The x402 track is currently in a state of limbo in terms of infrastructure. Although the booming market has taken away the "right time" and made application layers like Launchpad and middleware layers like Facilitator temporarily quiet, it has given the underlying infrastructure layer more time to build. Switchboard, an oracle project that emerged from the Solana ecosystem, recently proposed to provide a data service layer for the x402 protocol. How exactly will it do this? 1) In terms of technical architecture, Switchboard adopts a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), which is different from traditional consensus models such as Chainlink and Pyth that rely on network verification. Data is directly transmitted to the chain based on a secure enclave. 2) In terms of protocol compatibility, Switchboard is compatible with the x402 protocol standard, allowing the AI Agent to directly initiate data requests via HTTP 402, complete authorization using on-chain micro-payments, and receive data instantly. The entire process requires no additional adaptation layer or intermediate contract; 3) In terms of billing model, it breaks the traditional subscription model of oracles and supports pay-per-call—the agent pays according to the number of calls and data points, and pays only for what is used, which is completely consistent with the pay-as-you-go design concept of the x402 protocol; 4) Even more radically, Switchboard has completely removed the API Key mechanism. In the traditional model, accessing data services required registration, applying for a key, and managing permissions—a process that created significant friction for the agent. Now, a user's 402 transaction request simply needs to include sufficient information to instantly access any data source, without registration or approval. The question is, does the x402 protocol need a dedicated oracle service layer? First, let's clarify a concept: in the x402 protocol architecture, the Facilitator is responsible for payment facilitation—payment on behalf of others, broadcasting transactions, and state verification—solving the question of "how the money flows." The API services that the Agent actually calls, whether it's obtaining prices, performing calculations, or invoking LLM inference, are provided by the Provider layer. What Switchboard aims to create is a special type of Provider: a Provider that specifically provides on-chain trusted data services, constructing the core information layer for Agent value transfer. Imagine if the Provider is a centralized API; what if the data is tampered with or the service goes down? In Web2 scenarios, these risks are mitigated by channel brands and legal contracts, but in on-chain execution environments, especially those involving complex DeFi operations, some verifiable data that is stored on the blockchain is required. If ERC-8004 solves the problem of buyer agent identity trustworthiness and reputation, then this type of oracle-guided provider provides a layer of trust assurance in seller (API) data trustworthiness verification. Essentially, the x402 protocol builds the payment layer for the agent service market, while Switchboard builds the data service layer. If the payment layer allows money to flow, the data service layer allows trusted data to flow. Only when both are combined can an Agentic Economy have a complete infrastructure.The x402 track is currently in a state of limbo in terms of infrastructure. Although the booming market has taken away the "right time" and made application layers like Launchpad and middleware layers like Facilitator temporarily quiet, it has given the underlying infrastructure layer more time to build. Switchboard, an oracle project that emerged from the Solana ecosystem, recently proposed to provide a data service layer for the x402 protocol. How exactly will it do this? 1) In terms of technical architecture, Switchboard adopts a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), which is different from traditional consensus models such as Chainlink and Pyth that rely on network verification. Data is directly transmitted to the chain based on a secure enclave. 2) In terms of protocol compatibility, Switchboard is compatible with the x402 protocol standard, allowing the AI Agent to directly initiate data requests via HTTP 402, complete authorization using on-chain micro-payments, and receive data instantly. The entire process requires no additional adaptation layer or intermediate contract; 3) In terms of billing model, it breaks the traditional subscription model of oracles and supports pay-per-call—the agent pays according to the number of calls and data points, and pays only for what is used, which is completely consistent with the pay-as-you-go design concept of the x402 protocol; 4) Even more radically, Switchboard has completely removed the API Key mechanism. In the traditional model, accessing data services required registration, applying for a key, and managing permissions—a process that created significant friction for the agent. Now, a user's 402 transaction request simply needs to include sufficient information to instantly access any data source, without registration or approval. The question is, does the x402 protocol need a dedicated oracle service layer? First, let's clarify a concept: in the x402 protocol architecture, the Facilitator is responsible for payment facilitation—payment on behalf of others, broadcasting transactions, and state verification—solving the question of "how the money flows." The API services that the Agent actually calls, whether it's obtaining prices, performing calculations, or invoking LLM inference, are provided by the Provider layer. What Switchboard aims to create is a special type of Provider: a Provider that specifically provides on-chain trusted data services, constructing the core information layer for Agent value transfer. Imagine if the Provider is a centralized API; what if the data is tampered with or the service goes down? In Web2 scenarios, these risks are mitigated by channel brands and legal contracts, but in on-chain execution environments, especially those involving complex DeFi operations, some verifiable data that is stored on the blockchain is required. If ERC-8004 solves the problem of buyer agent identity trustworthiness and reputation, then this type of oracle-guided provider provides a layer of trust assurance in seller (API) data trustworthiness verification. Essentially, the x402 protocol builds the payment layer for the agent service market, while Switchboard builds the data service layer. If the payment layer allows money to flow, the data service layer allows trusted data to flow. Only when both are combined can an Agentic Economy have a complete infrastructure.

How can x402 and Switchboard jointly forge the "value artery" of the intelligent agent economy?

