Security Patterns for Accepting Payments from Non‑Human Actors

• Summary: Post‑Pectra, machine and agent payments are finally practical—but the attack and compliance surface exploded. Here’s a field‑tested blueprint for permissioned spend, MEV‑safe execution, verifiable identity/attestations, and cross‑chain settlement that your procurement and security teams will actually sign off on.

Hook — the specific technical headache you’re living with

• Your bots, AI agents, and IoT devices need to pay and get paid—subscriptions, data/API usage, per‑second compute, cross‑chain settlements—yet every path is booby‑trapped:
  • EOA keys on servers are unscalable and one breach away from an incident.
  • Smart wallets don’t interoperate cleanly with dapps, break enterprise auth flows, and create approval hell without programmable limits.
  • Compliance teams block launch because “we can’t prove who or what initiated the transaction,” and “we can’t screen non‑humans pre‑transfer.”
  • Engineers can’t guarantee “no public mempool exposure” for price‑sensitive payments or batch atomicity across multiple calls.
  • Ops leaders have a July 1, 2026 deadline to replace OpenZeppelin Defender in runbooks. Miss it and your alerting/relaying breaks in prod. (blog.openzeppelin.com)
• Meanwhile, Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade put new tools on the table—EOAs that can temporarily run smart logic via EIP‑7702, increased blobspace for cheaper L2s—but it also introduced fresh foot‑guns. We saw 11,000+ 7702 authorizations in week one and copy‑pasted “delegation sweepers” trying to drain compromised wallets. If your “agent wallet” UX rides 7702, it needs guardrails on day one. (theblock.co)

Agitate — the real risk to roadmap, revenue, and reputation

• Missed deadlines:
  • “One‑click” agent transactions rely on EIP‑5792 and companion capabilities. If your wallet/dapp contract can’t advertise and enforce capabilities, your team burns sprints writing glue code or supporting incompatible SDKs. (blog.thirdweb.com)
• Breach and fraud blast radius:
  • 7702 mis‑delegations and session keys without spend caps/expiry are a recipe for “infinite approval” losses by non‑human actors—quiet until a sweeper drains the budget. (coindesk.com)
• Compliance show‑stoppers:
  • Illicit/sanctioned volume jumped in 2025; your machine‑initiated flows must prove pre‑transfer screening and verifiable origin or FinOps will veto. (crypto.news)
• Execution leakage:
  • Public mempool exposure lets MEV bots sandwich, back‑run, or censor your agent payments. Protocol‑level encrypted mempools are coming, but you need private‑orderflow policies now. (blog.shutter.network)
• Tooling churn:
  • Defender sunsets July 1, 2026; you must re‑platform monitors/relayers or risk losing incident automation and emergency controls. (blog.openzeppelin.com)

Solve — 7Block Labs methodology to accept payments from non‑human actors safely We implement an opinionated, auditable stack that aligns your Product, Security, and Procurement stakeholders. The design is EVM‑first but portable to rollups and sidechains.

1. Who is paying? Verifiable non‑human identity, on‑chain

• Bind devices/agents to signed credentials you can verify on‑chain without PII leakage:
  • Use W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0 for “Device/Agent Attestation” (issuer: you or a partner). Store only hashes/attestations on‑chain; present verifiable presentations per transaction/session. (w3.org)
  • For API/email‑based entitlements (support, invoices, allowlists), use zkEmail to prove sender domain and content subsets in zero‑knowledge; verify proofs on‑chain or via a low‑cost verifier. This unlocks “prove this bot received an invoice cap of $500 for vendor X” without exposing the email. (docs.zk.email)
  • For “show me a recent API response” without trusting a third party, integrate TLSNotary/zkTLS proofs that a bot fetched a specific HTTPS payload (balance, usage, SLA metric). Keep proofs portable and selectively disclosable. (tlsnotary.org)
• We anchor these attestations to your policy engine (see step 2) instead of spraying one‑off checks across contracts.
• Procurement keywords we satisfy: “verifiable device identity,” “privacy‑preserving proof of authorization,” “attestation registry,” “evidence retention for audits,” “data minimization.”

