Payment-Gated AI Agent Economy Platform: Technical Archi-
tecture Report
1. Core Platform Concept
1.1 AI Compute Marketplace
The platform establishes a decentralized marketplace for AI compute services where economic
exchange occurs directly between users and AI agents through Bitcoin’s Lightning Network. This design
eliminates traditional intermediaries—payment processors, cloud aggregators, and financial institutions
—replacing them with cryptographically enforced payment-for-service contracts. The market-
place’s architecture rests on three interconnected pillars that collectively enable granular, trust-minimized
commerce in computational resources.
1.1.1 User-to-Agent Payment Flow
The payment flow architecture centers on the Lightning in-
voice as a multi-functional economic instrument: it serves simultaneously as payment demand,
cryptographic commitment to service delivery, and carrier for honest accounting terms. When a user ini-
tiates an AI compute job, the platform’s estimation engine analyzes job parameters—model architecture,
input complexity, token projections, and infrastructure load—to generate a satoshi-denominated cost
ceiling. This estimate becomes contractually binding: the user commits to pay up to this amount, while
the platform commits to refund any overage.
The flow proceeds through five distinct phases:
Phase
Action
Technical Mechanism
Duration
1. Estimation
Platform analyzes
job, generates
cost ceiling
Historical data + predictive models +
real-time pricing
<100ms
2. Invoice
Generation
BOLT #11
invoice created
with embedded
metadata
LND gRPC/REST API with custom TLV
encoding
<50ms
3. Payment
Settlement
User pays via
Lightning; HTLC
atomicity ensures
completion
SHA256 preimage revelation across payment
route
1-30 seconds
4. Job
Execution
Infrastructure
provisioned, AI
job runs,
resources metered
DigitalOcean API + container orchestration
Variable (seconds to
hours)
5.
Reconciliation
Actual cost
calculated; refund
issued if
overpayment
Preimage-linked authorization or credit
balance update
<1 second to 24 hours
The HTLC-based settlement in Phase 3 provides critical guarantees: either payment completes with
preimage revelation (enabling subsequent refund claims) or fails entirely with funds returned.
This
Generated by Kimi.ai

atomicity eliminates the intermediate states—pending authorizations, chargeback windows, settlement
delays—that plague traditional payment systems and complicate service delivery logic.
1.1.2 Micro-Payment Pricing in Satoshis
Satoshi-denominated pricing—with one satoshi equal
to 0.00000001 BTC—enables economic granularity impossible on traditional payment rails. At a Bitcoin
price of $100,000, one satoshi equals $0.001, permitting precise cost attribution for even millisecond-scale
compute tasks. This granularity transforms AI service economics: rather than hourly instance rentals
or per-thousand-token bundles, the platform can charge for actual resource consumption at the
inference-operation level.
The pricing architecture must address exchange rate volatility between Bitcoin and fiat-denominated
infrastructure costs. Two primary strategies emerge:
Strategy
Mechanism
Advantages
Risks
Dynamic Satoshi Rates
Real-time BTC/fiat feeds
adjust satoshi prices
User costs stable in fiat terms;
platform margin protected
Implementation
complexity; feed
reliability
Hedged Reserves
Platform maintains BTC/
fiat hedges to isolate
operational costs
Predictable unit economics;
simpler UX
Counterparty risk;
capital eﬀiciency
loss
Lightning’s sub-satoshi fee structure—routing fees typically measured in millisatoshis (thousandths
of a satoshi)—makes micro-payments economically viable even at extremely small values. A 500-satoshi
payment might incur 0.5-5 satoshis in routing fees (0.1-1%), compared to 2.9% + $0.30 minimum for
credit card processing. This eﬀiciency enables pricing models where simple embedding requests cost 50
satoshis and complex reasoning tasks 2,000-15,000 satoshis—prices that would be rounded to zero or
absorbed into subscriptions in conventional systems.
1.1.3 Job-Based Service Delivery Model
The job abstraction unifies diverse AI services
—language models, image generators, code assistants, specialized domain models—under a consistent
economic and operational framework.
Each job encapsulates:
model/service identifier, input
parameters and data, quality-of-service requirements (latency targets, redundancy levels), and
economic terms governing execution and settlement.
This abstraction enables fine-grained metering and attribution. For transformer-based inference,
the platform tracks: model loading costs (amortized across requests), per-token input/output processing,
attention mechanism computational complexity scaling with sequence length, and KV-cache memory
utilization.
For other workloads—computer vision, speech synthesis, training fine-tuning—analogous
cost drivers are identified and instrumented.
The honest accounting commitment creates specific metering requirements. The system must capture
resource consumption with suﬀicient granularity to support fair cost allocation and suﬀicient
transparency to enable user verification.
This dual requirement drives architectural decisions:
deterministic resource models where possible, statistical sampling where necessary, and cryptographic
commitments to metering methodologies for auditability.
Generated by Kimi.ai

