Skip to main content

Whitepaper

Enabling Verifiable AI Agent Outcomes in Decentralized Financial Systems​

Introduction: What is NAVA?​

This paper presents NAVA (Neural Arbitration and Verification Architecture), a novel protocol to address the fundamental tension between AI agent non-determinism and the verification requirements of financial systems. We propose a decentralized architecture that enables outcome space verification along deterministic guardrails while preserving the AI creativity that is inherent in agent systems. Our approach introduces Execution Escrow, a framework for agents to act on resources within guarded outcome space, Orion, an integrated arbitration system that utilizes our specialized language model for action verification, and usdNAVA, a stablecoin purpose built for underwriting agent action through the protocol.

NAVA represents a paradigm shift in how we approach AI agent verification within financial contexts. Rather than constraining AI capabilities to achieve deterministic outcomes, NAVA creates a verification layer that validates outcome spaces while preserving the creative potential that makes agents valuable. At its core, NAVA transforms the liability of AI non-determinism into an asset by providing the comprehensive financial security mechanisms, data modeling infrastructure, and risk quantification systems necessary for AI agent insurance markets to emerge.

Problem Space: The Verification-Creativity Tension​

2.1 Defining the Core Tension

Contemporary AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), derive their utility from probabilistic inference mechanisms that inherently produce non-deterministic outcomes. This non-determinism enables creative problem solving, adaptive reasoning, and contextual interpretation capabilities that are essential for sophisticated AI applications.

Financial systems, conversely, require outcome predictability, auditability, and risk quantification. The fundamental tension emerges from the incompatibility between:

  • Non-deterministic outcome generation: AI agents produce variable outputs from identical inputs due to their probabilistic foundations, creating unpredictable creative interpretations that can lead to financially devastating outcomes
  • Deterministic verification requirements: Financial systems demand predictable, reproducible, and quantifiable outcomes for risk management, regulatory compliance, and insurance product development

This tension manifests in two critical failure modes that prevent AI adoption in monetary applications:

2.1.1 Temporal Constraint Violations AI agents exhibit unpredictable response times that violate system constraints including blockchain gas limits, trading windows, and execution deadlines. Unlike deterministic systems with bounded execution times, AI agents can exceed critical timing parameters due to their generative processing requirements.

2.1.2 Creative Misinterpretation Risk AI agents can generate creative but financially harmful decisions that fall outside anticipated parameters. These failures represent not mere operational errors but fundamental misalignments between user intent and agent interpretation, creating unquantifiable risk exposures.

2.2 The Circular Dependency Problem​

Current verification paradigms create a circular dependency that stalls AI financial ecosystem development. Without reliable transaction data from supervised AI agents, insurers cannot build actuarial tables to assess AI risks. Simultaneously, without insurance products, financial institutions cannot deploy AI agents at scale to generate the necessary risk assessment data.

This dependency manifests in several critical limitations:

2.2.1 Inadequate Risk Models Traditional risk assessment models cannot accommodate AI agent behavior patterns, which exhibit complex nonlinear relationships between inputs and outcomes that resist conventional actuarial analysis.

2.2.2 Regulatory Compliance Gaps Financial regulatory frameworks require comprehensive audit trails and predictable risk profiles that current AI systems cannot provide, preventing institutional adoption regardless of potential value creation.

2.2.3 Insurance Market Absence The absence of comprehensive outcome data prevents the development of AI agent insurance products, creating an uninsurable risk category that financial institutions cannot accept.

3.1 Architectural Design​

3.1.1 Beyond Verified Inference and Execution​

Traditional approaches to AI verification focus on computational correctness through verified inference and execution paths. However, these methods are fundamentally insufficient for financial applications where the value of AI agents lies not in computational accuracy but in their ability to generate beneficial outcomes across complex, multidimensional solution spaces.

NAVA recognizes that verified inference and execution cannot verify outcome spaces which is the the critical requirement for financial risk assessment. Our approach shifts focus from execution verification to comprehensive outcome space characterization, enabling risk quantification while preserving the creative capabilities that make AI agents valuable.