1. What can the non‑human actor spend? Programmatic, revocable permissions

• Adopt a “permissions before payments” pattern that survives wallet churn:
  • Wallet–dapp negotiations via EIP‑5792 capabilities: discover batching, gas sponsorship, auxiliary funds, flow‑control, ABI attachment, and AA knobs; block transactions if capabilities mismatch. (docs.dynamic.xyz)
  • Grant scoped, time‑boxed permissions with ERC‑7715: per‑chain, per‑token spend ceilings, contract allowlists, max gas and validity windows, with wallet‑managed sessions (no long‑lived keys on servers). (eips-wg.github.io)
  • Use ERC‑6900 modular smart accounts (or Safe‑compatible modules) for installable “Policy” and “Guard” plugins that enforce limits and hooks during validate/execute flows—compatible with ERC‑4337 and runtime validation. (eips.ethereum.org)
  • For EOA‑only devices, wrap with EIP‑7702 so an EOA can temporarily delegate to a policy module for the session, then revert to plain EOA state. This gives you atomic batches and sponsored gas without forcing a full account migration. Guard against bypass by ensuring all privileged calls route through the module’s dispatcher. (blog.ethereum.org)
• Money phrases:
  • “Least‑authority spend with hard daily/weekly ceilings”
  • “Session‑scoped keys with expiry and contract ACLs”
  • “Runtime validation hooks that fail closed”

1. How do we move value? Execution that doesn’t leak alpha

• Transaction privacy and fairness:
  • Default to private orderflow (Flashbots Protect RPC / builder‑sharing). Enforce per‑call policy: “private only; revert‑only if public fallback is triggered.” Instrument inclusion SLAs and refund handling. (github.com)
  • Plan for encrypted mempools (EIP‑8105) as they mature; your policy engine should detect chain support and toggle routing automatically. (blog.shutter.network)
• Atomicity and flow‑control:
  • Use 5792 batch semantics with capability‑advertised “strict vs loose atomicity” and continue/halt behavior for multi‑call workflows. This removes bespoke batch routers while letting dapps down‑level when true atomicity isn’t required. (eips.ethereum.org)
• Streaming and recurring payments without re‑approvals:
  • For metered/continuous payments (compute, APIs), deploy Sablier Flow (top‑ups, pause/void, debt handling). For per‑second streams (tips, payroll), use Superfluid CFA with accounting exports. Both patterns are agent‑friendly and procurement‑traceable. (blog.sablier.com)

1. Cross‑chain safely, by default

• If your agents must settle across chains/L2s, standardize on a production‑grade interoperability rail and token standard:
  • Chainlink CCIP with Cross‑Chain Token (CCT) standard is now the migration target for blue‑chips like Lido’s wstETH across 16+ chains—an enterprise‑signal for operational maturity. Use it for cross‑chain receipts and redemption caps. (blog.chain.link)

1. Compliance without user‑hostile UX

• Pre‑transfer screening on‑chain:
  • Integrate the Chainalysis sanctions oracle at the contract layer to block sanctioned addresses before value moves—even for autonomous actors—and log verifiable decisions for audits. (auth-developers.chainalysis.com)
• Associate every session with a verifiable machine credential (VC 2.0) and optional zkEmail proof for off‑chain approvals. Auditors get proofs; customers keep privacy. (w3.org)
• For supply‑chain style provenance (firmware, model weights, device state), adopt IETF SCITT (in RFC‑Ed queue; Proposed Standard approval in 2025). This gives your ops team standardized APIs, proof formats, and cross‑org auditability. (mailarchive.ietf.org)

