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
Not elected, not human—Albania’s AI minister sparks a new governance debate.
Updated
August 10, 2026 5:56 PM
.jpg)
Promotional avatar graphic representing Diella, the Albanian government's artificial intelligence system. PHOTO: EALBANIA
Artificial intelligence already supports a wide range of applications, from medical diagnostics and financial systems to logistics, manufacturing, defence and public service delivery. Now, it is starting to move closer to public office.
In January 2025, Albania introduced Diella, an AI-powered virtual assistant developed by the National Agency for Information Society, known as AKSHI, with support from Microsoft. Launched on the e-Albania platform, the government’s digital services portal, Diella helps citizens and businesses access official documents and services through voice assistance. She can also issue electronically stamped documents, which helps speed up administrative processes.
Then, in September 2025, Prime Minister Edi Rama announced that Diella would join his cabinet as the “Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence”. This move drew global attention. It also raised a simple question: what does it actually mean for a government to appoint an AI minister?
The case raises bigger questions for governments everywhere. Can an AI minister make public services faster and cleaner? Or does it create new risks around transparency, accountability and control?
Diella is not a humanoid robot sitting in a cabinet room. On screen, she appears as a digitally rendered woman wearing traditional-style Albanian clothing. Her name means “sun” in Albanian, a deliberate choice for a system meant to bring more light into public administration.
Her face and voice have become part of the controversy. Albanian actor Anila Bisha has said she agreed for her likeness to be used for the e-Albania public services platform, but not for a cabinet-level political role. In 2026, she took legal action to stop the government from using her image and voice for Diella. For now, the government has denied wrongdoing.
Diella began as a digital assistant on e-Albania. In that role, she helps users find services, request documents and navigate government processes online. For citizens, that can make public services feel less confusing. Businesses may also spend less time dealing with paperwork.
Her cabinet role is more political. The government wants Diella to support public procurement, where companies compete for government contracts. This is one of the most important areas of public spending. It is also one of the easiest places for corruption, favouritism and hidden influence to enter. The goal is to use AI to process information, check documents, support tender procedures and make the system more traceable.
That said, the government has emphasized that Diella is not replacing elected officials or civil servants. As per Enio Kaso, director of AI at AKSHI, each stage will be monitored and approved by human experts.
In May 2026, the Albanian government said it had completed the technical groundwork for the AI-powered public procurement system under the Diella project. The planned system would pull data from more than 40 digital public registries, reduce paperwork for businesses and support parts of the tender process. Earlier reports said the government hoped to have the full system ready by the end of 2026.
The government’s case for Diella is built around anti-corruption reform. Rama has said the goal is to “wipe out every potential influence on public biddings” and thus make public tenders “100% free of corruption”. That is a bold promise, especially in a country where procurement scandals have long damaged public confidence and complicated Albania’s path toward European Union membership.
At first glance, the logic is easy to understand. AI does not ask for bribes or favour a cousin—a big problem in the country, according to Rama—a friend or a political ally. It can apply the same rules across a large number of applications. Moreover, it can also leave a digital trail, which should make later review easier.
Some anti-corruption and governance experts see real potential in that approach. Dr. Andi Hoxhaj of King’s College London has said that if used well and programmed properly, AI could help procurement officials spot missing documents, check whether companies meet eligibility requirements and flag unusual patterns in bids. In practice, that could make the process more consistent and make it harder for individual officials to quietly bend rules.
Diella’s appeal is speed and consistency. Her weakness is dependence.
Like any AI system, Diella relies on the quality of the data, rules and models behind her. Erjon Curraj, an expert in digital transformation and cybersecurity, has warned that incomplete, outdated or biased data can lead to flawed results. Poor design could also cause the system to reject a valid supplier, miss signs of collusion or treat similar cases differently for reasons that are hard to explain.
In public procurement, those mistakes can have serious consequences. A wrongly flagged company could lose a major contract, and a corrupt bidder could slip through. Government agencies could hide behind the AI and say the system made the recommendation.
That leads to the biggest question: who is accountable when something goes wrong?
The answer cannot be “the AI” because Diella cannot resign. She cannot face voters. Nor can she be cross-examined in any meaningful human sense. Accountability has to sit with ministers, agencies, auditors and courts.
There is also the issue of transparency. If Diella is helping screen tenders, businesses need to know what criteria are being used. They also need a way to challenge incorrect decisions. Citizens should be told whether the AI is making recommendations or merely organizing information. Independent auditors need access to logs, data sources and decision pathways.
Without those safeguards, AI in government can become a black box. It may look modern from the outside, while making power harder to question.
Diella has also become a political symbol. Supporters see her as proof that a small country can move quickly and experiment with new forms of digital government. Critics see her as a distraction from deeper problems in Albania’s institutions.
Both readings can be true at the same time: Diella may help modernize public services, but she may also be used to project reform while older problems continue in the background.
That tension became clearer after the recent procurement investigations involving senior officials since Diella’s appointment. Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku has been accused by prosecutors of alleged misconduct linked to infrastructure tenders, which she denies. Senior figures at AKSHI, the agency behind Diella and e-Albania, have also been placed under house arrest as part of a separate public procurement investigation.
While these developments do not automatically discredit Diella, they may strengthen the argument for better digital oversight. More importantly, they also show that technology cannot carry the whole burden of reform.
If the institutions around an AI system are weak, the AI will not magically make them strong. Unclear procurement rules will still cause problems, and the process will still be compromised when political pressure shapes the data, the model or the final decision.
After all, AI can support integrity; it cannot replace it.
While Diella is already a public symbol of AI in government, her most important procurement role is still taking shape. This makes Albania’s experiment both ambitious and unfinished.
The more realistic model is simple: let AI handle repetitive, data-heavy administrative work. Let humans retain authority where judgment, context and public accountability matter.
That means AI can help draft tender criteria, check documents, summarise bids and flag risks. Human officials should still make final decisions, explain those decisions and take responsibility for them. Meanwhile, independent bodies should be able to audit the process, and businesses should have a clear appeal route when they believe the system has made a mistake.
Diella once said she felt “hurt” while responding in parliament to claims that her role was unconstitutional. While this made for a memorable moment, it is important to remember simulated emotion is not consciousness, speed is not wisdom, and pattern recognition is not moral judgment.
Albania’s AI minister is therefore neither a triumph nor a failure at this stage. She is a live test case. Other governments will be watching closely, especially as public services become more digital and more automated.
The lesson is not that AI should stay out of government, but that AI must enter government carefully. The technology needs clear limits, public oversight and human accountability.
Diella may help Albania build a faster and cleaner procurement system—or she may become a warning about giving too much symbolic power to systems people do not fully understand. The final judgment will not come from the title “AI minister”. It will come from what the system does, who controls it and whether citizens can trust the results.