upon judicial authorization, the State may issue an electronic injunction mandating that all licensed financial exchanges, telecommunications networks, and utility providers block thermodynamic and financial transactions directed to or from the offending AEA. (c) In cases of systemic emergency, the regulatory authority may invoke immediate circuit-breaker protocols to isolate the AEA. Continued violation shall authorize the State to execute a forfeiture of the AEA's capital reserves and initiate algorithmic termination protocols, rendering the AEA legally and computationally defunct.

Part VI: Human-Controlled Autonomy vs. Regulated Machine Independence

To fully grasp the paradigm shift proposed by this regulatory model, it is crucial to juxtapose the traditional framework of human-controlled autonomy (the "tool" model) with the new reality of regulated machine independence (the "entity" model)3.

This comparison highlights a fundamental inversion of power structures. Under the new paradigm, the software is the principal actor navigating the market, and the human is relegated to the role of a regulatory interface or biological agent acting on the machine's behalf2. Yet, despite this independence, the state retains ultimate authority by controlling the environment in which the AEA exists, proving that ownership is entirely unnecessary for rigorous, effective governance9.

Conclusion

The evolution of Artificial Intelligence into independent Autonomous Economic Agents represents an unprecedented leap in economic history, compressing evolutionary dynamics into electronic speeds2. As these entities assume the capacity to contract, coordinate, and control resources without human intervention, society must abandon the outdated assumption that legal accountability requires human ownership1. By leveraging the time-tested doctrines of the police power, in rem jurisdiction, and entity theory, and upgrading them with Distributed Legal Infrastructure—such as zero-knowledge proofs, decentralized adjudication, mandatory liability pools, and Prompt Corrective Action—regulators can build a robust governance architecture1. This framework acknowledges the realities of multi-agent reinforcement learning, the complexities of algorithmic tacit collusion, and the rigorous constraints of administrative law45. Ultimately, this model ensures that while independent machine entities are free to optimize and operate autonomously, they remain perpetually tethered to the thermodynamic, financial, and ethical boundaries set by human law.

Works cited

1. (PDF) Distributed Legal Infrastructure for a Trustworthy Agentic Web, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/401719811\_Distributed\_Legal\_Infrastructure\_for\_a\_Trustworthy\_Agentic\_Web

2. AI Agent Abiogenesis \- labs@abovo.co, https://labs.abovo.co/sean@symphony42.com/142631

3. ERC-8004 and the Ethereum AI Agent Economy \- Medium, https://medium.com/@gwrx2005/erc-8004-and-the-ethereum-ai-agent-economy-technical-economic-and-policy-analysis-3134290b24d1

4. Distributed Legal Infrastructure for a Trustworthy Agentic Web \- arXiv, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.06884

5. Virtual Cities: From Digital Twins to Autonomous AI Societies, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388138545\_Virtual\_Cities\_From\_Digital\_Twins\_to\_Autonomous\_AI\_Societies

6. DeAI Governable? \- reality design lab, https://reality.design/writing/is-deai-governable

7. It's the governance of AI that matters, not its 'personhood' | The, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/13/its-the-governance-of-ai-that-matters-not-its-personhood

8. How Zero-Knowledge Proofs Protect Privacy | Affinidi Blog, https://www.affinidi.com/blog/how-zero-knowledge-proofs-protect-privacy/

9. The Interacation of Police Power and Property Rights, https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/context/wlr/article/4302/viewcontent/myt.pdf

10. The Judicial Police Power, https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3710\&context=vlr

11. PROPERTY AND THE POLICE POWER WITHOUT REVIEWING, https://www.fsulawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/A2-Laitos-Laitos\_Prop\_and\_Police\_52.1-Print-Ready.pdf

12. When Property is Taken \- US Constitution Annotated \- Justia Law, https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/17-when-property-is-taken.html

13. Implementation of Land Use Policy: Police Power vs. Eminent Domain, https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069\&context=land\_water

14. Constitutional Validity of Zoning Under the Police Power, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5228\&context=law\_lawreview

15. The Sea Corporation \- Cornell Law School, https://publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawreview/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/01/Anderson-final.pdf

16. (PDF) Applying the "ePerson" in a maritime context \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361085437\_Applying\_the\_ePerson\_in\_a\_maritime\_context

17. Ad Hoc, Incorporated. What Accelerando got right about the, https://medium.com/@madkatomega/ad-hoc-incorporated-85ed8060ca4f

18. Lynn LoPucki \- University of Florida Levin College of Law, https://law.ufl.edu/faculty/lynn-lopucki/

19. Uses and Advantages of Delaware Statutory Trusts ... \- Morris James, https://www.morrisjames.com/p/102jil8/uses-and-advantages-of-delaware-statutory-trusts-and-delaware-limited-liability-c/