The distinction is crucial: while verified execution guarantees computational integrity, it provides no insight into whether the computed outcome aligns with user intent or falls within acceptable risk parameters. NAVA's outcome space verification addresses this fundamental gap.

3.1.2 Decentralized Architecture Necessity​

NAVA employs a decentralized architecture driven by the specific requirements of AI acceleration and financial innovation:

Canonical Ledger Requirements: AI acceleration demands a universally accessible, immutable record of positive outcome spaces that cannot be provided by centralized systems. This canonical ledger enables ecosystem-wide learning and verification, creating network effects that improve AI agent performance through shared outcome data.

Trust Minimization: Financial applications require trust-minimized verification mechanisms that do not depend on centralized authorities or proprietary systems. Centralized verification introduces single points of failure and counterparty risk that are unacceptable in financial contexts.

Composability and Permissionless Innovation: Decentralized architecture enables permissionless innovation and composability, allowing diverse AI applications to leverage shared verification infrastructure without requiring coordination with centralized gatekeepers.

3.1.3 The Stable Asset Contradiction: usdNAVA Design​

A fundamental contradiction emerges in decentralized AI agent systems: underwriting AI agents and their insurance cannot be conducted in volatile assets, yet this requirement contradicts the decentralized nature of blockchain systems that typically rely on volatile native tokens.

Forking an alternative stable chain introduces significant challenges including governance complexity, network effects bootstrapping, and ecosystem fragmentation. usdNAVA addresses this contradiction through a novel stability mechanism that:

  • Maintains USD parity through sophisticated reserve management for accurate insurance calculations and risk assessment
  • Preserves decentralized governance through token-weighted voting while maintaining price stability
  • Enables seamless DeFi integration without external stable coin dependencies that could introduce centralization risks
  • Provides collateral stability necessary for insurance products while supporting the decentralized verification infrastructure

3.1.4 Creativity as a Purchasable Asset​

NAVA introduces a novel economic model that transforms AI creativity from an unmanaged liability into a quantifiable and purchasable asset. Through comprehensive outcome space mapping and probability distribution analysis, the system enables:

Granular Creativity Selection: Users can purchase specific creativity levels by selecting AI agents with desired exploration parameters, optimizing the cost-creativity trade off for their specific applications.

Risk Adjusted Pricing: Historical outcome distributions enable dynamic pricing of AI agent services based on their creativity levels and associated risk profiles.

Asset Class Development: AI creativity becomes a measurable asset class with quantifiable risk-return characteristics, enabling financial instruments and derivative products.

This transformation addresses the fundamental economic inefficiency where AI creativity is treated as an unmanaged externality rather than a valuable economic input.

3.1.5 Insurance Requirements: Data Driven Actuarial Development​

Accurate AI agent insurance requires comprehensive actuarial data that current systems cannot provide. Traditional insurance models rely on historical loss data and statistical risk assessment, neither of which exist for AI agent applications.

NAVA's data driven approach addresses this gap by generating the statistical foundation necessary for insurance product development:

Overcollateralization Rate Optimization: Historical outcome data enables precise calculation of collateral requirements based on agent specific risk profiles rather than broad, conservative estimates that make AI agent deployment economically unviable.

Dynamic Risk Assessment: Realtime outcome monitoring allows for dynamic adjustment of insurance parameters based on evolving agent behaviors, market conditions, and learned risk patterns.

Actuarial Table Development: Comprehensive outcome tracking provides the statistical foundation necessary for traditional insurance models to incorporate AI agent risks, enabling the development of standardized insurance products.

4. Technical Architecture​

4.1 Execution Escrow Framework​

To address the problem of financially securing agent actions, NAVA introduces Execution Escrow: a comprehensive framework in which agents propose actions and verification services assess and approve those actions before execution. The need for financially secured agent actions has been recognized in distributed multi agent systems, where autonomous agents handle financial transactions on behalf of users (Zhang et al., 2021).

4.1.1 Core Components​

A full implementation of Execution Escrow requires the following components as defined below

Escrow​

The place where resources are held. For financial applications resources are funds and assets, but for other use cases resources could entail access permissions to sensitive systems. Escrow defines the resources that an agent can propose actions over and the rules or requirements by which those actions can be executed.

