If AI starts 24/7 automatic settlement, automatic arbitrage, and automatic capital allocation, Will they use a bank? The evmbench testing standard just released by OpenAI may have just provided this answer Banks belong to humans, encryption belongs to AI EVMbench is testing whether AI has the ability to identify vulnerabilities, construct attacks, manipulate contracts, and affect real assets. This is a stress test for financial 'operating systems'. Why isn't Bankbench testing the banking system? Because the banking system cannot be publicly tested. Risk control is a black box. Responsibility cannot be outsourced. Because banks are unlikely to become the default option for AI finance and agent economy Blockchain is the native economic operating system of code. But the problem arises - blockchain is public, reproducible, and executable. When AI can be integrated into programmatic financial systems Automatically discover vulnerabilities, automatically repair vulnerabilities, and even automatically exploit vulnerabilities, Will machine finance grow faster than human finance? And if machines start 24/7 automatic settlement, automatic gaming, and automatic capital allocation, Who is controlling this system? That's why OpenAI released EVMbench. This is not only about whether AI has the ability to operate financial systems, but also about how big the threat of AI to encryption may be. EVMbench tests system level execution capabilities: state machine understanding, fund flow logic deduction, vulnerability identification and construction, attack path implementation, and exploitation capabilities in controlled environments. As an environment that can legally, controllably, and reproductively test the operational capabilities of financial systems, EVM is the most ideal sandbox for financial operating systems from an engineering perspective. From this logic, the future structure of AI agent finance will require automatic settlement, programmatic asset control, machine to machine payments, and verifiable execution when AI agents become economic entities. These features do not fully match the design philosophy of the banking system. The banking system emphasizes manual review, risk buffering, and sovereign intervention; The blockchain system emphasizes rule determination, automatic execution, and no need for permission. The interaction between machines is more naturally embedded in programmatic networks, and currently the optimal choice is blockchain. For a considerable period of time, there may be three layers coexisting: the sovereign finance layer (banks and central banks), the corporate capital market layer, and the (AI) machine finance layer. The machine finance layer undertakes functions such as automatic gaming, high-frequency clearing, trading of computing power and data, and algorithmic capital allocation. The banking system continues to dominate credit creation and legal endorsement in the human economy. The transaction frequency and turnover speed of machine finance may be much higher than that of human finance, as it operates in a 24/7 automated system, without emotional interference, human approval delays, and growth functions closer to the expansion curve of computing power rather than population or consumption growth curves. If the growth rate of machine finance far exceeds that of human finance, the ultimate problem will no longer be technology, but control. Will control fall into the hands of banks, model companies, energy infrastructure, blockchain protocols, or sovereign states? (This is why Trump and the gold owners behind him are pushing the United States to embrace encryption.) EVMbench is just a technological benchmark, but it reveals a deeper trend: AI is approaching a stage where it can directly participate in the economic system. When machines can operate rules, execute contracts, and allocate capital, the underlying structure of finance no longer belongs solely to humans. The real change is just beginning.