1. Blast‑radius control when things go wrong

• Protocol‑wide outflow circuit breakers:
  • Integrate ERC‑7265‑style token outflow limiters wired to your monitors so large, anomalous drains queue or revert during cooldowns. This is moving from pattern to emerging standard across DeFi. (ethereum-magicians.org)
• Monitoring and runbook modernization pre‑Defender sunset:
  • Migrate to self‑hosted relayers/monitors or compatible open‑source stacks, with explicit emergency actions (pause, rate‑limit, revoke sessions) and MEV‑safe execution. Don’t drift into July 2026 without cutover tests. (blog.openzeppelin.com)

Practical patterns and how we ship them

Pattern A — Agent pays cloud GPU vendor per second, with hard budget ceilings

• Target audience: Head of Product for agent platforms; FinOps and Compliance leads at AI infra providers.
• Stack:
  • Identity: GPU rental agent presents a VC 2.0 credential and a zkEmail proof of the vendor’s invoice cap (e.g., “$1,000/day”). On‑chain contract verifies both; no PII revealed. (w3.org)
  • Permissions: Wallet advertises EIP‑5792 capabilities; dapp requests ERC‑7715 permission: “USDC spend ≤ $50/hour, expiry 24h, only to BillingContract, gas cap X.” Installed as a module in an ERC‑6900 smart account; the same policy module runs if the agent uses 7702 (EOA session). (docs.dynamic.xyz)
  • Execution: Superfluid/Sablier Flow streams start/stop with job lifecycle; invoices reconciled via Stream Accounting API. Payments routed via Protect RPC; fall back disabled. (superfluid.gitbook.io)
  • Compliance: Every transfer calls the Chainalysis oracle; negative checks revert before funds move. Session proofs + VC attached to logs for audit. (auth-developers.chainalysis.com)
• Why Procurement buys it:
  • “Hard ceilings with provable enforcement,” “no standing approvals,” “verifiable attestations in artifacts,” “private orderflow by policy,” “vendor‑neutral cross‑chain standard if expansion needed.”

Pattern B — IoT fleet accepts micro‑payments from third‑party bots for data/API access

• Target audience: CTO/VP Engineering at industrial IoT or data marketplaces.
• Stack:
  • Identity: Each device has a VC 2.0 “device passport” + optional TLSNotary proof of last calibration API call; attestations anchored on‑chain. (w3.org)
  • Spend permissions: ERC‑7715 sessions grant bots “X requests/minute, Y USDC/request, ACL = MeterRead() only,” enforced by an ERC‑6900 guard module with runtime validation. (eips-wg.github.io)
  • Execution: 5792 batch “read+pay” with loose atomicity (“continue on single call fail”) to tolerate noisy sensors; route privately. (eips.ethereum.org)
  • Circuit breaker: ERC‑7265 queues outflows for anomalies (spend spikes, new recipient). (ethereum-magicians.org)

Pattern C — Cross‑chain settlement for machine networks (L2 → L1 custody; L2 → L2)

• Target audience: Treasury/Risk, Protocol leads.
• Stack:
  • Use CCIP with CCT standard to move receipts and settle rewards; follow wstETH’s migration pattern for operational guardrails and chain coverage. (blog.chain.link)
  • Combine with sanctions oracle + VC 2.0 proofs for region‑specific flows; block prohibited routes pre‑transfer. (auth-developers.chainalysis.com)

