I dont buy the "Internet of Agents" idea.

I d like to give my take on a narrative that's picked up a lot of momentum: the idea that we're heading toward an "Internet of Agents" — a shared layer where companies publish agents that other companies (or anyone) can discover and rent, presumably paying per token or per call. AGNTCY, ( Linux Foundation with Cisco, Dell, Oracle,...) is the most visible push in this direction — identity, discovery, messaging, observability, all built so agents from different vendors can find each other and interoperate across org boundaries. I personally don't buy the endgame a lot of people are projecting onto this. Just to be clear: interoperability standards for agents talking to each other, or to tools, have obvious value — MCP-style stuff solves a real problem. I'm not skeptical of "agents should be able to communicate using a shared protocol." That part makes sense to me. What I don't buy is the sort of "marketplace of agents" framing — the idea that Company A will routinely rent and run Company B's autonomous agent inside its own workflows. A few reasons: An agent isn't like compute or an API. Renting compute or calling an API is a well-understood trust boundary — you know exactly what you're getting and what it can touch. An agent is an autonomous decision-maker with its own goals, tool access, and failure modes. Letting a third party's agent operate inside your org is a much bigger trust ask than anything we've normalized so far. A lot of the infrastructure here is solving a problem the premise itself creates. Identity, cryptographic verification, access control across organizational boundaries — these are exactly the features you need if you've already decided agents will be shared across companies. If that doesn't happen at scale, a meaningful chunk of this complexity doesn't need to exist. It's solving a self-inflicted problem rather than a pre-existing one. Ownership, not rental, matches how companies already behave. Most enterprises are already cautious about running open-source models they don't fully control. Handing decision-making authority to another company's agent is a heavier lift than that. My bet is companies will keep building and owning their own agents in-house — even if slower and more expensive — because the liability and control stay contained. This mirrors how automation has generally gone: companies consume standardized data/APIs, but keep the actual decision logic in-house. So my take: standardized communication between agents, yes. A functioning cross-company rental market for agents, not convinced. Feels more ideological ("open internet of everything") than something with real enterprise demand behind it. I d like to know what you all think, maybe I miss something about this whole thing.