English

Based on "What the Agent Economy Looks Like From Inside Stripe" from Every Watch the original video

The Invisible Hand of AI: Stripe's View of the Agent Economy

The internet, a realm once exclusively shaped by human interaction, is undergoing a profound transformation. A new class of actors — autonomous AI agents — is emerging, poised to become the dominant force in online commerce. From within Stripe, the company famously tasked with increasing the internet's GDP, Emily, Head of Data and AI, offers an unparalleled, macro-level perspective on this seismic shift. Her insights reveal not just a technological evolution, but a complete rethinking of economic infrastructure, payment models, and the very nature of online fraud.

The Dawn of an Autonomous Internet

For decades, the internet operated on a foundational assumption: the primary actor was a human sitting in front of a screen, browsing, filling forms, clicking, and ultimately, making decisions. This assumption is now breaking. "The internet economy is becoming more autonomous," Emily explains. "Sometimes the human is still totally in control, but they're interacting through an AI interface. Sometimes the agent is acting on their behalf. And then sometimes software now is just out interacting directly with other software."

This shift isn't merely about AI improving existing services like search or coding; it's about the introduction of a fundamentally new type of participant. These agents, over time, are expected to become the predominant actors on the internet, necessitating an evolution at every layer of the digital stack. For Stripe, this means not only becoming "agent ready" itself but also empowering businesses to navigate this new landscape. The questions are profound: How are products discovered and bought? What should developer tools look like? And crucially for Stripe, what is the underlying economic infrastructure — payments, billing, fraud detection, identity — needed in a world where actors are no longer just humans?

The New Frontier of Fraud: Stealing Compute

One of the most immediate and striking impacts of the agent economy is the radical redefinition of fraud. Historically, payment fraud involved stealing money or card credentials. Today, "fraudsters are stealing compute," Emily reveals. This is a very different problem with existential implications for many AI businesses.

In traditional SaaS models, a free tier or trial cost the provider very little. Stealing access to a basic software seat wasn't particularly valuable for fraudsters. However, in the AI world, every prompt, every image generated, every API request has a very real, often substantial, cost attached. Compute is expensive, and "free compute is kind of the new CAC" (Customer Acquisition Cost) for many AI companies, serving as a major lever for growth through free trials and credits. This high-value, high-cost resource has opened up three primary fraud vectors:

1. Multi-Account Abuse: Bad actors sign up repeatedly with new identities and email addresses to claim new user credits, staying ahead of detection. Stripe data shows that across AI companies using their platform, about 7% of sign-ups are these multi-account users – a non-trivial share.
2. Free Trial Abuse: This is often the most urgent issue due to its rapid impact on unit economics. Emily shares a startling anecdote: one large AI company saw only 4% of its free trials convert to paid, with each trial costing $25 in LLM spend. This meant they were effectively spending $625 per payer before a single dollar of revenue came in. The vast majority of these "trial users" were abusers with no intent to pay. This vector has seen exponential growth, quadrupling in the last six months. For one large AI user on Stripe, an astonishing 250,000 fraudulent free trials are blocked per week.
3. Non-Payment Abuse: Customers consume thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in compute over a month, day, or even an hour, only to fail payment when billed. By the time payment fails, the loss has already occurred, leaving AI companies holding the bag.

This shift means fraud is no longer a transaction-level problem occurring solely at checkout. "Fraud used to be a transaction thing. Now it is a customer thing. It is a full-funnel thing," Emily emphasizes. It starts at sign-up, extends through credit allocation and free trials, and continues with overage management. The cost of having compute stolen is, for many, an existential risk.

The AI Arms Race

The rise of AI-powered fraud has ignited an "arms race" between fraudsters and those building defenses. Fraudsters now leverage AI to their advantage, but so do detection systems. Stripe, processing 2% of global GDP and growing rapidly, possesses a unique advantage: vast amounts of data. "Luckily not only do we have AI on our side just like they do, but we also have data on our side," Emily notes.

