Exchanges introducing AI proxy trading may seem like simply replacing API Keys with proxy wallets — but in reality, it's much more complex. The real issue lies in: when the主体 shifts from "individuals or institutions" to "organizations + multiple proxies + decentralized permissions," who is responsible?

In the past, risk control was straightforward: monitor the account, manage the person. Now, it's different. Exchanges need to penetrate not just an address or token, but the entire collaboration chain — who authorized, who executed, who takes responsibility if something goes wrong. This is a completely new risk model.

The first practical boundary to define is how to specify delegated trading permissions. Exchanges certainly won't allow a "black box proxy" to run a marathon with full authority. The real approach should be closer to enterprise risk management — a hierarchical authorization framework. The root account remains the organization or individual, while proxies are authorized executors, strictly limited within predefined strategic frameworks.

It sounds strict, but this is the reality: proxy trading is not "casual handing over," but "trading within your specified box." What does this include? The maximum amount per order, maximum position size per account, leverage limits, whitelist of tradable currencies, daily maximum loss thresholds, slippage protection, price deviation alerts, order frequency limits, and even intent-based constraints like "hedge only, no directional trading."

Thinking carefully, this hierarchical authorization system and proxy scheme are logically connected to the earlier discussed concepts of quota management, whitelist mechanisms, session revocation, etc. — all aiming to replace "absolute permissions" with a "controllable framework."