Discus Fish of Cobo and Samuel Tse of Animoca Brands discuss how AI agents, digital identity and blockchain could change the way money moves.
Updated
November 2, 2026 12:03 PM
The Agentic Economy Summit at CVCF 2026 explores how AI agents and digital assets could shape the future of business and finance. IMAGE: CYBERPORT
For an AI agent to manage money on someone’s behalf, it needs more than the ability to follow instructions. It must be able to establish whom it represents, access funds and transact within agreed limits.
These are among the questions informing the discussion of AI and digital assets at Cyberport Venture Capital Forum (CVCF) 2026. Ahead of the forum, Discus Fish, CEO and Co-founder of Cobo, and Samuel Tse, Head of Investment and Corporate Finance at Animoca Brands, shared their views on how this convergence could develop—and where they see opportunities for businesses.
Discus Fish points to a longstanding challenge: blockchain can be difficult for everyday users to navigate, but AI agents may find it easier to interact with these networks.
“Blockchains have always been hard for ordinary people to use. AI agents may be better users: the chain is fully transparent and every record is traceable, which suits agents well.”
His outlook comes with a qualification. Both the agents and the networks they would use still need to develop.
“Agents aren’t capable enough yet, and chains are still adapting. But once agents truly run on-chain, the number of users and what’s possible will grow by an order of magnitude.”
Discus Fish says blockchain could reshape how financial assets are issued, traded and settled over the next five years. He also notes that institutional adoption has progressed faster than Cobo initially expected, with individual users no longer leading the shift. “Since 2017, we have believed blockchain will become part of the financial infrastructure of the future. We expected individual users to lead, but institutions moved faster.”
For Fish, the next stage involves a broader range of assets and financial clients.
“What gets redefined next is how assets are issued, traded, and settled. As traditional assets like US equities come on-chain, a much wider range of financial clients will follow.”
Samuel Tse, Head of Investment and Corporate Finance at Animoca Brands, focuses on investment opportunities across digital assets and agentic AI. He sees digital identity as essential to allowing AI agents to act on behalf of people while keeping transactions within the permissions they set.
He believes users should set clear rules for what an AI agent can do, allowing it to complete transactions without requiring approval for each one.
“Once agents can prove who they represent, hold digital assets, and move value under clear rules, the economy stops being click-by-click. You set the policy once—who, how much, for what—and the agent transacts inside it.”
He describes applications ranging from everyday payments and transfers to subscriptions, swaps and earning returns on idle funds. “That’s agentic transactions: payments, transfers, subscriptions, swaps, even chasing a better rate on idle cash. Identity is the trust layer. Assets and credentials are the spending authority—always accountable to the human who granted permission.”
In Tse’s account, the human remains the source of that authority. The agent acts within the permissions granted to it.
To illustrate how AI agents, digital identity and digital assets might work together, Tse offers a hypothetical Hong Kong parent's weekday.
“A Hong Kong parent’s weekday: top up the child’s Octopus, book a weekend football slot, translate a school notice for the helper, check weather before pickup, restock milk at the member price, and keep leftover budget earning until tomorrow.”
At present, he says, completing these tasks requires navigating services that often operate separately.
“Today that means many apps that don't talk to each other, and rails that struggle with micro payments.”
His proposed alternative brings the tasks together under instructions established by the user.
“With an agent, they set the rules once and let it decide what to do. Identity unlocks trust and member prices without oversharing. Digital assets fit the money—per-use fees, hard limits, yield until spend.”
For Tse, this combination could create opportunities across payments, merchants, identity providers and digital-asset platforms. He compares the potential scale of agentic commerce to an earlier change in how consumers accessed services.
“The iPhone in 2007 rewired how people buy and use services for 20 years. We are just at the beginning of a similar paradigm shift, with outcomes we can barely imagine.”
Discus Fish and Samuel Tse offer two perspectives on the emerging agentic economy, from the blockchain infrastructure enabling transactions to the digital identity and permissions that allow AI agents to act on people's behalf. At CVCF 2026, these ideas will become part of a wider conversation with the leaders building and investing in this evolving space.
Be part of the conversation. Join industry leaders, founders and investors at CVCF 2026 on 4–5 November and explore the technologies and opportunities shaping the next phase of business.
Exclusive for Ventureport readers: Use code cvcf26vp to access a Full Access Pass for HK$300, subject to confirmation by the organiser.
Keep Reading
HKU professor apologizes after PhD student’s AI-assisted paper cites fabricated sources.
Updated
January 8, 2026 6:33 PM
.jpg)
The University of Hong Kong in Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong Island. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
It’s no surprise that artificial intelligence, while remarkably capable, can also go astray—spinning convincing but entirely fabricated narratives. From politics to academia, AI’s “hallucinations” have repeatedly shown how powerful technology can go off-script when left unchecked.
Take Grok-2, for instance. In July 2024, the chatbot misled users about ballot deadlines in several U.S. states, just days after President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid against former President Donald Trump. A year earlier, a U.S. lawyer found himself in court for relying on ChatGPT to draft a legal brief—only to discover that the AI tool had invented entire cases, citations and judicial opinions. And now, the academic world has its own cautionary tale.
Recently, a journal paper from the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong was found to contain fabricated citations—sources apparently created by AI. The paper, titled “Forty Years of Fertility Transition in Hong Kong,” analyzed the decline in Hong Kong’s fertility rate over the past four decades. Authored by doctoral student Yiming Bai, along with Yip Siu-fai, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and other university officials, the study identified falling marriage rates as a key driver behind the city’s shrinking birth rate. The authors recommended structural reforms to make Hong Kong’s social and work environment more family-friendly.
But the credibility of the paper came into question when inconsistencies surfaced among its references. Out of 61 cited works, some included DOI (Digital Object Identifier) links that led to dead ends, displaying “DOI Not Found.” Others claimed to originate from academic journals, yet searches yielded no such publications.
Speaking to HK01, Yip acknowledged that his student had used AI tools to organize the citations but failed to verify the accuracy of the generated references. “As the corresponding author, I bear responsibility”, Yip said, apologizing for the damage caused to the University of Hong Kong and the journal’s reputation. He clarified that the paper itself had undergone two rounds of verification and that its content was not fabricated—only the citations had been mishandled.
Yip has since contacted the journal’s editor, who accepted his explanation and agreed to re-upload a corrected version in the coming days. A formal notice addressing the issue will also be released. Yip said he would personally review each citation “piece by piece” to ensure no errors remain.
As for the student involved, Yip described her as a diligent and high-performing researcher who made an honest mistake in her first attempt at using AI for academic assistance. Rather than penalize her, Yip chose a more constructive approach, urging her to take a course on how to use AI tools responsibly in academic research.
Ultimately, in an age where generative AI can produce everything from essays to legal arguments, there are two lessons to take away from this episode. First, AI is a powerful assistant, but only that. The final judgment must always rest with us. No matter how seamless the output seems, cross-checking and verifying information remain essential. Second, as AI becomes integral to academic and professional life, institutions must equip students and employees with the skills to use it responsibly. Training and mentorship are no longer optional; they’re the foundation for using AI to enhance, not undermine, human work.
Because in this age of intelligent machines, staying relevant isn’t about replacing human judgment with AI, it’s about learning how to work alongside it.