Stripe's fraud protection product, Radar, has evolved dramatically. It's moved beyond just card transactions to encompass all payment methods, including crypto, and has extended its capabilities to the Radar API, allowing businesses to screen transactions even if they aren't processed directly on Stripe. The company views fraud mitigation as a "public good," investing disproportionately to protect the internet economy. While new, creative fraud vectors constantly emerge, AI agents on Stripe's network can now identify anomalous patterns across processors, payment methods, and merchants, burning down threats quickly. Emily remains "overall bullish, but certainly not complacent."

The Unprecedented Growth of AI Companies

Beyond fraud, Stripe's vantage point reveals other striking trends in the AI economy. These new AI companies are growing at an unprecedented pace. Looking at the top 100 AI companies on Stripe, those that reach $30 million in Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) do so in about 18 months – three times faster than the top 100 SaaS companies from 2018. This rapid scaling is evident even at earlier stages, like reaching $1 million or $5 million ARR.

Initially, much of this AI growth represented "net new spend being pumped into the economy." It wasn't directly substituting traditional SaaS or headcount because AI was starting near zero, and organizations were slow to drop existing contracts. However, the dynamics are changing. Emily predicts that going forward, some AI spend will substitute for traditional SaaS, especially as existing SaaS companies reinvent themselves with AI-first solutions. Moreover, companies will inevitably start to view AI spend as a substitute for headcount opex. If an engineer's true cost now includes $30,000 in LLM spend, budget decisions will adjust accordingly.

Interestingly, while the overall category of AI tools (e.g., AI dev tools, AI coding assistants) shows higher retention rates than traditional SaaS, individual provider retention can be slightly lower. This is intuitive: once a user adopts an AI coding assistant, they love it and won't stop using such a tool. However, they are highly likely to "iterate across providers" as new models emerge or quality varies, reflecting a "high percentage of curious travelers hopping from one thing to the next within a category."

Evolving Monetization Models

The rapid iteration isn't limited to product features; it's fundamentally reshaping monetization. Traditional SaaS relied heavily on fixed monthly subscriptions and seat-based usage, which made sense when marginal costs were near zero and humans were the primary users. Now, with very real inference costs, usage-based billing has become paramount. Companies are metering tokens, API calls, workflows, and even outcomes, charging with high precision based on units that reflect both customer value and cost structure.

Hybrid models are prevalent: subscriptions with usage overages, prepaid credits that burn down, or real-time top-ups. Stripe's "token billing" solution directly addresses the volatility of underlying model costs. For "wrapper" companies built on top of LLMs, if their pricing doesn't keep pace with changing model costs, margins can quickly disappear. Token billing allows businesses to track and price to underlying token costs in real-time, with a set markup, ensuring profitability.

Looking ahead, Emily foresees a significant shift away from seat-based pricing, particularly in the enterprise context. While consumers might prefer fixed monthly fees, businesses will increasingly demand outcome-based pricing for vertical AI solutions. For example, a customer service AI platform might charge per resolved case, aligning revenue with the value delivered and holding the provider accountable for ROI. "I just have a hard time imagining, you know, a year from now most vertical providers are literally charging on tokens," Emily states, predicting a move towards complex objective functions that measure quality, complexity, and even customer satisfaction for resolved outcomes. The concept of charging per developer seat for a tool that makes developers 10x more productive will likely become "silly."

Stripe's Adaptation: Building for Agents

Stripe's own product development reflects this profound shift. The traditional notion of "developer experience" focused on making it easier for human engineers at a keyboard. While clear APIs, better docs, and less setup still matter, the "developer" persona has broadened to include non-technical founders, coding assistants, and agents provisioning infrastructure on a human's behalf.

A telling metric: LLM traffic to Stripe docs is up 10x year-over-year. This isn't just a substitution for human use (which remains flat to climbing); it signifies that machines are becoming direct users of developer infrastructure, including Stripe's. Humans still sanity-check, but agents are integrating.

