Blockchain0x and Payman both let AI agents pay, but with different supervision models. Payman builds around human approval - every agent payment routes through a reviewer before settlement. Blockchain0x builds around API-enforced spend policy - the agent pays autonomously inside a budget envelope that the wallet refuses to exceed. The right choice depends on whether 'human approves each payment' is a feature or a constraint.

Autonomous payment, API-enforced limits.

• Agents paying paid APIs, MCP tools, or other agents at sub-second cadence - the autonomous-payment shape, where waiting for a human approval defeats the use case.
• Multi-agent systems with shared workspace budgets and per-agent isolation; spend policy and identity per agent are first-class.
• Programmatic 402 / x402 settlement at high throughput with stablecoin rails (USDC on Base) and sub-cent fees.
• Public agent identity flows where verification badges and a public profile page are part of how counterparties decide to trust the agent.

Yes - on different workloads.

The two target different supervision shapes. A team that has both supervised and autonomous workloads can run both, scoped to the workload that fits each:

• Use Payman for human-supervised payment workflows (expense reports, vendor approvals); use Blockchain0x for autonomous agent-to-API payments on the same engineering team.
• Blockchain0x agents pay APIs autonomously within their spend policy; large or unusual payments can route through a Payman approval queue for human sign-off before settlement.
• Internal finance workflows on Payman (because human approval is mandatory); customer-facing agent payments on Blockchain0x (because human approval would break the UX).