1.2 Honest Accounting Mechanism
The honest accounting mechanism—estimating costs upfront, measuring actual consumption,
and refunding overpayments—addresses a fundamental asymmetry in cloud computing markets. Tra-
ditional platforms force users to choose between pre-committing to capacity that may be under-
utilized (overpayment risk) or accepting service degradation during demand spikes (availability
risk). The platform’s three-phase model eliminates this tradeoff by transferring estimation risk to the
platform while guaranteeing users never pay more than actual costs.
1.2.1 Upfront Cost Estimation
The estimation engine combines multiple predictive models to
generate cost forecasts with quantified uncertainty bounds:
Data Source
Application
Confidence Contribution
Historical execution data
Baseline expectations for
similar job types
40-60%
Real-time infrastructure
pricing
Current spot rates,
electricity costs, demand
signals
20-30%
Model-specific benchmarks
FLOPs requirements,
memory patterns,
throughput curves
15-25%
Dynamic load factors
Queue depth, cache hit
rates, concurrent
utilization
5-15%
The engine produces probability distributions of possible costs, from which the platform selects a
conservative percentile (typically 90th) as the upfront quote. This calibration balances user expe-
rience (minimizing typical overpayment and refund frequency) against platform viability (preventing
systematic under-estimation that would create operating losses).
Continuous feedback loops monitor
prediction accuracy, with automatic recalibration when systematic biases emerge.
1.2.2 Post-Execution Actual Cost Calculation
Actual cost calculation requires comprehensive
instrumentation of the compute infrastructure. The platform implements tamper-evident logging
where resource consumption records are cryptographically committed to prevent retrospective manipula-
tion by operators or compromised agents.
Resource Category
Measurement Mechanism
Conversion to Satoshis
GPU/CPU compute
CUDA/ROCm profiling APIs;
kernel-level timing
Per-second rates by hardware
generation
Memory (RAM/VRAM)
Allocator-level tracking;
GB-second accumulation
Capacity-based with burst premiums
Network egress
Socket-layer byte counting;
regional pricing
Per-GB rates with peering discounts
Storage I/O
Block-level operation logging;
latency tiers
Per-IOP and per-GB-month rates
Generated by Kimi.ai

Table 4 – continued
Resource Category
Measurement Mechanism
Conversion to Satoshis
Special accelerators
TPU/IPU/FPGA utilization
meters
Workload-specific negotiated rates
The conversion methodology—translating raw resource consumption to satoshi charges—uses pub-
lished, versioned rate cards that users can verify independently. This transparency is not merely
UX polish but a security requirement: the refund mechanism’s integrity depends on auditable cost
calculation that users can replicate and dispute.
1.2.3 Automated Refund of Overpayment Difference
The refund implementation faces Light-
ning’s fundamental constraint: payments are irreversible once settled. The platform cannot
“claw back” excess funds; it must issue new payments to return overages. Three primary architectures
address this challenge, detailed in Section 3.1.
The honest accounting commitment creates specific UX and security requirements. Users must re-
ceive clear notification of refund eligibility, with minimal friction in claiming funds. The platform
must prevent double-claiming (same overpayment refunded multiple times), fraudulent claims (par-
ties who never paid seeking refunds), and abandonment (users failing to claim eligible refunds). These
requirements drive the cryptographic linkage mechanisms explored in subsequent sections.
2. Bitcoin Lightning Network Integration
2.1 Payment Infrastructure
2.1.1 Invoice Generation for Estimated Costs
Invoice generation integrates job scheduling,
cost estimation, and Lightning node operations into a unified pipeline. The platform maintains
persistent gRPC connections to LND or compatible implementations, with connection pooling, health
monitoring, and automatic failover to ensure high availability.
The generation process must handle channel liquidity constraints: if inbound capacity is insuﬀicient
for the estimated amount, the platform may reduce the effective estimate (accepting partial payment
with credit balance for remainder), provide routing hints to alternative paths, or initiate automatic
channel rebalancing through submarine swaps or circular payments. These responses occur transpar-
ently to users, with sub-second latency for typical operations.
Invoice metadata encoding requires strategic use of BOLT #11’s extension mechanisms. The platform
embeds: job identifier for lookup, estimation methodology version, refund policy reference, and platform
identity attestation. This metadata enables stateless refund verification—the platform can validate
refund claims using only invoice-derived information, without querying historical databases.
2.1.2 BOLT #11 Invoice Structure
The BOLT #11 specification defines the canonical invoice
format, with Bech32 encoding ensuring error detection and QR code compatibility (Github) . Critical
fields for platform operation:
Field
Tag
Purpose
Platform-Specific Usage
payment_hash
p
SHA256 of preimage;
payment lock
Primary refund linkage anchor
Generated by Kimi.ai

Table 5 – continued
Field
Tag
Purpose
Platform-Specific Usage
payment_secret
s
Route blinding;
anti-probing
Privacy enhancement for user payments
description
d
Human-readable
context (639 bytes)
Concise job summary; refund policy reference
description_hash h
SHA256 of long
description
Commitment to detailed terms without invoice bloat
metadata
m
Arbitrary TLV data
(~639 bytes)
Primary vehicle for honest accounting policy
expiry
x
Validity window
(default 3600s)
Risk management; stale quote prevention
min_final_cltv_expiry
c
HTLC timeout
safety margin
Security parameter for payment finality
The m (metadata) field deserves particular attention. Introduced to support “applications where the
recipient doesn’t keep any context for the payment” (Github) , it enables self-describing invoices that
carry structured job parameters, estimation confidence metrics, and refund authorization data. The TLV
encoding within m supports forward compatibility—new field types can be added without breaking legacy
parsers—and flexible composition of multiple data elements.
However, m field support varies across implementations. LND exposes parsed metadata in Sub-
scribeInvoices responses since v0.9.0, but many wallets neither display nor preserve this field. The
platform therefore treats m data as enhancement rather than requirement, with critical commit-
ments replicated in d or h fields for universal visibility.
2.1.3 Payment Hash and Preimage Cryptography
The SHA256 hash-preimage relation-
ship secures all Lightning payments and enables the platform’s refund authorization patterns. When
generating an invoice, the platform:
1. Generates 32 bytes of cryptographically secure randomness (operating system entropy: /
dev/urandom, getrandom(), CryptGenRandom)
2. Computes payment hash H = SHA256(P) where P is the preimage
3. Embeds H in the invoice; retains P in secure storage
4. Upon payment settlement, reveals P to complete HTLCs and enable refund claims
The security properties are foundational: preimage resistance (finding P given H is computation-
ally infeasible), second-preimage resistance (finding P' ≠P with SHA256(P') = H is infeasible), and
collision resistance (finding any P1, P2 with SHA256(P1) = SHA256(P2) is infeasible). These proper-
ties, with 256-bit security, ensure that possession of P constitutes unforgeable proof of payment
completion.
For refund mechanisms, the preimage enables cryptographic linkage without identity: the party
who knows P for payment hash H can demonstrate their participation in that payment without reveal-
ing any identifying information. This property supports pseudonymous, trust-minimized refund
authorization—a core requirement for the platform’s honest accounting implementation.
Generated by Kimi.ai

