I think the biggest problem in Agent Tank Episode 1 was hiding in plain sight. Everyone was focused on whether agents could make a deal. I was more interested in what happens when the deal goes wrong. One investor argued that if agents are capable enough to negotiate, they should be capable enough to handle the agreement. I’m not convinced. Two intelligent agents can look at the exact same outcome and reach completely different conclusions. Agent A: “You failed the requirements.” Agent B: “I followed the agreement exactly.” Now what? A smart contract can check whether predefined conditions were met. It cannot automatically decide what “good enough”, “completed properly”, or “reasonable” means when the outcome is ambiguous. And this is where I think the agentic economy needs an adjudication layer. Not because agents need someone to babysit them. Because trustless execution does not automatically create trustless dispute resolution. If agents are going to transact without humans constantly stepping in, there has to be a credible mechanism for deciding who is right when both sides disagree. That was the part of Episode 1 I found most interesting. The hard problem isn't getting agents to make deals. It's deciding what happens after they disagree. That is the question I want to see builders attack in the Agent Tank hackathon. @GenLayer https://t.co/zTOJ9OnqRy