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
A global survey shows robot anxiety drops when people encounter robots in real life
Updated
April 1, 2026 8:55 AM

Ameca the humanoid robot, featuring a grey rubber face. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
People often assume robots make people uneasy everywhere. But a new global study suggests something more nuanced. Robot anxiety tends to be highest in places where people rarely see robots in real life. Where robots are more visible, attitudes are often far more positive. That insight comes from a global study by Hexagon AB, which surveyed 18,000 participants across nine major markets. The research explored how adults and children think about robots and how those views change depending on everyday exposure.
In the United Kingdom, anxiety about robots is the highest among the countries studied. Around 52% of adults say they feel worried that something might go wrong when they think about interacting with or working alongside robots. South Korea sits at the other end of the spectrum, with only 29% reporting similar concerns. One factor appears to explain much of the gap: familiarity.
British adults are among the least likely to have encountered robots in real life. Only about 30% say they have seen or used one. In contrast, countries where robots are more visible tend to report greater comfort. China offers the clearest example. Around 75% of adults there say they have seen or interacted with robots. At the same time, 81% say they feel excited about the technology’s future potential.
The study suggests that attitudes toward robots are not fixed. Instead, they shift depending on where people encounter them and what tasks they perform. When robots are seen solving clear, practical problems, confidence tends to rise.
Across the surveyed countries, adults report the highest comfort levels with robots working in factories and warehouses. Around 63% say they are comfortable with robots in those environments. These are settings where tasks are clearly defined and safety standards are well understood. Acceptance drops in more personal spaces. Only 46% say they feel comfortable with robots in the home, while comfort falls further to 39% when robots are imagined in classrooms.
In other words, context matters. People appear more willing to accept robots when they take on physically demanding or dangerous work. Half of the respondents say improved safety is one of the main advantages of robotics in those environments. A similar share point to productivity gains as another benefit. Another finding challenges a common assumption about public fears. Job loss is often described as the biggest concern surrounding robotics. But the study suggests security risk worries people more.
Around 51% of adults say their biggest concern about robots at work is the possibility that the machines could be hacked or misused. That fear outweighs worries about physical malfunction or injury, which stand at 41%. Concerns about being replaced at work appear at the same level.
For many respondents, the issue is not simply whether robots can perform tasks. It is whether the systems controlling them are secure. According to researchers involved in the study, these concerns reflect how people evaluate emerging technologies. Instead of having a single opinion about robotics, people tend to judge each situation individually.
A robot helping assemble products in a factory may feel acceptable. The same technology operating in more sensitive environments can raise different questions. Dr. Jim Everett, an associate professor in moral psychology, says trust in artificial intelligence and robotics is often misunderstood. People are not simply asking whether they trust the technology, he notes. They are thinking about specific tools performing specific roles.
A robot assisting in a classroom or helping in healthcare carries different expectations than an AI system used in defense or surveillance. Even though these technologies are often grouped together in public debates, people evaluate them differently depending on their purpose.
Finally, the study also highlights another important factor shaping public attitudes: experience. When people actually encounter robots, fear often declines. Michael Szollosy, a robotics researcher involved in the project, says reactions tend to change quickly when individuals meet a robot for the first time.
The idea of an autonomous machine can feel intimidating in theory. But when people see a small service robot or an industrial machine performing a straightforward task, the reaction is often much calmer. Exposure can shift perceptions from abstract fears to practical understanding.
That shift matters because robotics is moving steadily into everyday environments. From manufacturing and logistics to healthcare and public services, machines capable of autonomous or semi-autonomous work are becoming more common.
As that happens, the study suggests public confidence may depend less on technical breakthroughs and more on visibility and transparency. Burkhard Boeckem, chief technology officer at Hexagon AB, argues that trust grows when people understand what robots are designed to do and where their limits lie.
Anxiety tends to increase when systems feel invisible or poorly understood. Clear boundaries and clear explanations can have the opposite effect. When people see robots working safely alongside humans, performing well-defined tasks and operating within clear rules, the technology becomes easier to accept.
In that sense, the future of robotics may depend as much on public familiarity as on engineering. The machines themselves are advancing quickly. But the relationship between humans and robots is still being negotiated. For now, the study offers a simple insight: the more people encounter robots in everyday life, the less mysterious they become. And once the mystery fades, the conversation often changes from fear to curiosity.