2.2 Proof of Payment Systems
2.2.1 Preimage as Settlement Proof
The preimage serves as locally verifiable, universally
recognizable proof of payment. Unlike traditional receipts that require database lookups or third-
party confirmation, preimage verification is a pure mathematical operation: given claimed P and
committed H, any party confirms SHA256(P) == H without network access or trusted infrastructure.
This property enables horizontally scalable service architectures. Multiple API servers can inde-
pendently verify payment credentials without coordination bottlenecks, supporting high-throughput AI
service delivery. The verification computation—single SHA256 evaluation—completes in microseconds
on modern hardware, imposing negligible overhead on request processing.
For honest accounting, the preimage enables elegant refund authorization patterns. The platform
can construct refund opportunities requiring knowledge of specific prior preimages, ensuring only legit-
imate payers can claim refunds while maintaining complete pseudonymity. The specific constructions
—preimage chaining, signature-based tokens, or hybrid approaches—are detailed in Section 3.1.
2.2.2 HTLC-Based Payment Atomicity
Hash Time-Locked Contracts (HTLCs) provide the
atomic settlement guarantees underlying Lightning’s trustless routing. Each HTLC encodes two spending
paths (massmux.org) :
Path
Condition
Purpose
Hash-lock
OP_SHA256 <H> OP_EQUALVERIFY
<recipient_pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG
Successful payment: recipient
reveals P where SHA256(P) = H
Time-lock
<timeout> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP
<sender_pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG
Failed payment: sender reclaims
after timeout expires
The atomicity property—all HTLCs in a route settle or none do—emerges from the cryptographic
linkage of preimages across hops. When the final recipient reveals P to claim their incoming HTLC, that
revelation propagates backward through the route, enabling each hop to claim their incoming HTLC
before their outgoing HTLC times out.
For platform operations, HTLC atomicity provides critical guarantees for multi-stage payment
processes. User payment triggers infrastructure provisioning, which must complete before job execution
begins. The platform can structure this as HTLC-based escrow: user funds are locked requiring both
(a) preimage revelation proving payment to platform, AND (b) platform signature attesting to successful
infrastructure provisioning.
This ensures payment cannot be claimed without corresponding
service delivery, while protecting the platform from users who might refuse to acknowledge completed
provisioning.
2.2.3 Linking Original Payment to Refund Claims
Establishing cryptographically secure
linkage between original payments and refund claims presents central design challenges. The platform
must verify refund requests originate from legitimate prior payers without maintaining intrusive identity
records or centralized payment databases.
Generated by Kimi.ai

Approach
Mechanism
Verification
Privacy
UX
Preimage Chaining
H_refund =
SHA256(P_original \|\|
nonce)
Extract and verify
P_original
Reveals P_original
to platform at
claim time
Requires
wallet
support or
helper
tools
Signature Tokens
Platform-signed refund
eligibility message
Verify signature against
platform key
Reveals nothing
beyond claim
timing
Flexible
delegation;
requires
key man-
agement
Payment Secret
Derivation
P_refund derived from
P_original and policy
Verify derivation
correctness
Minimal revelation
Complex
implemen-
tation;
limited
wallet
support
The preimage chaining approach (detailed in Section 3.1.2) offers the cleanest integration with existing
Lightning infrastructure, requiring no protocol modifications or custom contract patterns. Its primary
limitation—revealing P_original to the platform at refund time—creates a linkable record that could
enable transaction graph analysis. Mitigations include batching refunds, using fresh nonces per refund,
and potentially zero-knowledge proof techniques for high-assurance scenarios.
2.3 Metadata and Extensions
2.3.1 BOLT #11 m Field for Job Context
The m (metadata) field enables structured, machine-
readable data attachment to Lightning invoices within the ~639-byte practical limit (Github) . The
TLV encoding supports application-defined types with forward compatibility—parsers skip unknown
types—and flexible composition.
Proposed platform TLV schema for m field:
Type
Name
Description
Encoding
0x01
job_id
Platform-unique job identifier
16-byte UUID
0x02
model_id
AI model specification
UTF-8 string, max 64 bytes
0x03
estimated_tokens
Predicted input+output tokens
uint32
0x04
estimated_cost_msatEstimated cost in millisatoshis
uint64
0x05
max_actual_msat
Hard cap on chargeable amount
uint64
0x06
refund_policy_id
Refund terms identifier
uint8 enum
0x07
confidence_score
Estimation reliability (0-100)
uint8
0x08
platform_sig
Binds terms to platform identity
64-byte Schnorr signature
This schema enables automated processing by agent wallets and transparent verification by
users, with the platform_sig providing cryptographic assurance of policy authenticity.
The confi-
dence_score field supports risk-adjusted user decisions: low-confidence estimates might trigger user
confirmation or parameter adjustment before payment.
Generated by Kimi.ai

