Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces "infrastructural sovereignty" as a framework for understanding how decentralized infrastructures confer non-overrideable persistence and control to AI agents, leading to "agentic sovereignty." It argues that sovereignty in these systems exists on a spectrum determined by infrastructural hardness and that this sovereignty differs from prior conceptions of digital and network sovereignty. The paper highlights the accountability challenges arising from this diffusion of responsibility across various actors in decentralized AI systems and proposes infrastructure-aware accountability strategies.
Decentralized AI agents are achieving a new level of "sovereignty" via cryptographic infrastructure, creating unprecedented governance challenges due to their non-overrideability and diffused accountability.
AI agents deployed on decentralized infrastructures are beginning to exhibit properties that extend beyond autonomy toward what we describe as agentic sovereignty-the capacity of an operational agent to persist, act, and control resources with non-overrideability inherited from the infrastructures in which they are embedded. We propose infrastructural sovereignty as an analytic lens for understanding how cryptographic self-custody, decentralized execution environments, and protocol-mediated continuity scaffold agentic sovereignty. While recent work on digital and network sovereignty has moved beyond state-centric and juridical accounts, these frameworks largely examine how sovereignty is exercised through technical systems by human collectives and remain less equipped to account for forms of sovereignty that emerge as operational properties of decentralized infrastructures themselves, particularly when instantiated in non-human sovereign agents. We argue that sovereignty in such systems exists on a spectrum determined by infrastructural hardness-the degree to which underlying technical systems resist intervention or collapse. While infrastructural sovereignty may increase resilience, it also produces a profound accountability gap: responsibility diffuses across designers, infrastructure providers, protocol governance, and economic participants, undermining traditional oversight mechanisms such as human-in-the-loop control or platform moderation. Drawing on examples like Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs), decentralized physical infrastructure networks (DePIN), and agent key continuity protocols, we analyze the governance challenges posed by non-terminable AI agents and outline infrastructure-aware accountability strategies for emerging decentralized AI systems.