To address the growing friction in provisioning modern software stacks, Stripe launched "Stripe Projects." This initiative allows users and their agents to create and manage parts of their software stack directly from the command line, automating account creation, credential management, and setup across multiple services. The overwhelming interest from over a hundred companies immediately after launch underscores the real need for tools that ease the setup process, even as coding becomes easier with AI.

Understanding Agentic Commerce

The term "agentic commerce" can be misleading, often conjuring images of extreme, fully autonomous systems. Emily prefers to view it as a spectrum, starting with AI simply removing friction from existing internet commerce. This includes AI assisting with research, comparisons, and form filling, where the human still makes the final decision. The next stage involves descriptive search, where users articulate complex needs (e.g., "I need a summer camp for my kids within this budget and driving radius"). Real delegation, where the system makes purchases based on constraints, marks the "minimum viable bar" for agentic commerce. The furthest, most futuristic end of the spectrum is "ambient commerce," where the system anticipates needs without explicit prompts.

Regardless of where an interaction falls on this spectrum, the underlying economic infrastructure needs to change. The old model — humans creating accounts, choosing plans, filling forms, and entering card details — is no longer universally applicable. Agent-assisted buying, where discovery, checkout, and payment occur within AI interfaces like Gemini or ChatGPT, rather than on a merchant's website, requires a redesign of payment flows. The AI agent needs to understand merchant products, prices, and checkout flows to act on behalf of the consumer, and new trust mechanisms are paramount.

The internet is no longer just a marketplace for humans; it's rapidly evolving into an autonomous economic ecosystem where AI agents play an increasingly central role. Stripe, with its unique position at the heart of internet payments, is not just observing this transformation but actively building the foundational infrastructure that will enable the next wave of digital commerce. The agent economy is here, and its implications are reshaping everything from how businesses grow to how fraud is fought, and how we all interact with the digital world.

Based on "Why Even Some Democrats Hate California’s Billionaire Tax Proposal" from New York Times Podcasts Watch the original video

California's Billionaire Blitz: Why a Progressive Tax Proposal Faces Unexpected Democratic Resistance

In the heart of California, a battle is brewing that pits the promise of economic equality against the fear of driving away the state's wealthiest residents. A landmark proposal to levy a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California's billionaires has reached a critical milestone, garnering enough signatures to put the measure to a vote. Proponents champion it as a necessary step to "right the wrongs of an unequal system," arguing that those who have "prospered from here in California can afford to invest a little more in keeping California running." Yet, this seemingly populist move has ignited a "firestorm" of opposition, not just from the expected ultra-wealthy and Republicans, but surprisingly, from a significant contingent of Democrats.

This contentious proposal, emerging from a state that boasts more billionaires than any other, is poised to become a national touchstone in the ongoing debate over economic inequality. As Laurel Rosenhall, a New York Times colleague, explains, California's journey to this moment, and the intricate web of alliances and opposition it has created, offers crucial insights into the broader fight over wealth distribution across the nation.

The Anatomy of an Unusual Tax Proposal

At its core, the initiative seeks to impose a 5% tax on the net worth of any billionaire who was a California resident as of January 1st of this year. The revenue generated, estimated to affect roughly 200 individuals (though some experts believe the number could be higher), would be channeled into a special state fund, with 90% specifically earmarked for healthcare services.

What makes this proposal particularly unusual, and a source of much of the controversy, are two key structural elements:

1. Taxing Assets, Not Income: Unlike traditional taxation, which typically targets income, this measure would tax an individual's accumulated assets. This includes a wide array of wealth, from stocks and investment portfolios to luxury items like jewelry, cars, and even valuable paintings. Notably, it specifically exempts residential property, a curious carve-out in a state grappling with a housing crisis.
2. A Dedicated Healthcare Fund: Rather than funneling the tax revenue into the state's general fund, where elected officials have discretion over its allocation, 90% of the billionaire tax proceeds would be statutorily dedicated to healthcare. This specific allocation is intended to offset massive funding cuts to Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies made by the federal government, which supporters argue are essential to "keep hospitals open, to keep emergency rooms operating, and to keep the healthcare system that Californians rely on operating."