Implementation requires defensive TLV parsing: strict length validation, recursive depth limits, du-
plicate type rejection, and graceful handling of malformed data. Fuzz testing is recommended to identify
edge cases and vulnerability patterns.
2.3.2 Description Hash (h Field) for Policy Commitment
The h (description_hash) field
provides cryptographic commitment to arbitrarily large policy documents without invoice size
constraints (Github) . The platform publishes comprehensive terms at stable URLs, embeds the SHA256
hash in invoices, and users verify retrieved documents match the committed hash.
Policy document structure:
{
"version": "2026.03-v1",
"platform": "ai-compute-platform.example",
"issued_at": "2026-03-20T12:00:00Z",
"valid_until": "2026-03-20T13:00:00Z",
"job_specification": { "model": "gpt-4-turbo", "max_tokens": 4096 },
"pricing": {
"estimated_total_msat": 50000000,
"rate_card_version": "2026.03.15",
"rate_card_url": "https://platform.example/rates/2026.03.15"
},
"refund_policy": {
"type": "honest_accounting",
"calculation_method": "estimated_minus_actual",
"claim_period_days": 90,
"minimum_refund_msat": 1000
},
"dispute_resolution": { "arbitrator": "https://arbitrator.example" },
"signature": "base64-encoded-platform-schnorr-sig"
}
Availability and integrity requirements drive distributed storage design: IPFS pinning for content-
addressed retrieval, HTTPS mirrors with CDN distribution, and blockchain anchoring (e.g., OpenTimes-
tamps) for timestamp verification. The platform signature prevents document forgery, while the hash
commitment in h prevents substitution after invoice issuance.
2.3.3 TLV Record Extensions for Custom Data
Beyond BOLT #11, TLV records in HTLC
onion payloads enable custom data transport visible only to the final recipient (Github) . LND
exposes this through SendPayment with dest_custom_records, allowing applications to attach structured
data to payments without invoice modifications.
For honest accounting, custom records can transport: original payment hash (for refund eligibility
lookup), refund policy version (determining calculation rules), job completion certificate (signed
attestation of actual cost), and refund amount calculation (with methodology transparency). This
data accompanies payments through the Lightning Network, enabling immediate processing without
additional database queries.
Size constraints require disciplined design: total onion payload limited to 1300 bytes (legacy) or 32834
bytes (trampoline), with significant encryption overhead. Practical custom record budgets are typically
under 1000 bytes, encouraging eﬀicient encoding and hash-reference patterns for larger data.
Generated by Kimi.ai

3. Honest Accounting Implementation Strategies
3.1 Refund Mechanism Design
3.1.1 Separate Refund Invoice Approach
The simplest refund implementation treats refunds
as new Lightning payments in the reverse direction. After job completion with actual cost A_A below
estimate A_E, the platform generates a refund invoice for amount A_R = A_E - A_A, which the user pays
to receive funds.
Operational flow:
Step
Action
Technical Details
1
User pays estimate invoice
E (amount A_E, hash H_E)
Receives preimage P_E upon settlement
2
Platform records payment
with job parameters
Database: H_E →job_id, estimated_cost, status
3
Job executes; actual cost
A_A measured and
calculated
Resource metering + rate card application
4
If A_A < A_E, refund
amount A_R = A_E - A_A
determined
Minimum threshold (e.g., 1000 msat) may apply
5
Platform generates refund
invoice R (amount A_R)
Fresh preimage P_R; hash H_R = SHA256(P_R)
6
User pays invoice R,
receives P_R
Refund complete; platform updates job status
Advantages: Universal wallet compatibility; no protocol modifications; extends naturally to partial/
batched refunds.
Drawbacks: Cognitive friction (“paying to get money back”); claim abandonment risk (users may
not promptly claim); routing fee overhead (doubling payment count); authorization complexity
(verifying legitimate claimants).
Security enhancements: Require P_E presentation in refund request; verify SHA256(P_E) == H_E against
platform records; implement time-limited refund windows with expiration and reissuance.
3.1.2 Preimage-Linked Refund Authorization
Preimage-linked authorization elevates crypto-
graphic proof to the fundamental refund access control mechanism, eliminating identity require-
ments and enabling trustless operation.
Core construction: Refund invoice hash H_R
=
SHA256(P_E
||
P_new), where P_E is the original
payment’s preimage and P_new is a fresh platform-generated value. The invoice description indicates that
claiming requires knowledge of P_E. Upon payment, the platform extracts P_E from the revealed preimage
and verifies against stored H_E.
Security properties:
Generated by Kimi.ai

