Delegated Treasury
Issue agent spend authority as an on-chain spend-control attestation — not as a soft prompt.
Who this is for.
Have you started delegating SaaS renewals, procurement orders, and contractor payments to AI agents? Are you still managing monthly spend caps, eligible categories, and approval thresholds through a mix of prompts and internal documents?
-
CFOs, treasurers, and controllers at enterprises rolling out AI agents
-
Heads of SaaS procurement and purchasing ops who have agents in the loop
-
Audit and compliance teams building agent-spend trails under SOX, J-SOX, and equivalent internal-control regimes
Hand over the source, or just the facts?
Change what reaches the AI, and the leakage risk goes with it.
- agent:
- AI-treasury-042
- wallet:
- 0xabc…
- balance:
- 5,000 USDC
- auth:
- api_key + policy_doc.pdf
- spend_today:
- $480
- attestation:
- ?
- agent:
- did:lemma:agent-treasury-042
- delegatedBy:
- did:lemma:org-acme-fin
- role:
- treasury_agent
- spendLimitUSDC:
- 500
- scope:
- x402://api.partner.jp/*
- validUntil:
- 2026-06-30T23:59:59Z
- ZK verified:
- ✓ VALID
Lemma issues the spend authority you delegate to an AI agent as an on-chain spend-control attestation — not as a soft prompt. Each attestation carries, signed by the issuing organization, the spend limit, the eligible category scope, the validity window, and a revocation endpoint.
Counterparties — sellers, payment facilitators — verify the attestation independently before accepting payment. No platform trust required. Because it crosses as a ZK proof, only the constraint conditions cross to the verifier; your internal budget structure and approval policy stay inside. At audit, every transaction is paired with cryptographic evidence of the delegation that authorized it.
Where the spend-control attestation slots into your AI agent operations and treasury controls is what we map out in a first conversation.
Choose on three criteria.
Only work that needs all three at once — pass without exposing, independent verification, tamper-proof — is Lemma's domain.
| Method | Pass without exposing | Independent verification | Tamper-proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access control only | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Masking / anonymization | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Encryption only | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Lemma (ZK proof)the only one with all 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
What's next
We enter through agent-spend-control support and a PoC, and stay alongside you through to operations.
- A 30-minute review — identify procurement / payment workflows stalled because agent authority cannot be proven.
- Narrow to 1–2 decisions (results) to prove — e.g. "within the subscription-renewal category," "at or under $500" — the constraint conditions passed to the seller. Not your internal budget structure or approval policy.
- Design connection and revocation — connection to your existing ERP / procurement systems, and the validity window and revocation endpoint of the delegation attestation.
- Prove one payment path via a (quote-based) PoC — confirm that seller-side verification holds at the boundary for a single spend path.
- Hands-on support from rollout through operations — existing plan tiers (Civic / Critical / Compliance) serve only as a cost reference; the setup and pricing are designed together.
Tell us one workflow where you want to delegate spend to an agent but cannot prove it, in the first 30 minutes. No disclosure of internal budget structure or approval policy required.
The bigger picture
The bigger picture this use case belongs to.
We map use scenarios across industries and workflows by the four axes.
See use scenarios for Agent Authority in Solutions →TRY LEMMA
Run it yourself.
No sales call needed — start hands-on with Lemma's products.