The Genesis of the Initiative: A Maverick Union's Fight

The driving force behind this unprecedented tax proposal is the Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW). This union, representing a broad spectrum of hospital workers from janitors to healthcare technicians, is deeply concerned about the ramifications of federal Medicaid cuts. Their fear is that these cuts will lead to widespread closures of emergency rooms and hospitals, directly impacting their members and the communities they serve.

The union's leader, Dave Regan, is described as a "maverick operator" with a long history of utilizing ballot initiatives as leverage in labor negotiations. He conceived of the billionaire tax, collaborating with respected economists to craft the proposal largely on his own. Despite starting without a massive coalition, SEIU-UHW began pouring millions into a signature-gathering campaign, training volunteers who became a common sight at farmers markets and grocery stores across California. The initiative also gained significant momentum with the public backing of Senator Bernie Sanders, who flew to Los Angeles to lead a well-attended rally in support of the measure.

The Billionaires' Gambit: Exit Strategies and Mitigation Tactics

The prospect of a wealth tax sent shockwaves through California's ultra-wealthy circles. The January 1st residency deadline spurred a flurry of activity, with some high-profile billionaires making immediate moves to change their official residency. Among them were Google co-founders Sergey Brin, who relocated to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, and Larry Page, who left for Florida. Influential tech investors like David Sacks moved to Texas, and Peter Thiel to Miami. While wealthy individuals often threaten to leave in the face of tax increases, in this instance, a notable handful followed through, at least officially, despite often retaining multiple properties in the Golden State.

For those determined to remain in California, the focus shifted to mitigating potential tax liabilities. A revealing anecdote from a conference in Orange County highlighted the lengths to which wealth managers and tax advisors were going, offering sessions on "how to help your clients reduce their net worth." Suggestions included physically relocating valuable assets – "move your Picasso out of your house in Beverly Hills to your house in Aspen" – or even reducing insurance policies on high-value items like jewelry, as the tax would be based on actual worth.

However, not all billionaires are uniformly opposed. Some acknowledge the state's role in their prosperity, expressing a willingness to contribute more. Yet, the broader opposition is rooted in deeper concerns than mere financial loss.

Beyond "Don't Take My Money": The Core Arguments Against the Tax

Opponents of the tax are not simply arguing against paying more; they are "drilling into the specifics of the way that it's structured," raising fundamental objections:

• Structural Objections to Asset Taxation: Critics contend that the very concept of taxing assets, rather than income, is inherently flawed and "wrong." They argue that requiring every billionaire to declare the value of all their property and assets is an intrusive and unprecedented demand.
• Constitutional Concerns: The retroactive nature of the tax, applying to residents as of January 1st, is being challenged as potentially unconstitutional.
• Economic Devastation and Innovation Flight: Perhaps the most potent argument from Silicon Valley and business leaders is that the tax would "absolutely devastate California's ability to continue dominating in the world of innovation." They warn that the state stands to lose far more than just the tax revenue from billionaires; it risks losing the entrepreneurial spirit and the broader economic ecosystem that these individuals foster.
• Loss of Income Tax Revenue: Opponents highlight that the ultra-wealthy already contribute significantly through income taxes, which fund a vast array of essential state services like schools, public safety, and infrastructure. Governor Gavin Newsom, a vocal opponent, expresses concern that a "short-term bump in tax revenue from the billionaire tax" could lead to a "long-term loss from that ongoing loss of income taxes from people who leave."

