The first users are networks already producing value their accounting can't say: the wedge is coordination complexity beyond existing tools, not a mass market waiting for persuasion.
Three segments carry the wedge. Agent frameworks that need economic coordination between agents: the stacks give agents intelligence, memory, and tools, but no way to hold commitments, share surplus, or form economic relationships with each other. Public-goods and regen networks whose impact is real but denominated in someone else's unit: carbon, care, code, and commons value that exists, measurably, and cannot be said in the grammar their funding arrives in. Token-engineering and commons communities that outgrew their tools: groups already designing economic mechanisms who hit the ceiling of what one global ledger and one asset model can express.
What the wedge users get: authoring their own economic logic — their units, their metrics, their definition of surplus — while staying interoperable with every other space and fundable through a bridge that cannot force them to compute for profit.
Why wedge logic and not market-size logic: a new economic grammar is adopted where the pain of the old one is highest and the alternatives are absent, not where the addressable market is largest. The firm was not adopted by everyone at once; it was adopted where coordination overhead was killing ventures. The same selection applies here, and it is the honest version of the go-to-market: the wedge is not the TAM, and the claim is not that everyone needs this now. The claim is that these networks need it now, have no alternative, and are where the demonstration compounds.
The proof of the wedge is not this page; it is signed design partners operating real spaces. Until they exist, the wedge is a hypothesis stated precisely enough to be tested.
Related: · · ·