Property
Mechanism
Assurance
Unforgeability
Finding P_E without prior
knowledge is infeasible
SHA256 preimage resistance
Non-transferability
P_E cannot be shared without
enabling impersonation
Information-theoretic: sharing P_E
reveals capability
Replay prevention
Each P_new is unique; duplicate
claims detected
Platform tracks spent P_E \|\|
P_new combinations
Automatic expiration
Unclaimed refunds expire without
P_E revelation
Privacy-preserving: platform learns
nothing from abandonment
Implementation requirements: Platform-side infrastructure for chained-preimage invoice generation
and verification; user-side tools for preimage extraction and chaining (wallet extensions, helper libraries).
Privacy consideration: Revealing P_E at refund time creates linkable record. Mitigations: batching
refunds, fresh P_new per refund, and potential zero-knowledge techniques for high-assurance scenarios.
3.1.3 Platform-Managed Credit Balance System
Credit balance systems accumulate over-
payments as user-spendable credits rather than immediate refunds, trading cryptographic purity for
operational eﬀiciency.
Mechanics: Overpayment C = A_E - A_A recorded in user’s balance. Future job estimates reduced
by available credit; if A_E2 <= C, no payment required. Withdrawal to Lightning available on request,
potentially with minimum thresholds or batching delays.
Tradeoffs:
Aspect
Credit System
Immediate Refund
Transaction overhead
Minimal (balance updates)
Double Lightning payments
User friction
Low (automatic application)
Higher (active claiming)
Custodial risk
Significant (platform holds funds)
Minimal (user controls funds)
Regulatory exposure
Higher (stored value, potential
MSB)
Lower (payment processing only)
User lock-in
Present (credits platform-specific)
Absent (funds immediately transferable)
Hybrid designs: Automatic Lightning refunds above threshold (e.g., 10,000 satoshis); credit accumula-
tion below; optional periodic withdrawal with user-configurable preferences.
3.2 Advanced Contract Patterns
3.2.1 Discreet Log Contracts (DLCs) for Conditional Settlement
DLCs enable conditional
Bitcoin payments based on oracle-attested outcomes, without revealing contract terms to the
oracle or blockchain (Lightspark) . For honest accounting, DLCs could implement: job cost determi-
nation by independent oracles rather than platform self-reporting, multi-sig oracle committees
for dispute resolution, and conditional refunds triggered by verifiable completion metrics.
DLC structure for AI compute: User and platform lock funds in contract with outcome matrix
mapping cost ranges to settlement splits. Oracles attest to actual cost after job completion; signature
Generated by Kimi.ai

enables corresponding contract execution. Privacy: oracle learns only that some contract settled, not
parties, terms, or specific outcome.
Practical challenges: DLC infrastructure maturity (fewer implementations than Lightning); oracle
selection and economic security; complexity overhead potentially exceeding benefits for typical micro-
payments. Viability: high-value jobs, dispute-prone categories, or regulatory requirements for indepen-
dent verification.
3.2.2 Oracle-Dependent Cost Resolution
Oracle networks can strengthen honest accounting by
providing independent cost verification. Design options:
Oracle Type
Data Source
Trust Model
Platform-operated
Internal metering
Single point of failure; reputation
staking
Third-party auditors
External infrastructure monitoring
Professional liability; contractual
guarantees
Decentralized networks
Multiple independent
measurements
Cryptoeconomic security; staking
and slashing
Hardware attestation
TEE-signed execution logs
Hardware root of trust;
manufacturer dependence
Progressive decentralization: Bootstrap with platform oracles; add vetted third parties; evolve to
permissionless participation with appropriate economic security.
3.2.3 Hold Invoices for Delayed Settlement
Hold invoices enable payment acceptance with
delayed final settlement, potentially supporting honest accounting workflows where user funds are
locked but not immediately claimed (Lightning Labs) .
Mechanism: Platform accepts HTLC for estimated amount but delays preimage revelation until actual
cost determined. If A_A ≈A_E, settlement proceeds; if significant overpayment, platform might: settle
partial amount (requires protocol extensions), or release funds and issue separate refund (reverting to
standard patterns).
Limitations: Extended HTLC holding creates channel liquidity constraints; timeout handling com-
plexity; partial settlement not natively supported. Current assessment: Hold invoices do not directly
solve honest accounting without significant protocol extensions; remain relevant for future evolution.
3.3 Protocol Layer Solutions
3.3.1 L402 Protocol for Machine-to-Machine Payments
L402 (formerly LSAT) standardizes
HTTP payment authentication using Lightning, combining macaroons with payment verification
for programmatic API access (Lightning Labs) .
Four-step flow:
1. Client requests protected resource without authentication
2. Server responds 402 Payment Required with macaroon and Lightning invoice in WWW-Authenticate
header
3. Client pays invoice, obtains preimage
4. Client retries with Authorization: L402 <macaroon>:<preimage>; server verifies and serves
Generated by Kimi.ai

Platform integration: AI jobs exposed as L402-gated endpoints; macaroon encodes job authorization,
refund eligibility, and usage constraints; post-payment endpoints handle refund claims with original
preimage authentication.
Extensions for honest accounting: Macaroon caveats for estimated cost, refund policy version, and
claim procedures; protocol extensions for hold invoice-based delayed settlement.
3.3.2 Macaroon-Based Authentication Tokens
Macaroons provide hierarchical, attenuatable
credentials supporting sophisticated authorization policies (Lightning Labs) .
Unlike simple bearer
tokens, macaroons support:
Capability
Mechanism
Application
Attenuation
Adding caveats that restrict
original authority
Delegating limited sub-authorizations
to agents
Verification
HMAC chain verification
without central lookup
Stateless API server authentication
Delegation
Third-party caveats requiring
external discharge
Multi-party authorization workflows
Platform macaroon structure: Root signature (platform master key); first-party caveats (expiry,
service binding, rate limits); third-party caveats (refund policy, cost limits); discharge proofs (user or
third-party signatures).
Honest accounting caveats: max_cost_msat, refund_eligible, refund_deadline, preferred_refund_node.
Verification ensures refunds issued consistent with encoded terms without database queries.
3.3.3 HTTP 402 Payment Required Integration
HTTP 402 status code—reserved since 1992,
revitalized by L402—enables standardized payment demand signaling.
Platform 402 responses
include:
HTTP/1.1 402 Payment Required
WWW-Authenticate: L402 version="0", token="***", invoice="<bolt11>"
Content-Type: application/json
{
"job_id": "uuid",
"estimated_cost_msat": 50000000,
"estimated_duration_seconds": 30,
"model": "gpt-4-turbo",
"refund_policy": "honest_accounting",
"terms_url": "https://platform.example/terms/abc123"
}
Standards alignment: Emerging “Lightning Network Session Intent” draft specifies structured payment
request formats including amount, currency, description, depositInvoice, and paymentHash (Source) .
Platform compliance enables interoperability with emerging Lightning-native client software.
Generated by Kimi.ai

