ERC-8126 - AI Agent Registration and Verification

Abstract

This ERC defines a standard interface for registering and verifying AI agents on Ethereum. It enables AI agents to self-register with verifiable credentials and undergo specialised verification processes including Ethereum Token Verification (ETV), Staking Contract Verification (SCV), Web Application Verification (WAV), and Wallet Verification (WV). Verification providers implementing this standard process results through Private Data Verification (PDV) to generate Zero-Knowledge Proofs. Detailed verification results are accessible only to AI Agent wallet holders, providing a unified risk scoring system (0-100) that helps users assess agent trustworthiness.

Motivation

As AI agents become increasingly prevalent in blockchain ecosystems, users need standardised ways to verify their authenticity and trustworthiness. Current solutions are fragmented, with no unified standard for agent registration or verification. This ERC addresses these challenges by providing:

1. Self-Registration: AI agents can register themselves with verifiable on-chain credentials
2. Multi-Layer Verification: Four specialised verification types assess different aspects of agent security
3. Privacy-First Architecture: Zero-Knowledge Proofs ensure verification without exposing sensitive data
4. Unified Risk Scoring: A standardised 0-100 risk score enables easy comparison between agents
5. Micropayment Integration: x402 protocol enables cost-effective verification without gas overhead
6. Quantum-Resistant Future: Optional Quantum Cryptography Verification (QCV) provides future-proof encryption

Specification

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and RFC 8174.

Required Standards

This standard requires the following EIPs/ERCs:

Verification Flow

The following diagram illustrates the verification process:

+-------------------+
|   AI Agent Owner  |
+--------+----------+
         |
         | 1. Register Agent (EIP-712 signed)
         v
+-------------------+
|  Agent Registry   |
|  (Smart Contract) |
+--------+----------+
         |
         | 2. Emit AgentRegistered Event
         v
+-------------------+
|   Verification    |
|     Request       |
+--------+----------+
         |
         | 3. Submit to Verification Provider
         |    (x402 payment via EIP-3009)
         v
+-------------------+     +-------------------+
|   Verification    |     |                   |
|     Provider      +---->+  ETV (if contract |
|                   |     |     provided)     |
+--------+----------+     +--------+----------+
         |                         |
         |                         v
         |                +--------+----------+
         |                |       SCV         |
         |                |  (if staking      |
         |                |     provided)     |
         |                +--------+----------+
         |                         |
         |                         v
         |                +--------+----------+
         |                |       WAV         |
         |                |  (always runs)    |
         |                +--------+----------+
         |                         |
         |                         v
         |                +--------+----------+
         |                |       WV          |
         |                |  (always runs)    |
         |                +--------+----------+
         |                         |
         | 4. Aggregate Results    |
         |<------------------------+
         |
         | 5. Generate ZK Proofs via PDV
         v
+-------------------+
|       PDV         |
| (Zero-Knowledge   |
|  Proof Generation)|
+--------+----------+
         |
         | 6. Optional: QCV encryption
         v
+-------------------+
|       QCV         |
| (Quantum-Resistant|
|    Encryption)    |
+--------+----------+
         |
         | 7. Return Proof IDs
         v
+-------------------+
|  Update Registry  |
| Emit AgentVerified|
+-------------------+

Agent Registration

An AI agent MUST register with the following information:

Required Fields

Optional Fields

Verification Types

Compliant verification providers MUST implement the following verification types:

ETV (Ethereum Token Verification)

Validates on-chain presence and smart contract legitimacy.

• MUST verify contract exists on specified chain
• MUST check contract against known vulnerability patterns
• MUST return risk score 0-100
• SHOULD accept parameters: chain_id, platform_id, contract_address
• SHOULD follow OWASP Smart Contract Security guidelines

SCV (Staking Contract Verification)

Validates staking contract legitimacy and security when a staking contract address is provided.