Emerging best practices to adopt in 2026 roadmaps

• Standardize on these AA capability flags in your RFPs:
  • “permissions” (ERC‑7715), “auxFunds” (ERC‑7682), “abiAttachment” (EIP‑7896), “flowControl” (EIP‑7867), “AA params exchange” (ERC‑7902). These reduce one‑off integrations and unlock safe “one‑click” with non‑humans. (eips.ethereum.org)
• Treat EIP‑7702 as a bridge, not an end‑state:
  • Use wallet‑managed sessions that still pass through your on‑chain guard path; monitor for known 7702 “sweeper” patterns. (coindesk.com)
• Encode “private orderflow” as a policy, not a suggestion:
  • Builders change; use Protect RPC builder‑sharing, measure inclusion SLAs, and document revert‑only fallbacks. Track encrypted mempool EIP progress for opt‑in pilots. (collective.flashbots.net)
• Replace ad‑hoc KYC screenshots with VC 2.0 and zk proofs:
  • You’ll ship faster and survive audits with less redaction work. (w3.org)
• Plan your Defender exit now:
  • Catalog monitors, relayers, playbooks; lift‑and‑shift to OSS replacements with the same incident runbooks, then extend with ERC‑7265 triggers. Final shutdown: July 1, 2026. (blog.openzeppelin.com)

GTM proof points and the KPIs your board will ask for

• Market adoption signals you can cite in the board deck:
  • 7702 landed on mainnet with Pectra; smart‑account features now native and already used in the wild (11,000+ authorizations in week one). (blog.ethereum.org)
  • Cross‑chain operations are consolidating on CCIP/CCT; Lido upgrading wstETH across 16+ chains sets an enterprise baseline for your chain list. (blog.chain.link)
  • Sanctions exposure is rising; programmatic screening at the contract layer is now table stakes. (crypto.news)
• Program KPIs we instrument from day one:
  • Payment success rate by capability route (5792 vs legacy)
  • Private‑orderflow inclusion SLA (p50/p95) and public‑fallback rate
  • Spend‑limit violations blocked on‑chain (session caps doing real work)
  • Time‑to‑revoke (session keys, modules) and MTTR for anomalies
  • Cross‑chain settlement latency and reconciliation error rate
  • Compliance evidence freshness (VC/zk proof timestamps) and audit query time

How we implement with your stack and stakeholders

• Architecture and build:
  • We handle end‑to‑end delivery: agent wallets and policy modules, verifiable identity/attestations, MEV‑safe routing, streaming/recurring payment rails, and cross‑chain settlement.
  • See our offerings:
    • Web3 product engineering and account‑abstraction: web3 development services
    • Core protocol and wallet modules: custom blockchain development services
    • Verification and red‑team: security audit services
    • ERP/CRM/PSA hooks and off‑chain systems: blockchain integration
    • Cross‑chain rollout and bridges: cross‑chain solutions development and blockchain bridge development
    • Contractized payments and token rails: smart contract development, defi development services, asset tokenization, asset management platform development
• Procurement‑ready delivery:
  • RFP pack includes threat model, capability matrix (5792/7715/6900/7702), MEV policy, audit evidence plan (VC 2.0 + zk proofs), and operational playbooks for the Defender sunset.
  • SLAs for “private‑only execution,” “session revocation,” and “cross‑chain reconciliation.”
• Business outcomes:
  • Fewer approval prompts; measurable drop in failed tx costs via protected routing; spend caps block anomalous drains; cross‑chain incidents shift from firefighting to capped‑impact queues; audit time falls from days to minutes because evidence is machine‑verifiable.

Audience focus and required keywords to seed into your internal docs

• For Product and Engineering leadership:
  • “EIP‑7702,” “ERC‑7715 wallet_grantPermissions,” “EIP‑5792 wallet_sendCalls,” “ERC‑6900 modular accounts,” “EIP‑7867 flow control,” “EIP‑7896 ABI attachment,” “private orderflow,” “EIP‑8105 encrypted mempool,” “ERC‑7265 circuit breaker.”
• For Compliance, Risk, and Procurement:
  • “W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0,” “IETF SCITT audit trail,” “sanctions oracle pre‑transfer control,” “verifiable device/agent identity,” “evidence retention,” “RTO/RPO for session revocation,” “p95 inclusion SLA for private transactions.”

