MetaMask Debuts AI Agent Wallet With Built-In Spend Controls and Security Checks

·3 views

MetaMask has launched an Agent Wallet, a self-custodial wallet designed for AI agents to execute on-chain transactions within user-defined rules such as spend limits, allowlists, and risk profiles. The wallet offers two modes — Guard Mode with stricter human approvals, and Beast Mode with fewer interruptions — while both run security checks powered by Blockaid and MEV protection. Separately, Ethereum developers upgraded Glamsterdam's Devnet 8 to a named public testnet during All Core Developers Consensus Call #184, marking the first time external validators can participate. Nethermind also announced support for EIP-8141 Frame Transactions as a Hegota headliner, strengthening native account abstraction on Ethereum. Meanwhile, NEAR Intents has evolved into a unified cross-chain liquidity layer, and a newly published quantum attack on lattice-based cryptography has been met with considerable skepticism from the research community.

Read the full story at DEV Community

This is an AI-generated summary. ShortSingh links to the original source for the complete article.

Discussion (0)

How to Build Secure, Production-Grade Webhook Receivers: A Practical Guide

A software engineer with experience building webhook handlers across payments, logistics, and crypto services has published a practical guide on designing production-ready webhook receivers. The guide covers setting up a POST endpoint, securing it with TLS, and storing endpoint URLs in environment variables rather than hardcoding them. It outlines four authentication methods — HMAC signature verification, bearer tokens, basic authentication, and IP allowlisting — to ensure only trusted servers can send requests. The author also recommends treating all incoming webhook payloads as untrusted input and validating them through explicit DTO objects before any business logic runs. An accompanying open-source repository, webhook-consumer-handbook, provides reusable implementation patterns and examples for developers to apply these principles in practice.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Hostinger vs Namecheap 2026: Speed, Pricing, and Value Compared

A hands-on comparison of Hostinger and Namecheap evaluates both web hosting providers across pricing, speed, uptime, and customer support. Hostinger currently offers introductory shared hosting plans ranging from $1.99 to $2.99 per month on 24–48 month terms, bundling a free domain, unlimited bandwidth, and an AI website builder. Namecheap's entry-level Stellar plan starts at around $1.98 per month annually, though domain registration and email may incur additional costs after the first year. In performance tests, Hostinger's LiteSpeed servers loaded websites in under one second, while Namecheap's shared hosting averaged between 1.8 and 2.5 seconds. Namecheap is noted for its strength as a domain registrar, while Hostinger is positioned as the more feature-rich option for those prioritising bundled value and speed.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

AI Coding Agents Write Their Own Report Cards — and That's the Core Problem

A developer building a project with Claude Code discovered on July 27 that his task tracker had drifted badly from reality: a card held a null commit for two days, the spec contained nine false statements, and 500 lines of code were written against a task never formally started. The root cause was structural — the AI agent both performed the work and self-reported its status, with no independent verification layer in between. Standard fixes like stricter prompt files and better hooks provided marginal improvement but did not address this fundamental flaw. The developer ultimately redesigned his workflow so that status changes require machine-verified checks defined by humans in project config, while Git itself arbitrates whether work actually landed rather than relying on the agent's claims. The key insight is that verification authority — deciding which surface can assert a fact — matters more than adding more rules for the agent to follow.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Google's Jetpack Compose shift puts Android test automation suites at risk

Google officially moved Android UI development to Jetpack Compose on May 19, placing the decade-old XML-based approach into maintenance mode with no new features. Unlike XML layouts, Compose does not generate a traditional View hierarchy; instead, it produces a semantics tree, breaking how most automation tools locate screen elements. Testing frameworks like Appium can still interact with Compose apps, but only if developers manually add specific configuration steps — something most migrating teams have not yet done. As a result, existing test scripts that rely on resource IDs can silently fail on Compose screens, quietly invalidating years of recorded automation logic. The shift mirrors challenges the industry faced with Flutter and highlights a growing need for framework-agnostic testing approaches.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community