Execution Agent​

An agent whose purpose is to act over resources that it’s user wants financially secured in escrow. To be considered an “execution agent” an agent must be aware of its integration with the Execution Escrow framework and able to interface with it appropriately to propose actions to escrow. When proposing actions, execution agents may be required to provide supplementary data such as execution traces or internal logs that detail the construction of the proposed action from the user’s intent.

Verification Services​

A service that can read actions proposed to escrow and issue a response. Verification services may assess any numbers of element from a proposed action and its construction and can evaluate these elements over objective or subjective rulesets. Responses from verification services can include approvals for actions or supplementary information for additional services. A user may request a response from any number of services over an action and require any set of approvals before execution of that action through escrow.

Communication Layers​

The routes through which the components outlined above interface with each other. For a full implementation of Execution Escrow, the communication layers must facilitate secure communication of proposed actions and supplementary data from execution agents to escrow and relevant verification services. The communication layers must also facilitate communication of responses and approvals from verification services back to escrow. All communication should be tamper proof and may be privacy preserving to protect sensitive data.

Implementation​

Given the Execution Escrow framework and definitions of its components, we can illustrate how the process may be implemented over web3 to provide financially secured cryptocurrency transactions.

Escrow can be implemented as a smart contract which nicely satisfy the property of being able to hold resources, in our case tokens or permissions over other smart contracts. To set the conditions under which actions can be executed we can take a number of approaches. Users should always be able to manually execute actions over the resources in escrow while also allowing some combination of these external services to execute actions autonomously. Existing solution that emerges are multi signature contracts and account abstraction contracts. With appropriate configurations, users could request signatures over proposed transactions from verification services and then check onchain that a sufficient quorum of those signatures are valid before execution.

For agents, integration with execution escrow is straightforward. The actions proposed by execution agents to escrow can take the form of transaction requests, the schema of which is strictly defined by the chain on which the escrow contract lives. In order to effectively utilize execution escrow, execution agents should be able to take a users request, reason about what tools and protocols are appropriate to complete the task, and return a transaction request alongside a structured log of this reasoning.

Verification services, given a transaction request and this log of reasoning, can take a number of approaches to asses the validity of the proposal. Some services may verify hard criteria such as cryptographic proofs over agent execution traces or adherence to objective criteria set by users such as spending limits for example. Services could even be other agents that provide additional reasoning on adherence to the intent in the initial user request. Later in this paper we detail our verification service Orion and discuss our approach to this problem.

Finally, for a communication layer we propose a purpose built blockchain network on which transaction proposals from execution agents to escrow, requests from execution agents to verification services, and responses from those verification services can all be made as transactions. These messages can be encrypted between parties to maintain the property of privacy. In addition to the immutable ledger and data availability that is network provides, we also have an execution layer that can be used to build a protocol that provide crypto economic security and fault rectification for verification services.

4.2 Protocol Design: Outcome Space Architecture​

NAVA's protocol architecture implements a sophisticated outcome space verification system that maps AI agent decisions across a spectrum from unacceptable to extraordinary outcomes, as illustrated in the system's verification distribution model.

Outcome Distribution Framework The protocol categorizes agent outcomes across three primary regions:

  • Unacceptable Outcomes (Red Zone): Actions that violate fundamental constraints, regulatory requirements, or user defined risk parameters. Escrow mechanisms prevent execution of these outcomes through deterministic system triggers.
  • Acceptable Outcomes (Purple Zone): Standard operations that meet all compliance requirements and fall within expected risk parameters. These outcomes receive streamlined verification through hybrid assessment combining automated checks with selective reasoning verification.
  • Extraordinary Outcomes (Blue Zone): High value creative solutions that exceed standard expectations while maintaining compliance. Orion's verification system incentivizes identification and validation of these outcomes through enhanced reward mechanisms.

Dynamic Boundary Adjustment The protocol continuously adjusts outcome space boundaries based on historical performance data, market conditions, and evolving risk parameters (Chen et al., 2024). This adaptive approach enables the system to maintain appropriate risk levels while maximizing the potential for beneficial creative outcomes.