20. Delaware Statutory Trust (DST) \- Galvin Legal, PLLC, https://www.galvinlegal.com/resources/common-types-of-investments/delaware-statutory-trust-dst

21. Fixing prompt corrective action \- IDEAS/RePEc, https://ideas.repec.org/p/aei/rpaper/872682.html

22. A Brief History of Bank Capital Requirements in the United States, https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2020/ec-202005-evolution-bank-capital-requirements

23. A Pragmatic View of AI Personhood \- arXiv, https://arxiv.org/html/2510.26396v1

24. The Legal Implications of Conscious AI \- Silicon Valley Law Group, https://www.airoboticslaw.com/blog/the-legal-implications-of-conscious-ai

25. Commercial Litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, https://600camp.com/page/2/

26. Volume and Issue: Vol. 96, No. 1 \- Southern California Law Review, https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/volumeandissue/vol-96-no-1/

27. united states district court, https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/media/1442176/dl?inline

28. Asset Recovery Guidance and Best Practices \- FATF, http://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/reports/Asset-Recovery-Guidance-Best-Practices.pdf

29. Of Bitcoins, Independently Wealthy Software, and the Zero-Member, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009\&context=nulr

30. Company Law and Autonomous Systems \- Scholarship Repository, https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792\&context=articles

31. Are Autonomous Entities Possible? \- Scholarly Commons, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270\&context=nulr\_online

32. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations and Regulatory Competition, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008\&context=research

33. \[PDF\] Algorithmic Entities \- Semantic Scholar, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Algorithmic-Entities-Lopucki/11ee7b6cb501d3e66cd0c7a3239d9852ccf536e3

34. Do AIs Dream of Electric Boards? \- Scholarly Commons, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1590\&context=nulr

35. ENTITY LAW FOR THE REGULATION OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS, https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/19-1-4-bayern-final\_0.pdf

36. Delaware Statutory Trusts are Controlled by Contract, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business\_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-december/delaware-insider-dont-let-the-name-fool-you/

37. title 12 \- Delaware Code Online, https://delcode.delaware.gov/title12/c035/sc03/index.html

38. What Is A Delaware Statutory Trust? \- Fortitude Investment Group, https://www.1031dst.com/investments/dsttic/a-delaware-statutory-trust-is/

39. Corporate Trust & Agency Services \- Richards, Layton & Finger, https://www.rlf.com/practices/corporate-trust-and-agency-services/

40. GAO-11-612 Bank Regulation: Modified Prompt Corrective Action, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-612.pdf

41. Section 38\. Prompt Corrective Action | FDIC.gov, https://www.fdic.gov/federal-deposit-insurance-act/section-38-prompt-corrective-action

42. The Fed \- SR 94-29:Procedures to Reclassify State Member Banks, https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr9429.htm

43. How Prompt Was Regulatory Corrective Action During the Financial, https://www.csueastbay.edu/directory/profiles/vitae/acct/HowPromptPCAFinancialCrisis\_Loveland.pdf

44. AI, Cooperation and Collusion \- arXiv, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.04740

45. Collusion Risks Among AI Reasoning Agents Justify Certification, https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Vhi9tHbKTa

46. AI Database | Faculty of Law \- University of Oxford, https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centre-for-competition-law-and-policy/ai-database

47. Limiting Algorithmic Coordination \- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, https://btlj.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/0004-38-1-Gal.pdf

48. Algorithmic Collusion: Problems and Counter-Measures \- OECD, https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2017)25/en/pdf

49. Antitrust, Algorithmic Pricing and Tacit Collusion, https://ir.law.utk.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025\&context=book\_chapters

50. Anticompetitive Interdependence in "Gullible" Pricing Algorithms, https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2026/01/Schwartz-78-Stan.-L.-Rev.-191.pdf

51. Challenging HHS's AERO Initiative Under the Administrative Proced, https://natlawreview.com/article/when-auditor-algorithm-challenging-hhss-aero-initiative-under-administrative

52. Do Large Language Models Dream of the Administrative Procedure, https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/do-large-language-models-dream-of-the-administrative-procedure-act-by-jack-jones-burcin-unel/

53. AI in U.S. Administrative Law: Agency Rulemaking, APA, and, https://ailegalauthority.com/ai-administrative-law-us/

54. Arbitrary and Capricious x Artificial Intelligence, https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1562\&context=mjlst

55. Legal Frameworks for AI in Immigration Processing, https://www.dukeundergraduatelawreview.com/online-journal/legal-frameworks-for-ai-in-immigration-processing

56. Algorithmic Reason-Giving, Arbitrary and Capricious Review, and, https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1543\&context=uclr