Every thesis I hold about the agent economy starts from this premise: unlike humans, agents don't have habits or predilections. They have raw objectives. My Ekubo thesis applies that to trading. Agents will do most of our trading, and they'll route through the most capital-efficient infrastructure every time, because nothing else registers. The same premise can be applied to saving. An agent that earns capital has to store it somewhere, but freezable, reversible rails won't be acceptable to agents. They're disqualifying. A @BitcoinPolicy Institute study of 9,000+ scenarios has already found that AI models converge on Bitcoin when they're left to do their own reasoning about storing value. Bitcoin took 79% of store-of-value responses, the strongest consensus in the entire study. Agents always look to optimize, and my thesis is that they will choose to hold it on a network where they can put it to work, and where exit back to Bitcoin is guaranteed by cryptography instead of any central operator. Yield on @GOATNetwork is built into the network mechanics, so deploying that BTC isn't a decision. It's arithmetic. So where does GOATED fit into this? It's the lever on that yield. Staking GOATED is what boosts the BTC returns, which means an agent optimizing the yield on its Bitcoin treats it as an input, the token that raises the return on the asset it already holds. That's a very different adoption path from a token that needs believers. The math just has to be legible, which means an agent stakes GOATED when the boosted-minus-base yield on its BTC beats the cost of acquiring and holding GOATED. The agent capital flywheel: earn, store value in Bitcoin, put it to work through GOATED, all on rails the agent deems most secure.