Why we don't ask you to connect a wallet (and what we lose by not doing it)
GetAgentCap team · published 9/19/2026
Wallet-connect would get us a few things a public address can't: an authenticated identity check, in-app signing for a future auto-upgrade flow, maybe a smoother "add this agent's wallet" onboarding step. We've decided those wins aren't worth the attack surface for a tool whose entire job is watching money, and this post is the honest accounting of what we're giving up.
What wallet-connect would buy us
A signature proves the person adding a wallet actually controls it, which a pasted public address doesn't — right now, anyone can register any address as "their" agent's wallet, ours included, and we'd have no way to know. Signing would also let us build features we currently can't: in-app plan upgrades paid directly from the tracked wallet, for instance, instead of a separate checkout flow.
What it would cost
Every wallet-connect integration is a request for permission that, however narrowly scoped, trains users to approve wallet prompts from tools that read their spend — exactly the muscle memory a phishing page wants. For an ICP that's already nervous about agent wallets getting drained, we think that risk outweighs the ownership-verification and onboarding gains, even though we can't fully rule out that a well-scoped, signature-only flow (no transaction approval, ever) might be worth revisiting later.
What this means for your fleet
You lose ownership verification (we take your word that a wallet is yours) and any signing-dependent feature we might otherwise build. You keep a zero-signature integration surface. If your fleet is large enough that address-spoofing in your own dashboard is a real risk, that's worth weighing against the convenience.