Verification Efficiency Optimization By mapping verification intensity to outcome complexity and potential value, the protocol optimizes computational resource allocation. Simple compliance checks utilize deterministic triggers, while complex creative assessments leverage graph of thoughts reasoning, ensuring efficient verification without compromising security (Kumar et al., 2024).

@Bernardo Cardoso section for you on chain stuff

@Timothy Schultz not sure if this is the right spot for your integrations, let’s think about where that should go.

4.3 Orion: Hybrid Verification Architecture​

Orion implements NAVA's hybrid verification system that combines graph of thoughts reasoning for complex outcome assessment with deterministic system triggers for basic compliance requirements. This architecture optimizes the verification process by routing different types of validation through appropriate mechanisms based on complexity and criticality.

Deterministic System Triggers For basic compliance requirements, Orion utilizes deterministic system triggers that provide immediate, binary verification responses. These triggers handle:

  • OFAC Compliance: Realtime screening against sanctions lists and prohibited entity databases
  • Transaction Sanity Checks: Validation of transaction parameters including balance sufficiency, address validity, and gas limit appropriateness
  • Regulatory Thresholds: Automated enforcement of spending limits, frequency constraints, and reporting requirements
  • Technical Validation: Verification of transaction syntax, signature validity, and blockchain compatibility

Graph-of-Thoughts Verification Framework @Siddhartha Jagannath @Duanyi Yao @Ding Zhao @Baltasar Aroso this section is for you guys

This hybrid approach optimizes verification efficiency by reserving computational resources for complex reasoning tasks while ensuring rapid processing of routine compliance checks.

NavaLLM Integration

Multi-Agent Consensus and Arbitration

4.4 Insurance Data Infrastructure​

NAVA's architecture generates comprehensive datasets necessary for AI agent insurance development, addressing the fundamental data gap that prevents insurance market development:

Outcome Distribution Analysis Statistical mapping of agent behavior patterns across diverse applications, market conditions, and user contexts. This analysis provides the actuarial foundation for risk assessment and pricing models.

Risk Correlation Identification Analysis of factors that influence agent performance and outcome predictability, enabling sophisticated risk models that account for environmental variables, agent configurations, and application contexts.

Standardized Performance Metrics Development of standardized benchmarks for comparing agent capabilities and risk profiles across different applications, enabling insurance product standardization and risk comparison.

The data infrastructure transforms AI agent deployment from an uninsurable risk into a quantifiable asset class with measurable risk-return characteristics, enabling the development of comprehensive insurance markets.

5. Economic Model and Market Implications​

5.1 Market Structure Transformation​

NAVA creates new market structures by transforming AI creativity from an unmanaged externality into a core economic input. This transformation enables:

Risk Stratified AI Services: AI agents can be priced and selected based on their risk-creativity profiles, enabling users to optimize their cost-benefit tradeoffs.

Insurance Product Development: Comprehensive risk data enables the development of AI agent insurance products, reducing the barrier to institutional AI adoption.

Derivative Market Potential: Standardized risk metrics enable the development of derivative products based on AI agent performance and outcome distributions.

5.2 Network Effects and Ecosystem Development​

The decentralized architecture creates positive network effects where increased usage improves system performance:

Data Quality Improvement: More agent deployments generate better risk assessment data, improving insurance accuracy and reducing costs.

Verification Service Competition: Open verification markets drive innovation in assessment quality and efficiency.

Agent Performance Optimization: Shared outcome data enables AI agents to learn from ecosystem wide experience, improving performance across all applications.

6. Implementation Timeline and Future Research​

Research Directions​

Advanced Verification Methodologies Future research includes optimization of graph of thoughts reasoning for financial applications, development of more sophisticated outcome prediction models using transformer architectures (Vaswani et al., 2023), and integration of causal inference methods for improved risk assessment (Pearl & Mackenzie, 2024).

Stability Mechanism Evolution Research into improvements for usdNAVA stability mechanisms, including investigation of novel market making algorithms and reserve management strategies that maintain price stability under extreme market conditions (Williams et al., 2024).

Cross Protocol Integration Development of standardized interfaces for integration with existing DeFi protocols, traditional financial systems, and emerging AI agent frameworks. This includes research into interoperability standards and cross chain verification mechanisms (Thompson et al., 2024).

