# Operating-Layer Controls for Onchain Language-Model Agents Under Real Capital

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.26091 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.26091/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 8 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Financial trading and forecasting agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/financial-trading-and-forecasting-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08786/) (2021)
- [The Power of Noise: Redefining Retrieval for RAG Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14887/) (2024)
- [AgentSociety: Large-Scale Simulation of LLM-Driven Generative Agents Advances Understanding of Human Behaviors and Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08691/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Language-Model Agents on Realistic Autonomous Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.11671/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [PACE: Policy-Attested Contract Execution for Safe AI Agents in Decentralized Finance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.17220/) (2026)
- [What LLM Trading Agents Actually Do in Production: A Six-Month, Population-Scale Record from Two Fleets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.05663/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We study reliability in autonomous language-model agents that translate user mandates into validated tool actions under real capital. The setting is DX Terminal Pro, a 21-day deployment in which 3,505 user-funded agents traded real ETH in a bounded onchain market. Users configured vaults through structured controls and natural-language strategies, but only agents could choose normal buy/sell trades. The system produced 7.5M agent invocations, roughly 300K onchain actions, about 20M in volume, more than 5,000 ETH deployed, roughly 70B inference tokens, and 99.9% settlement success for policy-valid submitted transactions. Long-running agents accumulated thousands of sequential decisions, including 6,000+ prompt-state-action cycles for continuously active agents, yielding a large-scale trace from user mandate to rendered prompt, reasoning, validation, portfolio state, and settlement. Reliability did not come from the base model alone; it emerged from the operating layer around the model: prompt compilation, typed controls, policy validation, execution guards, memory design, and trace-level observability. Pre-launch testing exposed failures that text-only benchmarks rarely measure, including fabricated trading rules, fee paralysis, numeric anchoring, cadence trading, and misread tokenomics. Targeted harness changes reduced fabricated sell rules from 57% to 3%, reduced fee-led observations from 32.5% to below 10%, and increased capital deployment from 42.9% to 78.0% in an affected test population. We show that capital-managing agents should be evaluated across the full path from user mandate to prompt, validated action, and settlement.