To be honest, whether agency payment can be realized has never been a technical issue. The real block lies here — how can ordinary people trust a program to spend their money? The inherent sense of insecurity, "money must be in my hands," is the biggest obstacle. Therefore, the real challenge for the product is not to make users understand this logic, but to see if they dare to act at crucial moments. How to make people dare? It's not about a lengthy explanatory document, but about designing each step of the operation well, breaking down this fear into several small actions that can be seen, reversed, and predicted.

The first point is actually very straightforward: never start by asking users for "full custody." The first time must be "conditional authorization," and this condition should be visible and tangible. Don't write something like "authorize agent to manage funds" on the interface; rephrase it—like giving employees pocket money: how much is in the envelope, what it can be used for, and how long it is valid. For example, when a user creates a proxy wallet, don't rush to ask "do you want to enable automatic payments?" First, let them choose a real transaction: for instance, subscribing to a data service, topping up an ad account, or booking a business trip. Because vague authorizations are the most frightening, whereas a specific need actually gives people a sense of understanding. When users can simulate the boundaries and purposes of this money in their minds, the fear decreases.

The first step in interface interaction is to concretize the abstract concept of "what can an agent do" into three operable modules: how much can be spent at most, where it can be spent, and how long this authorization is valid. The amount should not just be an input box; it is better to create a visual limit bar, with a conservative initial value. When users drag it upwards, there should be a clear perception— the more they spend, the more prominent the risk warning.