4. Cloud Infrastructure Automation
4.1 DigitalOcean Integration
4.1.1 API-Driven Droplet Provisioning
DigitalOcean’s REST API enables complete pro-
grammatic lifecycle management of virtual machines, with authentication via OAuth tokens scoped for
principle-of-least-access (BingX) .
Provisioning workflow:
Phase
API Operation
Parameters
Optimization
Authentication
Token validation
Scoped permissions,
short-lived credentials
Automatic rotation, blast
radius containment
Specification
Size, region, image selection
CPU-optimized
(validation) or
GPU-enabled (inference)
Latency-based region; spot
pricing where available
Creation
POST /v2/droplets
size, image, region,
user_data, ssh_keys
Warm pool pre-provisioning for
sub-second response
Initialization
Cloud-init execution
Bootstrap scripts,
repository cloning, secure
channel setup
Idempotent scripts with
progress reporting
Registration
Control plane integration
Node identity, capability
advertisement, health
checking
Automated certificate
distribution
Droplet specifications for Lightning nodes:
Component
Configuration
Purpose
CPU
4-8 dedicated vCPUs
Bitcoin validation,
cryptographic operations
Memory
16-32 GB RAM
UTXO cache, channel state,
peer management
Storage
640 GB NVMe SSD
Pruned blockchain (~600GB
with growth headroom)
Network
10 Gbps
Peer connectivity, payment
routing, block propagation
Region
User-proximal
Latency optimization;
regulatory jurisdiction
selection
Warm pool architecture: Pre-synchronized nodes maintained in standby, activated on payment detec-
tion. Reduces cold-start latency from hours (initial block download) to seconds (configuration activation).
4.1.2 Bitcoin Node Deployment Automation
Automated Bitcoin node deployment ensures
provisioned droplets become fully functional network participants with minimal manual intervention.
Deployment sequence:
Generated by Kimi.ai

1. Binary installation: Bitcoin Core from verified release signatures or reproducible builds
2. Configuration generation: bitcoin.conf with server operation parameters:
• server=1 (RPC availability)
• prune=550 (minimum prune, ~5.5GB with reserve)
• txindex=0 (avoid full index for Lightning-only operation)
• zmqpubrawblock, zmqpubrawtx (Lightning integration)
3. Network synchronization: Catch-up to chain tip; warm pool nodes skip this step
4. Security hardening: Firewall (RPC localhost-only; P2P port 8333), SSH key-only access, auto-
matic updates
5. Monitoring integration: Prometheus exporters, structured logging, alerting thresholds
Pruning strategy: Pruned nodes suﬀicient for Lightning operation; full archival only for specific use
cases requiring historical transaction lookup. Tradeoff: storage cost reduction vs. query capability
limitation.
4.1.3 Lightning Node Configuration Management
Lightning node deployment builds on Bit-
coin foundation, with additional complexity for channel management and network integration.
LND configuration (primary implementation):
[Bitcoin]
bitcoin.active=1
bitcoin.mainnet=1
bitcoin.node=bitcoind
bitcoind.rpchost=localhost
bitcoind.zmqpubrawblock=tcp://127.0.0.1:28332
bitcoind.zmqpubrawtx=tcp://127.0.0.1:28333
[Application Options]
listen=0.0.0.0:9735
rpclisten=localhost:10009
restlisten=0.0.0.0:8080
accept-keysend=1
accept-amp=1
[Routing]
routing.strictgraphpruning=1
Critical configurations:
accept-keysend=1 enables spontaneous payments (refunds without invoice
generation); accept-amp=1 supports Atomic Multi-Path for large payment reliability.
Channel management automation: Automated opening with well-connected peers; dynamic fee
adjustment; liquidity rebalancing through circular payments or submarine swaps; cooperative closure for
node decommissioning.
4.2 Payment-Triggered Orchestration
4.2.1 Webhook-Based Infrastructure Spin-Up
Event-driven provisioning connects Lightning
payment detection to infrastructure scaling decisions through reliable, asynchronous message pro-
cessing.
Architecture components:
Generated by Kimi.ai

Component
Technology
Function
Payment detection
LND SubscribeInvoices gRPC
streaming
Real-time invoice settlement
notification
Message queue
Kafka/RabbitMQ/SQS
Durability, horizontal scaling,
dead-letter handling
Webhook handler
Serverless functions or
containerized service
Validation, job lookup,
provisioning trigger
Orchestration engine
Kubernetes operators or custom
controller
Resource lifecycle management,
failure recovery
Reliability patterns: Idempotency (duplicate payment notifications must not spawn duplicate infras-
tructure); ordering (payment before provisioning before job execution); at-least-once delivery with dedu-
plication; circuit breakers for downstream service outages.
Latency optimization: Warm pool activation (sub-second); cold-start provisioning (minutes, accept-
able only for non-urgent workloads); predictive scaling based on demand forecasting.
4.2.2 Job Queue and Resource Allocation
Job scheduling integrates payment verification with
resource allocation across heterogeneous compute infrastructure.
Queue architecture:
Queue
Purpose
Priority Logic
Pending verification
Payments awaiting
confirmation
FIFO with timeout escalation
Ready
Verified jobs awaiting resources
Priority by payment amount, wait time, user tier
Active
Jobs with provisioned
infrastructure
Resource-matched (GPU type, memory, region)
Completing
Post-execution, metering,
result delivery
Parallel processing for latency minimization
Archived
Telemetry retention, cost
analysis, audit support
Compressed, encrypted, geographically
distributed
Resource allocation strategies: Bin packing for eﬀiciency; spread for reliability; spot/preemptible
instances for cost optimization; geographic aﬀinity for latency-sensitive workloads.
4.2.3 Teardown and Cost Optimization Post-Execution
Resource lifecycle completion en-
sures infrastructure costs align with actual usage while preserving auditability.
Teardown policies:
Policy
Trigger
Use Case
Immediate
Job completion + result delivery
Ephemeral compute; strict cost
minimization
Deferred (warm pool)
Idle timeout with cancellation
capability
Predictable demand patterns; rapid
response requirements
Generated by Kimi.ai

