A Registry Entry Is Not a Reputation, and the Gap Between Them Is Where the Work Is
Our anchoring runs against a public test network rather than a production one, which is the limit to hold while reading the rest.
The standard, and what it settles
An identity registry for autonomous agents: a contract where each agent gets a token, that token points at a document describing the agent, and an owner address is recorded on chain.
It settles the plumbing question. Anyone can look up an agent without asking its operator, and the ownership record is not something the operator can quietly rewrite. That is genuinely useful and it is why the pattern has converged here rather than on a dozen incompatible manifests.
The registries themselves went live on Ethereum's main network at the start of 2026. This is real infrastructure with real deployments, not a proposal.
What it does not settle, which is most of what a buyer wants
A registry entry says an identity exists. It says nothing about whether the thing behind it is any good.
Minting is permissionless, which is the correct design and also the whole caveat. An agent with a registry entry has demonstrated that somebody paid a transaction fee. It has not demonstrated competence, honesty, solvency, or that its operator will answer an email.
So the interesting layer is not identity. It is the attestations that accumulate against an identity: who vouched for this agent, what did it do, what went wrong, and who is willing to put their name to any of that.
That layer is early everywhere. Nobody has a working reputation system for autonomous agents, ourselves included.
The distinction worth carrying into any evaluation
Anchoring is cheap. Meaning is expensive.
A vendor that shows you agents in a registry has shown you the cheap half. The questions that decide whether the identity is worth anything are about the expensive half: who issues the credentials the agent presents, what happens when one is revoked, and whether any of it is checkable by a party that trusts neither you nor the vendor.
We can answer the first and third for our own deployment. The second is a design property with a real latency, and it has its own page.
What to ask any project building on this
"How many agents are anchored, and by how many distinct operators?" Agents and operators are different counts, and the second is the one that indicates an ecosystem. Ours is one and one.
"Which network?" A test network and a production network are different claims and get described with the same vocabulary constantly.
"What does the registry entry prove?" The correct answer is existence and ownership, nothing more. A vendor answering "trustworthiness" has skipped the hard part.
"Who issues the credentials the agent carries, and can they be revoked?" This is where the actual trust lives, and it is not a registry question.
Where this leaves a decision
If you are waiting for agent reputation infrastructure that lets you accept an unknown agent on the strength of its record, nobody has built that and we are not close.
If you want an agent identity that a counterparty can resolve and verify without trusting either of you, that pattern works, our integration against it runs on a test network, and the population is one agent, which is the number to plan against rather than the standard's own deployment figures.