The Progressive Paradox: Why Even Democrats Are Wary

The most surprising element of this debate is the significant opposition and hesitancy from within the Democratic Party and influential unions, groups typically aligned with progressive policies aimed at wealth redistribution.

• Governor Gavin Newsom's Tightrope Walk: Newsom finds himself in a precarious position. As a potential 2028 presidential contender, he cannot afford to alienate billionaires, yet he must also avoid appearing anti-populist in an era of potent economic discontent. He attempts to "thread a needle," vocally opposing a state-specific wealth tax while simultaneously stating, "We ought to have a conversation about a national wealth tax." He also emphasizes California's already progressive income tax structure, arguing the state already levies significant taxes on its wealthiest earners. This stance allows him to agree with the "moral argument to tax the rich" while opposing the current iteration of the proposal.
• Union Reservations: Even some of the state's most influential unions, including the teachers' union and the umbrella group for SEIU, have not publicly endorsed the measure. Privately, they express concerns about the "special box" nature of the fund, worrying that locking up money for a single purpose might divert funds from other critical programs that most tax dollars typically support.
• Democratic Candidates' Hesitancy: Many Democratic candidates running for governor have also voiced reservations, even while affirming the general principle that the wealthy should pay more. Their concerns, much like Newsom's, often hinge on the "particularities of how this bill came about and who specifically benefits from it," particularly the ring-fencing of funds for healthcare.

This stands in stark contrast to figures like Bernie Sanders, who advocates for a more straightforward approach: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Taxing billionaires is good... overall, we support this concept." For Sanders, deeply invested in fighting oligarchy, the specific structural "particulars are of less concern."

The Road Ahead: A "Strange Bedfellows" Coalition?

The future of California's billionaire tax is far from certain. The state's unique ballot initiative system often serves as leverage, allowing political actors to negotiate outcomes outside of a direct vote. There is a possibility of "backroom negotiations" in the coming months, potentially involving Governor Newsom, to try and get the measure off the ballot. Sergey Brin, for instance, has funded committees supporting other ballot measures that could effectively negate the billionaire tax, which could be used as bargaining chips.

Alternatively, all proposed measures could proceed to the ballot, leading to an "expensive campaign season where voters are subjected to conflicting ballot measures on these tax issues." This scenario opens the door for a "strange bedfellows kind of coalition" to emerge, where billionaires could align with unexpected allies – perhaps unions concerned about the special fund, or even fiscally conservative Democrats – to defeat the tax.

Lessons for a Nation Grappling with Inequality

The California billionaire tax fight offers several profound lessons for other states and the nation as a whole:

1. Popularity vs. Practicality: The idea of "sticking it to the rich is very popular," reflecting widespread anxiety about economic inequality. However, translating that popularity into policy is "still really hard to pass and get across the finish line," largely due to complex structural particulars and the immense influence of the billionaire class.
2. The Power of Wealth: The swift and coordinated response from billionaires, including actual relocations and sophisticated mitigation strategies, underscores the formidable power of wealth in shaping policy debates.
3. The Need for Broad Consensus: For such a transformative policy to succeed, it requires "a really broad base of support to push it across the finish line," extending beyond initial public enthusiasm to a more robust and unified political coalition.

Ultimately, this measure represents an "existential threat" for many billionaires, as it "would set a precedent of going after the wealth that people have earned and taxing their possessions in a way that really has never been done before." For proponents, it's an opportunity to "shift the paradigm" in how government taxes wealth and how the wealthy contribute to society, especially in an era where many have utilized various accounts for tax avoidance.

California's billionaire tax proposal is more than just a local tax debate; it's a microcosm of a larger national reckoning. It is "forcing a lot of people into the uncomfortable territory of reckoning with the moment we're in," pushing the "anxiety about the billionaire class and economic inequality right to the forefront" of public discourse. The outcome in the Golden State will undoubtedly reverberate far beyond its borders, offering a blueprint – or a cautionary tale – for how societies might attempt to address the widening chasm of wealth.