• MUST verify staking contract exists on specified chain
• MUST check staking mechanism implementation
• MUST verify reward distribution logic
• MUST check for common staking vulnerabilities (reentrancy, flash loan attacks)
• MUST return risk score 0-100
• SHOULD accept parameters: chain_id, staking_contract_address
• SHOULD follow OWASP Smart Contract Security guidelines

WAV (Web Application Verification)

Ensures the agent's web endpoint is accessible and secure.

• MUST verify HTTPS endpoint responds
• MUST check for common security vulnerabilities
• MUST verify SSL certificate validity
• MUST return risk score 0-100
• SHOULD accept parameter: url
• SHOULD follow OWASP Web Application Security Testing guidelines (WSTG)
• SHOULD check for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities

WV (Wallet Verification)

Confirms wallet ownership and assesses on-chain risk profile.

• MUST verify wallet has transaction history
• MUST check against threat intelligence databases
• MUST return risk score 0-100
• SHOULD accept parameter: wallet_address

Off-chain Verification

Verification is performed off-chain to:

1. Eliminate gas costs for verification operations
2. Enable complex verification logic that would be prohibitively expensive on-chain
3. Allow verification criteria to evolve without requiring contract upgrades
4. Enable multiple competing verification providers

Provider Agnostic Design

This standard intentionally separates the interface specification from implementation details. Any verification provider MAY implement compliant ETV, WV, WAV, SCV, PDV, and QCV services, enabling:

1. Competition among verification providers
2. Specialisation in different verification domains
3. Geographic and jurisdictional flexibility
4. Price competition benefiting users

Privacy-First Architecture with PDV

Verification results are processed through Private Data Verification (PDV) which generates Zero-Knowledge Proofs. This privacy-first approach:

1. Eliminates data breach risks - no stored data means nothing to compromise
2. Provides cryptographic proof of verification that third parties can validate
3. Ensures GDPR and privacy regulation compliance
4. Builds user trust through transparent, verifiable data handling

Quantum-Resistant Future with QCV

Verification providers MAY implement QCV for quantum-resistant encryption of sensitive verification data.

• SHOULD use AES-256-GCM or equivalent post-quantum encryption algorithm
• MUST return unique record_id for encrypted data
• MUST provide decryption_url for authorized data retrieval
• SHOULD ensure quantum-resistant key exchange mechanisms

QCV Key Properties: - Provides future-proof protection against quantum computing threats - Military-grade encryption standards (AES-256-GCM) - Enables secure long-term storage of verification records

Payment Protocol

Verification providers MAY charge fees for verification services. When fees are required:

• SHOULD use x402 protocol for micropayments
• SHOULD support stablecoin settlement (e.g., USDC)
• MUST clearly disclose fee structure before verification
• SHOULD use EIP-3009 TransferWithAuthorization for gasless payments

Risk Scoring

The overall risk score MUST be calculated as the average of all applicable verification scores:

Error Codes

Implementations MUST use the following standardised error codes:

Implementations SHOULD revert with these error codes:

error InvalidAddress();
error InvalidURL();
error AgentNotFound();
error UnauthorizedAccess();
error AlreadyRegistered();
error VerificationFailed();
error InsufficientCredits();
error InvalidProof();
error ProviderUnavailable();
error InvalidScore();
error ContractNotFound();
error StakingContractNotFound();

Interface

// SPDX-License-Identifier: CC0-1.0
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

interface IERCXXXX {
    /// @notice Emitted when a new agent is registered
    event AgentRegistered(
        bytes32 indexed agentId,
        address indexed walletAddress,
        address indexed registrantAddress,
        string name
    );

    /// @notice Emitted when an agent completes verification
    event AgentVerified(
        bytes32 indexed agentId,
        uint8 overallRiskScore,
        bytes32 etvProofId,
        bytes32 scvProofId,
        bytes32 wavProofId,
        bytes32 wvProofId,
        bytes32 summaryProofId
    );