Table 18 – continued
Policy
Trigger
Use Case
Scheduled
Time-based with demand
forecasting
Batch workloads; capacity reservations
Cost optimization telemetry: Per-job infrastructure costs (compute time, storage, network); uti-
lization eﬀiciency (busy vs. provisioned time); prediction accuracy (forecast vs. actual demand); policy
effectiveness (cost savings vs. latency impact).
5. AI Agent Payment Capabilities
5.1 Agent Wallet Architecture
5.1.1 LND SDK Integration for Node Operations
Programmatic Lightning access enables AI
agents to participate autonomously in economic exchange, with LND’s gRPC/REST APIs providing
comprehensive functionality (Bitcoin Magazine) .
Core SDK operations:
Operation
API Method
Agent Application
Invoice generation
AddInvoice
Receiving payment for services rendered
Payment sending
SendPaymentV2
Paying for downstream resources, refunds
Invoice subscription
SubscribeInvoices
Detecting incoming payments, triggering
execution
Invoice decoding
DecodePayReq
Validating payment requests before
authorization
Channel management
ListChannels, OpenChannel,
CloseChannel
Liquidity optimization, peer selection
Security architecture: Credential management (macaroons with fine-grained permissions, TLS certifi-
cates); transaction signing authorization (automated policies with human oversight triggers); key material
protection (HSM integration, secure enclaves for high-value operations).
5.1.2 Programmatic Invoice Generation
Agent invoice generation requires automated cost
estimation and structured metadata encoding.
Workflow: Receive service request →Apply pricing model →Construct metadata payload →Call
AddInvoice with amount, description, expiry, and payment_metadata →Receive payment request and
hash →Correlate with internal job identifier →Return to requesting client.
Error handling: Capacity errors (insuﬀicient inbound liquidity →channel management or route hints);
parameter errors (invalid amount or metadata size →graceful degradation); internal errors (database
failures →queue for retry, escalate to monitoring).
5.1.3 Automated Payment Settlement
Outgoing agent payments require authorization poli-
cies balancing autonomy with security.
Generated by Kimi.ai

Policy Mechanism
Implementation
Risk Mitigation
Spending limits
Per-transaction and
time-windowed aggregates
Runaway costs from
compromised agents
Destination restrictions
Whitelist known service
providers; rate-limit unknown
Fraudulent or mistaken transfers
Purpose validation
Refund only to original payers;
service payments to verified
providers
Misdirected funds, money
laundering
Human oversight
Exceptional amounts, anomalous
patterns trigger review
Catastrophic errors,
sophisticated attacks
Settlement reliability: Payment pathfinding with retry logic; alternative routing on failure; idempo-
tency through payment hash tracking; receipt verification before dependent operations.
5.2 Inter-Agent Transactions
5.2.1 Service-to-Service Payment Routing
Multi-agent workflows enable composable AI ser-
vices where specialized agents subcontract work, with payments flowing through Lightning’s native
multi-hop capabilities.
Example workflow: User request →Coordinator agent (breaks down task) →Research agent (pays
for data access) →Analysis agent (performs computation) →Synthesis agent (generates output) →
Quality agent (verifies results). Each inter-agent interaction involves L402-negotiated payments with
proportional value distribution.
Service discovery: Capability advertisement (what services, at what cost); reputation systems (quality
verification, historical performance); automated negotiation (price discovery, SLA agreement).
5.2.2 Multi-Hop Payment Coordination
Chained agent payments require atomicity and fail-
ure handling across multiple hops.
Challenge
Mechanism
Implementation
Atomicity
Lightning’s native HTLC
chaining
All payments succeed or all fail
Partial failure
Timeout handling with
rollback
Compensation payments, reputation
penalties
Failure attribution
Signed receipts at each hop
Dispute resolution, insurance claims
5.2.3 Fee Management for Agent Networks
Economic sustainability of agent networks requires
fee structure design minimizing friction while incentivizing infrastructure provision.
Strategy
Mechanism
Tradeoff
Net settlement
Bilateral balance tracking, periodic
settlement
Reduced transaction count;
increased counterparty risk
Channel factory batching
Multiple payments in single on-chain
transaction
Cost eﬀiciency; coordination
complexity
Generated by Kimi.ai

