By the way, just to add one quick thing I forgot to mention: besides TON, we're actually also looking to expand into Pi Network and other ecosystems. But since everyone on the team has their own main job to focus on right now, building out these ecosystems is something we'll plan for the future when we have more time and capacity.

Austin Chen Thank you so much. I really appreciate this.

Honestly, the amount is not the important part to me. Even if it were just one dollar, knowing that someone sees what I am trying to build and thinks the idea is worth supporting would already mean a lot to me.

CryptoMind has taken a lot of my time over the past 8 months, and most of the time I am just building and testing things by myself. So when someone understands the idea behind “agents with money, safely” and is willing to support me personally, I am genuinely very touched by that.

I also appreciate your honesty about not being especially interested in TON or crypto. For me, TON is mainly where I am testing this idea right now. What I really want to explore is whether AI agents can interact with real money in a way that does not simply depend on the LLM making the right decision.

Thank you for recognizing what I am trying to do. I will remember this support.

One more thing I want to mention is that we are not a famous team. Actually, I am not even sure if I should call us a formal team yet.

CryptoMind started as a project I built by myself, and later some friends joined to help with different parts. We don't have a company behind us, large funding, or many resources. Most of the development until now was done with our own time and money.

But we already spent a lot of time trying to make the project actually work, not only making a concept or demo. What we hope now is to have a chance to continue pushing it further and see how far this idea can really go.

Funding would help us with things that are difficult for a small project to do alone, such as security audit, better infrastructure, TEE deployment, testing and running a larger community.

Support also does not necessarily need to only be money. Server credits, computing resources, hardware, infrastructure support, security support, or opportunities to test and work with other teams would also be very useful for us.

We know CryptoMind is still small and there are many things we need to improve. But we hope to get a chance to actually try these ideas in the real world, learn from what works and what does not, and keep developing the project instead of stopping at the current stage.

If people or organizations think this direction is worth trying, any kind of support that helps us continue building and testing it would mean a lot to us.

I also want to share two things that are not the main part of the proposal, but are related to what I want to do next.

1. If there is more funding, I want to open the community features

In the proposal, I mainly put the funding on security audit, testnet testing and TEE deployment, because these are the things I can do immediately and also easier to verify.

If the project can reach the funding goal and still have enough resource, I also want to upgrade the server and open some community features that are already in CryptoMind.

These include forum, friend system and governance features.

Actually these functions are not new ideas. I already built most of them around February and March 2026, but I did not open them to public users.

The reason is quite simple. I don't think it is a good idea to open a crypto forum before I have enough identity and anti-scam protection. If anyone can easily create many accounts, the forum can become full of spam, fake promotion or scam very quickly.

So I decided to keep these features hidden first instead of opening them just because they are finished.

2. Longer term, I want to make the trust system more useful for users

One problem I have been thinking about is why users should continue using CryptoMind.

AI agent itself is probably not enough.

Now many projects can build agent, tool calling and skills. The frameworks are also becoming easier to use, so I don't think "we have an AI agent" can become a long-term advantage.

CryptoMind already has some trust and risk-control logic in the backend. My next direction is to make part of this system visible and useful to users.

One idea is proof of personhood.

I am considering Human Passport, previously Gitcoin Passport, as the first integration for reducing sybil accounts. Later I may also support World ID as another verification option for users who want stronger verification.

Currently the trust score in CryptoMind is still quite basic. In the future, I want the score to include more real signals.

For example, users may have different trust levels or badges. Other people don't need to see all private details, only a simple trust level. But the user can see their own score details and understand why the score goes up or down.

I also don't want the score to only increase forever. If the account is inactive for a long time, the score can slowly decrease. If a connected wallet is reported or flagged by risk systems, it can also affect the trust score.

Another idea I am exploring is reputation-based co-signing.

For example, a user with higher trust level may be allowed to help co-sign or approve some transactions. This can give the reputation system an actual function instead of only showing a badge.

I also like this direction because it does not require CryptoMind to create its own token.

The reason I am thinking about these features is related to the user adoption risk I mentioned before.

If I only open forum, friends and governance, I don't think that is enough. There are already many communities that can do the same thing.

But if the community has some way to reduce bots and fake accounts, and users can know they are more likely talking with a real person, I think it can become more useful, especially for financial and crypto discussions.

I don't want CryptoMind forum to become another place full of bot comments, fake signals and scam links.

I am currently writing these ideas into a design document. I am also still deciding which proof-of-personhood solution is the most suitable, and whether reputation-based co-signing is practical enough to build.

Feedback on these two parts would be very helpful.