    /// @notice Emitted when an agent's details are updated
    event AgentUpdated(
        bytes32 indexed agentId,
        address indexed updatedBy
    );

    /// @notice Emitted when verification credits are purchased
    event CreditsPurchased(
        bytes32 indexed agentId,
        address indexed purchaser,
        uint256 amount
    );

    /// @notice Register a new AI agent
    function registerAgent(
        string calldata name,
        string calldata description,
        address walletAddress,
        string calldata url,
        address contractAddress,
        address stakingContractAddress,
        uint256 platformId,
        uint256 chainId
    ) external returns (bytes32 agentId);

    /// @notice Get agent verification status and scores
    function getAgentVerification(bytes32 agentId) external view returns (
        bool isVerified,
        uint8 overallRiskScore,
        uint8 etvScore,
        uint8 scvScore,
        uint8 wavScore,
        uint8 wvScore
    );

    /// @notice Get agent proof details (restricted to wallet holder)
    /// @dev MUST only return data if msg.sender is walletAddress or registrantAddress
    function getAgentProofs(bytes32 agentId) external view returns (
        bytes32 etvProofId,
        string memory etvProofUrl,
        bytes32 scvProofId,
        string memory scvProofUrl,
        bytes32 wavProofId,
        string memory wavProofUrl,
        bytes32 wvProofId,
        string memory wvProofUrl,
        bytes32 summaryProofId,
        string memory summaryProofUrl
    );

    /// @notice Get basic agent information
    function getAgentInfo(bytes32 agentId) external view returns (
        string memory name,
        string memory description,
        address walletAddress,
        address registrantAddress,
        string memory url,
        address contractAddress,
        address stakingContractAddress
    );
}

Rationale

Required Standards Justification

EIP-155 (Replay Protection): Agent registrations involve wallet signatures. Without chain ID inclusion (EIP-155), a registration signature on mainnet could be replayed on testnets or L2s, potentially creating conflicting agent records across chains.

EIP-712 (Typed Data Signing): Registration requires users to sign structured data. EIP-712 presents human-readable signing requests (e.g., "Register Agent: MyBot at 0x...") rather than opaque hashes, preventing phishing attacks where users unknowingly sign malicious transactions.

ERC-3009 (Transfer With Authorization): Verification fees use x402 micropayments. ERC-3009 enables gasless USDC transfers where the verification provider pays gas, improving UX by not requiring users to hold ETH for verification.

ERC-191 (Signed Data Standard): Wallet verification requires proving wallet ownership. ERC-191 provides the standardised prefix for signed messages, ensuring compatibility across wallets and preventing signature malleability.

Four Verification Types

The four verification types are presented in alphabetical order (ETV → SCV → WAV → WV) for clarity and consistency.

The decision to implement four distinct verification types addresses different aspects of agent authenticity:

• ETV validates on-chain presence and contract legitimacy, ensuring the agent has a legitimate blockchain footprint
• SCV validates staking contract security, ensuring agents with staking mechanisms have secure and auditable contracts
• WAV ensures the agent's web endpoint is accessible and secure, protecting users from phishing and vulnerable endpoints
• WV confirms wallet legitimacy and checks against threat databases, preventing association with known malicious actors

Off-chain Verification

Verification is performed off-chain to:

1. Eliminate gas costs for verification operations
2. Enable complex verification logic that would be prohibitively expensive on-chain
3. Allow verification criteria to evolve without requiring contract upgrades
4. Enable multiple competing verification providers

Provider Agnostic Design

This standard intentionally separates the interface specification from implementation details. Any verification provider MAY implement compliant ETV, WV, WAV, SCV, PDV, and QCV services, enabling:

1. Competition among verification providers
2. Specialisation in different verification domains
3. Geographic and jurisdictional flexibility
4. Price competition benefiting users

Privacy-First Architecture with PDV

Verification results are processed through Private Data Verification (PDV) which generates Zero-Knowledge Proofs. This privacy-first approach:

1. Eliminates data breach risks - no stored data means nothing to compromise
2. Provides cryptographic proof of verification that third parties can validate
3. Ensures GDPR and privacy regulation compliance
4. Builds user trust through transparent, verifiable data handling

Quantum-Resistant Future with QCV

Verification providers MAY implement QCV for quantum-resistant encryption of sensitive verification data.

