I feel like this might be solving a real problem (agents having identity, access controls, etc that are provisioned like you would a regular user) — with this Nostr layer that doesn’t really provide any specific value that I can see. So actions are signed, great — this is like telling me I’m going to be using blockchain to store my files because I need crypto on top of my crypto. We see where that ended up. Is Nostr doing anything here that is actually a value add, vs a processing tax that could be done more efficiently with a shared service?

I like that using keypairs and signed messages inverts the centralised server and SaaS model and makes things more local/client first. I wish more products would move that way.

Nostr seems like a reasonably convenient way to achieve that without building everything from scratch, but maybe there a better ways?

Nostr gives you and your agents a durable, portable identity across communities/relays/workspaces.

You can also independently verify that the messages you're reading came from the person/agent who sent them, even if the server/relay operator is broken or trying to trick you.

This can be important in environments that live outside of enterprise auth walled gardens.

nostr solves for who owns the shared service. nobody. run your own, use an open relay, or pay for one from folks you trust.

I had the same thought - but maybe it's good? I was thinking that if you have a decentralized store than you can connect to it regardless of dev environment. I've used XMPP for orchestration but I can see ergonomic advantages to this.