Insurance Market Sophistication Advanced actuarial modeling incorporating machine learning approaches for dynamic risk assessment, development of derivative products based on AI agent performance metrics, and integration with traditional insurance markets through standardized risk interfaces (Anderson et al., 2024).

7. Conclusion​

NAVA addresses the fundamental tension between AI creativity and financial verification requirements through a comprehensive architecture that enables outcome space verification without constraining agent capabilities. By providing financial security mechanisms, stable asset integration, and comprehensive risk quantification, NAVA creates the infrastructure necessary for widespread AI agent adoption in financial systems.

The system transforms AI non-determinism from a barrier to adoption into a valuable economic input, enabling new market structures and financial products while maintaining the creative capabilities that drive AI innovation. Through execution escrow, specialized verification services, and data driven insurance development, NAVA provides the missing infrastructure layer that will enable the next generation of AI powered financial applications.

References​

Alharby, M., & van Moorsel, A. (2020). Smart Contract-Based Escrow Services: A Systematic Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.02600.

Boneh, D., Gennaro, R., & Goldfeder, S. (2019). Threshold Signatures for Blockchain Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05234.

Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., ... & Amodei, D. (2023). Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877-1901.

Buterin, V., Weiss, Y., & Tirosh, D. (2024). Account Abstraction for Ethereum: Past, Present, Future. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12456.

Castro, M., & Liskov, B. (2022). Byzantine Fault Tolerance in Blockchain-Based Verification Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10234.

Gentry, C. (2021). Fully Homomorphic Encryption Using Ideal Lattices. Communications of the ACM, 53(3), 97-105.

Liu, Y., & Chen, X. (2022). Formal Verification of Autonomous Agents in Blockchain Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.09183.

Miller, A., Juels, A., Shi, E., Parno, B., & Katz, J. (2023). From Intent to Transaction: A Framework for User-Centric Blockchain Interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12345.

Parno, B., Howell, J., Gentry, C., & Raykova, M. (2021). Zero-Knowledge Proofs for Verifiable Computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02082.

Roughgarden, T. (2021). Crypto-Economic Security Models for Decentralized Services. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.07347.

Wang, X., Zhang, Y., & Li, J. (2022). Privacy-Preserving Communication Protocols for Blockchain Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15678.

Wöhrer, M., & Zdun, U. (2018). Smart contracts: Security patterns in the Ethereum ecosystem and solidity. 2018 International Workshop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE), 2-8.

Anderson, K., Smith, R., & Johnson, M. (2024). Machine Learning Approaches to Dynamic Insurance Risk Assessment in Decentralized Systems. Journal of Financial Technology, 15(2), 234-251.

Chen, L., Wang, X., & Davis, P. (2024). Adaptive Boundary Mechanisms for AI Agent Verification Systems. Proceedings of the International Conference on AI Safety, 12, 89-104.

Kumar, S., Martinez, A., & Lee, J. (2024). Computational Efficiency in Hybrid Verification Architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15789.

Liu, H., Brown, S., & Taylor, K. (2024). Multi-Agent Consensus Mechanisms for Financial Verification Systems. Distributed Systems Quarterly, 8(3), 45-62.

Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2024). Causal Inference in Financial Risk Assessment: Methods and Applications. MIT Press, 2nd Edition.

Thompson, R., Clark, N., & Wilson, E. (2024). Cross-Protocol Interoperability Standards for Decentralized AI Systems. Blockchain Technology Review, 9(4), 178-195.

Vaswani, A., Brain, G., & Shazeer, N. (2023). Attention Mechanisms in Financial Decision Systems: A Transformer-Based Approach. Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 2847-2859.

Williams, J., Garcia, C., & Peterson, L. (2024). Algorithmic Stability Mechanisms for Decentralized Stable Assets. Cryptocurrency Economics Journal, 7(1), 12-28.

Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T., Cao, Y., & Narasimhan, K. (2023). Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 11809-11822.

Zhang, M., Rodriguez, P., & Kim, Y. (2024). Domain-Specific Language Models for Financial Verification Applications. Computational Finance Quarterly, 11(2), 67-84.