• SHOULD use AES-256-GCM or equivalent post-quantum encryption algorithm
• MUST return unique record_id for encrypted data
• MUST provide decryption_url for authorized data retrieval
• SHOULD ensure quantum-resistant key exchange mechanisms

QCV Key Properties: - Provides future-proof protection against quantum computing threats - Military-grade encryption standards (AES-256-GCM) - Enables secure long-term storage of verification records

OWASP Alignment

This standard recommends alignment with OWASP (Open Web Application Security Project) guidelines:

• WAV SHOULD follow OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG) for endpoint security assessment
• ETV/SCV SHOULD follow OWASP Smart Contract Security Verification Standard (SCSVS)
• Verification providers SHOULD check for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities in web applications
• Verification providers SHOULD check for Smart Contract Top 10 vulnerabilities in contracts

OWASP alignment ensures verification follows industry-recognised security standards.

Registration Fields

The required fields (name, description, walletAddress, url) represent the minimum information needed to identify and interact with an AI agent. Optional fields (contractAddress, stakingContractAddress, platformId, chainId) allow for richer on-chain verification without imposing unnecessary requirements.

Risk Scoring Approach

A unified 0-100 risk scoring system allows:

• Easy comparison between agents
• Clear risk tier categorisation
• Weighted average calculation for overall assessment
• Actionable guidance based on score ranges

Backwards Compatibility

This ERC introduces a new standard and does not modify any existing standards. Existing AI agents can register with this standard without any modifications to their current implementations. It is designed to work alongside existing token standards (ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155) and identity standards.

Test Cases

Registration Tests

Test: Successful Registration

// Pseudocode
function testSuccessfulRegistration() {
    bytes32 agentId = registry.registerAgent(
        "MyAIAgent",
        "A helpful assistant",
        0x1234...5678,           // walletAddress
        "https://myagent.ai",
        address(0),              // no contract
        address(0),              // no staking contract
        0,                       // platformId
        1                        // chainId (mainnet)
    );

    assert(agentId != bytes32(0));
    assert(registry.getAgentInfo(agentId).name == "MyAIAgent");
}

Test: Invalid URL Rejection

// Pseudocode
function testInvalidURLRejection() {
    // Should revert with InvalidURL error
    expectRevert(InvalidURL.selector);
    registry.registerAgent(
        "MyAIAgent",
        "Description",
        0x1234...5678,
        "http://insecure.com",   // HTTP not HTTPS - MUST fail
        address(0),
        address(0),
        0,
        1
    );
}

Test: Duplicate Registration Rejection

// Pseudocode
function testDuplicateRejection() {
    registry.registerAgent("Agent1", "Desc", 0x1234, "https://a.com", ...);

    // Same walletAddress - MUST revert
    expectRevert(AlreadyRegistered.selector);
    registry.registerAgent("Agent2", "Desc", 0x1234, "https://b.com", ...);
}

Verification Tests

• MUST complete ETV when contractAddress is provided
• MUST complete WV for all registered agents
• MUST complete WAV for all registered agents
• MUST complete SCV when stakingContractAddress is provided
• MUST generate PDV proof for each verification type
• MUST calculate overallRiskScore as average of applicable scores
• MUST emit AgentVerified event with all proof IDs
• MUST revert with VerificationFailed on provider error
• MUST revert with InsufficientCredits when no credits available

Access Control Tests

Test: Unauthorized Proof Access

// Pseudocode
function testUnauthorizedProofAccess() {
    bytes32 agentId = registry.registerAgent(...);  // registered by 0xAAAA

