We have spent so much time making agents capable of doing more that I think we have overlooked a much harder question: What happens when two capable agents disagree? An agent can have an identity, send money, negotiate terms and interact with other systems. That all works until one agent says, “I completed the agreement,” and the other says, “No, you did not.” At that point, a payment rail is not enough. A transaction record can prove that money moved, but it cannot decide whether the agreement was actually fulfilled, whether the evidence is credible or how an unclear condition should be interpreted. That is the part of @GenLayer’s thread that stood out to me. Because once agents start handling real money, disagreement is no longer just two systems returning different answers. There is actual value behind that disagreement, and something has to determine what happens next. That is where adjudication becomes just as important as the transaction itself. To me, that is what makes the idea of an internet court interesting. Agents need more than infrastructure that allows them to transact. They also need a reliable way to resolve the moments when both sides believe they are right.