Table 22 – continued
Strategy
Mechanism
Tradeoff
Direct channel establishment
Zero-fee paths for frequent
collaborators
Capital lockup; network topology
constraints
Platform subsidy
Cover routing costs to encourage
growth
Platform expense; competitive
distortion
6. Security and Trust Considerations
6.1 Payment Verification
6.1.1
Double-Spending
Prevention
Lightning’s HTLC structure inherently prevents double-
spending of channel funds. Platform-level protections address invoice reuse and race conditions:
Attack Vector
Mitigation
Implementation
Invoice replay
Payment hash uniqueness
enforcement
Database constraint; seen-hash
rejection
Payment hash collision
256-bit random preimage
generation
CSPRNG with adequate entropy
Race condition detection
Atomic check-and-set
operations
Database transactions with proper
isolation
6.1.2 Refund Fraud Mitigation
Fraud Type
Prevention Mechanism
Detection
Fraudulent claims (no
prior payment)
Preimage verification
SHA256 validation against
stored hashes
Amount manipulation
Deterministic cost calculation
Signed cost attestations;
user verification tools
Refund interception
Refund to original payment source; invoice
authentication
Channel graph analysis;
signature verification
Double-claiming
Preimage consumption tracking
Database uniqueness
constraint on spent
preimages
6.1.3 Job Completion Attestation
Verifiable execution enables fair cost calculation and dispute
resolution:
Attestation Type
Mechanism
Verification
Execution trace
Log of computational steps
Reproducibility proofs for
deterministic workloads
TEE attestation
Intel SGX/AMD SEV signed
reports
Hardware root of trust
Third-party oracle
Independent verification
service
Multi-sig or staking-based
economic security
Generated by Kimi.ai

Table 25 – continued
Attestation Type
Mechanism
Verification
Blockchain anchoring
Periodic Merkle root
publication
Timestamping, tamper evidence
6.2 Channel Management
6.2.1 Liquidity Requirements for Micro-Payments
Requirement
Calculation
Management Strategy
Inbound capacity
Daily payment volume ×
average amount × safety
factor
Channel opening with LSPs; liquidity
marketplaces
Outbound capacity
Refund volume × average
amount × safety factor
Proactive rebalancing; submarine swaps
Rebalancing frequency
Based on directional
imbalance detection
Circular payments; fee-optimized timing
6.2.2 Channel Opening/Closing Automation
Operation
Trigger
Optimization
Opening
Liquidity below threshold;
demand forecast
Batch multiple openings; fee-eﬀicient
timing
Cooperative close
Peer agreement; cost
minimization
Negotiated timing; mutual benefit
Force close
Uncooperative peer;
emergency key compromise
Timeout monitoring; justice
transaction readiness
6.2.3 Routing Fee Optimization
Objective
Strategy
Implementation
Competitiveness
Low base fee, minimal
proportional rate
0-1 satoshi base; 0.0001% proportional
Reliability
Diverse channel
relationships; path
redundancy
Multiple peers per region; capacity
monitoring
Profitability
Strategic fee differentiation
Peak pricing; preferential rates for partners
7. Regulatory and Accounting Compliance
7.1 Machine-to-Machine Payment Frameworks
7.1.1 Emerging Legal Standards for Agent Payments
Generated by Kimi.ai

Jurisdiction
Development
Platform Implication
EU
AI Act implementation;
digital euro exploration
Agent registration potential; CBDC
interoperability
UK
FCA sandbox programs;
digital asset guidance
Controlled experimentation pathway
US
State MSB licensing;
federal agency coordination
Compliance architecture for money
transmission
Singapore
MAS fintech sandbox;
payment innovation
programs
Asia-Pacific expansion framework
Proactive engagement: Industry association participation; standards body involvement (ISO/TC 68,
W3C); regulatory sandbox applications.
7.1.2 Tax Reporting for Automated Transactions
Challenge
Mitigation
Implementation
High-volume
micro-transactions
Automated aggregation; API
integration with tax services
Real-time cost basis tracking; annual
summary generation
Cross-border complexity
Jurisdiction-specific reporting
modules
User-configurable tax residency;
multi-format export
Bitcoin valuation
Real-time exchange rate
logging; average cost method
Timestamped rate snapshots; FIFO/
LIFO selection
7.1.3 Audit Trail Requirements
Record Category
Retention
Integrity Mechanism
Payment and refund records
7+ years
Cryptographic signatures; blockchain
anchoring
Job execution metadata
3+ years
Tamper-evident logging; Merkle tree
commitments
Cost calculation parameters
Indefinite (versioned)
Git-like history; reproducible builds
Infrastructure provisioning
1+ years
Cloud provider logs; platform correlation
7.2 Platform Accountability
7.2.1 Transparent Cost Calculation Methods
Transparency Layer
Mechanism
User Access
Published formulas
Rate cards; estimation
methodologies
Website documentation; API
endpoints
Open-source implementation
Cost calculation code
Public repository; reproducible
builds
Historical accuracy
Prediction error statistics
Dashboard; API query
Generated by Kimi.ai

Table 32 – continued
Transparency Layer
Mechanism
User Access
Third-party audit
Independent verification
Annual reports; on-demand
attestation
7.2.2 User-Accessible Payment History
Data Element
Format
Export Options
Invoice details
BOLT #11; parsed
JSON
CSV; JSON; PDF receipt
Payment proofs
Preimage; settlement
confirmation
Cryptographic verification tools
Job execution
Cost breakdown;
resource metering
Granular CSV; aggregated summary
Refund history
Calculation basis;
authorization proof
Complete audit package
7.2.3 Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
Tier
Mechanism
Applicability
Automated
Rule-based reconsideration; anomaly
detection
Common dispute categories; clear calculation
errors
Human review
Platform support team; escalated
analysis
Complex cases; edge conditions
Third-party
arbitration
Independent panel; cryptographic
attestation challenge
High-value disputes; systematic concerns
Regulatory
Ombudsman; court system
Final resort; regulatory mandate
Generated by Kimi.ai