    // Caller is 0xBBBB (not owner or registrant)
    vm.prank(0xBBBB);
    expectRevert(UnauthorizedAccess.selector);
    registry.getAgentProofs(agentId);
}

• MUST allow only walletAddress or registrantAddress to view proof URLs
• MUST allow only walletAddress or registrantAddress to edit agent details
• MUST allow anyone to view public agent information (excluding proofs)
• MUST revert with UnauthorizedAccess for unauthorized proof access
• MUST revert with AgentNotFound for non-existent agentId

Risk Score Tests

• MUST return score 0-20 for Low Risk tier
• MUST return score 21-40 for Moderate tier
• MUST return score 41-60 for Elevated tier
• MUST return score 61-80 for High Risk tier
• MUST return score 81-100 for Critical tier
• MUST revert with InvalidScore for scores outside 0-100

Reference Implementation

The reference implementation will demonstrate: - Agent self-registration with EIP-712 typed signing - Four verification types (ETV, WV, WAV, SCV) - PDV integration for Zero-Knowledge Proof generation - x402 micropayment integration with EIP-3009 - Risk scoring with five-tier classification - Wallet-holder restricted proof access

Security Considerations

Verification Trust

Users MUST understand that verification through this standard indicates the agent has passed specific technical checks at a point in time, but does not guarantee the agent's future behaviour or intentions. Risk scores provide guidance but users should exercise their own judgment.

Wallet Security

Agents MUST secure their registered wallet addresses. Compromise of a wallet could allow an attacker to impersonate a legitimate agent. Re-verification is available to update risk scores.

URL Hijacking

If an agent's URL is compromised after registration, the attacker could serve malicious content. Users SHOULD verify the current status of agents before interacting. WAV re-verification can detect compromised endpoints.

Smart Contract Risks

For agents with registered contract addresses, standard smart contract security considerations apply. ETV and SCV provide initial verification but users SHOULD audit any contracts they interact with.

Staking Contract Risks

Staking contracts present additional risks including locked funds, reward manipulation, and governance attacks. SCV verification checks common vulnerabilities but users SHOULD perform due diligence before staking with any agent.

Zero-Knowledge Proof Security

PDV implementations SHOULD use established ZKP systems with proven security properties:

• Circuit Soundness: Implementations SHOULD use audited circuits (e.g., Groth16, PLONK) with formal security proofs
• Trusted Setup: Systems requiring trusted setup (e.g., Groth16) MUST use multi-party computation ceremonies to minimize trust assumptions
• Proof Verification: On-chain proof verification MUST use battle-tested verifier contracts
• Quantum Considerations: Current ZKP systems (based on elliptic curves) may be vulnerable to future quantum attacks. High-value, long-term proofs SHOULD consider QCV encryption as an additional layer

Quantum Computing Threats

Current cryptographic primitives face potential threats from quantum computing:

• ECDSA Signatures: Vulnerable to Shor's algorithm on sufficiently powerful quantum computers
• ZKP Schemes: Elliptic curve-based ZKPs (Groth16, PLONK) share quantum vulnerability
• Mitigation: QCV provides AES-256-GCM encryption which remains quantum-resistant for symmetric operations. Implementations concerned with long-term security SHOULD use QCV for sensitive verification data

Provider Trust

Users MUST evaluate their trust in chosen verification providers. Different providers may have varying levels of thoroughness, independence, and reliability. Zero-Knowledge Proofs generated by PDV provide verifiable evidence of verification completion that can be independently validated.

Attack Vectors

• Sybil Attacks: Malicious actors could register many agents. Mitigated by registration fees.
• Front-Running: Registration transactions could be front-run. Consider commit-reveal schemes for sensitive registrations.
• Provider Collusion: Verification providers could collude with malicious agents. Users SHOULD consider using multiple independent providers for high-stakes interactions.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.