2025/11/26 20:00
3 min read

The x402 track is currently in a state of limbo in terms of infrastructure. Although the booming market has taken away the "right time" and made application layers like Launchpad and middleware layers like Facilitator temporarily quiet, it has given the underlying infrastructure layer more time to build. Switchboard, an oracle project that emerged from the Solana ecosystem, recently proposed to provide a data service layer for the x402 protocol. How exactly will it do this?

1) In terms of technical architecture, Switchboard adopts a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), which is different from traditional consensus models such as Chainlink and Pyth that rely on network verification. Data is directly transmitted to the chain based on a secure enclave.

2) In terms of protocol compatibility, Switchboard is compatible with the x402 protocol standard, allowing the AI Agent to directly initiate data requests via HTTP 402, complete authorization using on-chain micro-payments, and receive data instantly. The entire process requires no additional adaptation layer or intermediate contract;

3) In terms of billing model, it breaks the traditional subscription model of oracles and supports pay-per-call—the agent pays according to the number of calls and data points, and pays only for what is used, which is completely consistent with the pay-as-you-go design concept of the x402 protocol;

4) Even more radically, Switchboard has completely removed the API Key mechanism. In the traditional model, accessing data services required registration, applying for a key, and managing permissions—a process that created significant friction for the agent. Now, a user's 402 transaction request simply needs to include sufficient information to instantly access any data source, without registration or approval.

The question is, does the x402 protocol need a dedicated oracle service layer?

First, let's clarify a concept: in the x402 protocol architecture, the Facilitator is responsible for payment facilitation—payment on behalf of others, broadcasting transactions, and state verification—solving the question of "how the money flows." The API services that the Agent actually calls, whether it's obtaining prices, performing calculations, or invoking LLM inference, are provided by the Provider layer.

What Switchboard aims to create is a special type of Provider: a Provider that specifically provides on-chain trusted data services, constructing the core information layer for Agent value transfer.

Imagine if the Provider is a centralized API; what if the data is tampered with or the service goes down? In Web2 scenarios, these risks are mitigated by channel brands and legal contracts, but in on-chain execution environments, especially those involving complex DeFi operations, some verifiable data that is stored on the blockchain is required.

If ERC-8004 solves the problem of buyer agent identity trustworthiness and reputation, then this type of oracle-guided provider provides a layer of trust assurance in seller (API) data trustworthiness verification.

Essentially, the x402 protocol builds the payment layer for the agent service market, while Switchboard builds the data service layer. If the payment layer allows money to flow, the data service layer allows trusted data to flow.

Only when both are combined can an Agentic Economy have a complete infrastructure.

Market Opportunity
Wink Logo
Wink Price(LIKE)
$0.002003
$0.002003$0.002003
-1.66%
USD
Wink (LIKE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Galaxy Digital’s 2025 Loss: SOL Bear Market

Galaxy Digital’s 2025 Loss: SOL Bear Market

The post Galaxy Digital’s 2025 Loss: SOL Bear Market appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Galaxy Digital, a digital assets and artificial intelligence infrastructure
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/02/04 09:49
FCA, crackdown on crypto

FCA, crackdown on crypto

The post FCA, crackdown on crypto appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The regulation of cryptocurrencies in the United Kingdom enters a decisive phase. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has initiated a consultation to set minimum standards on transparency, consumer protection, and digital custody, in order to strengthen market confidence and ensure safer operations for exchanges, wallets, and crypto service providers. The consultation was published on May 2, 2025, and opened a public discussion on operational responsibilities and safeguarding requirements for digital assets (CoinDesk). The goal is to make the rules clearer without hindering the sector’s evolution. According to the data collected by our regulatory monitoring team, in the first weeks following the publication, the feedback received from professionals and operators focused mainly on custody, incident reporting, and insurance requirements. Industry analysts note that many responses require technical clarifications on multi-sig, asset segregation, and recovery protocols, as well as proposals to scale obligations based on the size of the operator. FCA Consultation: What’s on the Table The consultation document clarifies how to apply rules inspired by traditional finance to the crypto perimeter, balancing innovation, market integrity, and user protection. In this context, the goal is to introduce minimum standards for all firms under the supervision of the FCA, an essential step for a more transparent and secure sector, with measurable benefits for users. The proposed pillars Obligations towards consumers: assessment on the extension of the Consumer Duty – a requirement that mandates companies to provide “good outcomes” – to crypto services, with outcomes for users that are traceable and verifiable. Operational resilience: introduction of continuity requirements, incident response plans, and periodic testing to ensure the operational stability of platforms even in adverse scenarios. Financial Crime Prevention: strengthening AML/CFT measures through more stringent transaction monitoring and structured counterpart checks. Custody and safeguarding: definition of operational methods for the segregation of client assets, secure…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 05:40
HKMA Launches Fintech Blueprint with AI, DLT, Quantum and Cybersecurity Focus

HKMA Launches Fintech Blueprint with AI, DLT, Quantum and Cybersecurity Focus

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published a Fintech Promotion Blueprint to support responsible innovation and fintech development in the banking sector.
Share
Fintechnews2026/02/04 10:20