According to Lex Sokolin, builders are creating robots that can own assets, generate income, and compound wealth, but law has not recognized machine personhood even as crypto provides the technical rails for autonomous agents, highlighting a regulatory gap for markets to price, source: Lex Sokolin (Twitter). Major jurisdictions do not grant AI systems legal personhood; U.S. courts rejected listing an AI as an inventor and denied copyright protection for AI‑generated works, while the EU AI Act regulates AI without conferring legal status, source: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Thaler v. Vidal, 2022); U.S. Copyright Office policy statements and Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. 2023); European Parliament adoption of the EU AI Act (2024). Interim legal wrappers exist for autonomous operations via DAO entity laws: Wyoming’s DAO LLC statute (2021; amended 2022), Utah’s Decentralized Autonomous Organizations Act (effective 2024), Tennessee’s DAO LLC framework (2022), and the Republic of the Marshall Islands’ DAO Act (2022), which traders can monitor for compliant AI‑agent deployments, source: Wyoming Legislature; Utah State Legislature; Tennessee General Assembly; Republic of the Marshall Islands Government. Regulatory risk remains material for unwrapped DAOs and autonomous agents, as shown by the CFTC’s successful enforcement and default judgment against Ooki DAO for Commodity Exchange Act violations, source: U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission enforcement announcements and court filings (2022–2023). Trading takeaway: until AI agents operate through recognized legal entities, protocols enabling autonomous on‑chain agents face compliance headwinds that can affect listings, liquidity, and integrations; watch for new guidance and registrations under the above DAO statutes as catalysts, source: CFTC Ooki DAO enforcement record; Wyoming, Utah, Tennessee, and Marshall Islands DAO statutes.