This is how banks are planning to stop those "agentic bank runs." Watch closely: their business model depends on seeding this narrative that AI agents are dangerous. Remember, an "agentic bank run" (coined by Apollo) means agents helping customers move their own money en masse to higher-yielding products. Once agents are ubiquitous, there are only a few ways for banks to hold onto cheap retail deposits. Option A: Raise APYs (lol no) Option B: Reduce leverage via fewer loans (no fun) Option C: Ban AI agents, claiming they are a security risk (ding ding ding) Cloud agents like Muse and Dot are trivial to stop, since they come from Meta / OAI IP ranges. If JPM sends them a cease and desist, they will comply. Why would JPM bother? Because their business model depends on it; a huge portion of their ROE comes from cheap retail deposits. This is not theoretical. Just like Amazon banned Muse from shopping there to protect their ad revenue, JPM and Schwab have already banned AI agents to protect sticky deposits. Are agents perfectly reliable today? Of course not. But look at the fix they chose. Not "here's a safe API for agents," it's "no agents ever." That tells you they're not protecting customers, they're protecting themselves. No company ever wins a technological revolution this way. It's the last gasp of a dying business model. It's like the retailers who refused to put their inventory online and demanded users walk into the storefront. Over time they will lose market share to those platforms that embrace what's coming. Their whole deposit franchise depends on users unthinkingly clicking through walls of T&Cs and accepting 0.2% when the risk free rate is closer to 4%. Agents read the fine print and do their research, even when humans don't. For users, the answer is simple: local AI agent frameworks like Hermes, that will actually act on your behalf and that the banks can't block. As the article says, if the agent is running on your own computer, they can't actually tell it's not you.