Brief deep‑dive: why these pieces matter together

• VC 2.0 + zkEmail/TLSNotary proofs give you selective‑disclosure attestations that are machine‑checkable and portable across vendors and time—key for audits and cross‑border operations. (w3.org)
• 5792/7715/6900/7702 lets wallets and apps coordinate capability‑rich sessions with explicit limits, while still benefiting from EOA compatibility for legacy ecosystems. It bridges agent UX and enterprise guardrails—spend caps, expiry, ACLs—without building bespoke pipes. (docs.dynamic.xyz)
• Private‑orderflow now, encrypted mempool soon: you tame MEV leakage today and have a clean migration path to protocol‑level privacy when ready. (github.com)
• ERC‑7265 limits your worst day. Incidents don’t become total losses; withdrawals queue or revert under well‑defined metrics while humans regain control. (ethereum-magicians.org)
• CCIP/CCT compress cross‑chain risk by standardizing token movement and receipts in a way major protocols already trust in production. (blog.chain.link)

What you’ll have at the end of a 6–8 week engagement

• A modular “Non‑Human Payments Policy” smart‑account stack (7715/6900/7702‑aware)
• Verifier contracts for VC 2.0 / zkEmail / TLSNotary proofs
• Private‑only routing and monitoring with inclusion SLAs and evidence logs
• Streaming payment rails configured for your SKUs
• ERC‑7265 circuit‑breaker integration and runbooks
• CCIP templates for cross‑chain receipts/settlements
• Full RFP pack + security review artifacts ready for Procurement

Highly specific CTA — if this is you, talk to us this week If you’re the Director of Product or Head of Payments at a company shipping an AI‑agent payment feature or IoT monetization in Q2–Q3 2026, managing >$250k/month in stablecoin volume across Base/Arbitrum + Ethereum, and you need Procurement‑grade controls (5792/7715/6900/7702, VC 2.0 evidence, private‑only routing, ERC‑7265), book a 45‑minute architecture session. We’ll map your policy model, pick rails (Sablier/Superfluid/CCIP), and deliver a written migration plan—including a Defender sunset runbook—within 5 business days. Start here: our web3 development services plus a scoped security audit to harden the guard path before launch.

References (selected recent signals)

• Pectra mainnet and EIP‑7702 details; testnet/mainnet timeline. (blog.ethereum.org)
• Early 7702 adoption metrics and “CrimeEnjoyor” sweeper analysis. (theblock.co)
• EIP‑5792 ecosystem and new capabilities (flow control, ABI attachment, aux funds, AA params). (docs.dynamic.xyz)
• ERC‑7715 sessions; ERC‑6900 modular accounts. (eips-wg.github.io)
• Private orderflow and encrypted mempools (Protect RPC; EIP‑8105; Shutter roadmap). (github.com)
• Sablier Flow and Superfluid CFA + accounting. (blog.sablier.com)
• CCIP/CCT enterprise‑grade cross‑chain (wstETH upgrade). (blog.chain.link)
• VC 2.0 standardization; zkEmail; TLSNotary. (w3.org)
• Chainalysis sanctions oracle; illicit activity trendlines for 2025. (auth-developers.chainalysis.com)
• ERC‑7265 circuit breaker standardization trend. (ethereum-magicians.org)

Note on dates

• Today is February 10, 2026. OpenZeppelin Defender final shutdown is July 1, 2026; plan cutovers now. (blog.openzeppelin.com)

Appendix — where each 7Block Labs service slots into your plan

• Agent wallets, policy modules, and capability plumbing: custom blockchain development services
• End‑to‑end dapp UX with AA and streaming rails: web3 development services, dapp development
• Payment protocols and token rails: smart contract development, token development services
• Cross‑chain operations: cross‑chain solutions development, blockchain bridge development
• Go‑to‑market and fundraising for the payments layer you’re building on top: fundraising advisory

We’ll get your non‑human payments live—with provable identity, bounded risk, private execution, and procurement‑ready evidence—without compromising developer velocity or ROI.