Beyond an AttestationRouter standard, I'm proposing that Ethereum stakeholders explore a shared schema for autonomous economic actors: a common language describing how protocols, DAOs, and systems are structured, governed, and interdependent. As a working name, let's call it AEA-0.1 (Autonomous Economic Actor schema). Economic integration onchain fails when actors can’t clearly express what they control, who can change it, and what they depend on. AEA-0.1 would be a minimal, testable schema for doing exactly that: a format that makes each actor’s boundary, control surfaces, invariants, and dependencies machine-readable and attestable. Example 1 — Lending Protocol { "actor": { "name": "ExampleLend", "class": ["lending_protocol"] }, "control": { "governance_model": "token_weighted", "timelock": "48h" }, "dependencies": [ { "target": "chainlink.eth", "type": "oracle", "exposure": "price_feeds" }, { "target": "makerdao.eth", "type": "collateral_source", "exposure": 0.35 } ], "invariants": [ { "id": "no_unbacked_mint", "status": "monitored" }, { "id": "liquidation_ratio_>_110%", "status": "audited" } ] } Defines who governs, what external systems it depends on, and the guarantees it claims to uphold. --- A Governance DAO { "actor": { "name": "ExampleDAO", "class": ["governance_body"] }, "control": { "governance_model": "multisig", "threshold": "5 of 9", "upgrade_paths": ["governor_alpha", "timelock_72h"] }, "positions": [ { "label": "token_holder", "right": "vote" }, { "label": "proposal_creator", "right": "initiate_change" } ], "dependencies": [{ "target": "ens.eth", "type": "naming_service" }] } Clarifies who controls upgrades and what formal rights exist within the system. --- A Cross-Chain Bridge { "actor": { "name": "ExampleBridge", "class": ["bridge"] }, "boundary": { "state_sets": [ { "label": "locked_assets", "chains": ["ethereum", "base"] } ] }, "dependencies": [ { "target": "optimism.eth", "type": "rollup_settlement" }, { "target": "zkproof.verifier", "type": "cryptographic" } ], "invariants": [ { "id": "supply_equivalence", "spec": "locked == minted" } ] } Shows how cross-chain actors can expose their verifiable guarantees and dependencies. Once actors publish AEA manifests, integration and risk analysis can become automated: • exposures can be mapped across networks, • dependencies traced and rated, • and due diligence itself becomes programmable. Combined with EAS-based attestations (@eas_eth) and verification engines (@Kleros_io, @UMAprotocol, ZK verifiers), AEA would form a structured "economic metadata layer" — the structured description layer that lets the onchain economy reason about itself. In short, AEA-0.1 would turn protocol integrity into a data standard. That would allow a step change in Ethereum’s composability.

A quick clarification on what this schema would and wouldn’t be. It wouldn’t attempt to capture every possible action or reaction within a protocol. Its purpose would be narrower: to define what the system is — its boundaries, dependencies, etc — in a standard, machine-readable format. Detailed modeling and stress testing would still be needed to understand how the system behaves. This schema wouldn’t replace that work; it would give those processes a consistent starting point, so researchers, auditors, and integrators can reason from the same base description instead of rebuilding it each time. Put another way: it should be designed for consistency rather than completeness, meaning it should not attempt to structure complex, dynamic behaviors.