Incode Technologies Launches “Agentic Identity” to Cement Trust in AI-Agent Ecosystems

At a time when autonomous artificial-intelligence agents are increasingly conducting transactions, engaging with services and making decisions on behalf of humans, Incode Technologies is positioning itself at the vanguard of a shift in identity security. Yesterday the company unveiled its new solution, Agentic Identity, which is aimed squarely at giving enterprises the tools to verify, authorize and continuously monitor AI agents — by anchoring each one to a human.

The problem: agents that behave like humans — and the risk that entails

As enterprises lean into “agentic” workflows — autonomous bots, assistants, APIs working on behalf of people — a fidelity gap is opening. These agents can, and often do, mimic human behavior, trigger financial flows, make decisions and open new attack vectors. As Incode puts it: “Fraudsters are often the first to adopt new technology. We are seeing AI-generated agents that convincingly mimic human behavior... at a scale and speed no human could match.” — said Ricardo Amper, CEO and founder of Incode.

In short: the line between human-actor and machine-actor is blurring — and with that comes a fracture in accountability, permissioning and traceability.

The solution: Agentic Identity

Incode’s new offering aims to introduce an identity architecture tailored to the “agentic web,” providing enterprises with a set of capabilities designed to govern not just who’s interacting, but what agent is acting on whose behalf, with what permission, and under which conditions. Key elements include:

• Agent detection: the ability to identify autonomous agents across applications, APIs and machine-to-machine channels, giving visibility into who—or what—is initiating actions.

• Verified human owner binding: each agent is tied to a verified human identity through deepfake-resistant biometrics, meaning every autonomous actor carries a human anchor.

• Scoped consent and tokenization: giving agents cryptographic identity tokens defining their allowed scope, tied to the human owner’s explicit consent, with programmable expiration and revocation.

• Continuous behavioral monitoring: tracking agent behavior in real time, flagging anomalous decision-making or compromised agents, enabling intervention.

• Integration with existing identity suite: Agentic Identity is designed to plug into Incode’s broader identity and fraud intelligence framework — meaning organizations can extend their user identity stack to AI agents too.

As product-chief Roman Karachinsky notes: “Agentic Identity allows enterprises to meet the growing consumer demand for agentic use cases and allow agents to use their services without compromising on fraud prevention or compliance.”

Why it matters now

We’re at an inflection point. Analysts observe that AI agents are moving from novelty to norm — embedded in enterprise workflows, commerce, customer-service bots, APIs acting autonomously. When machines act on behalf of humans, the identity assumption shifts: it’s no longer about “is this user legit?” but also “is this agent authorized, traceable and bound to the right human?” That shift demands a new trust model—and that’s what Agentic Identity is trying to provide.

For organizations, the stakes include not just fraud, but regulatory compliance, governance, auditability, dispute resolution and reputational risk. It’s the difference between “we let a bot act” and “we let a verified, consented, scoped bot act and recorded every step.”

Market context & implications

Incode already commands scale: it processes over 4 billion identity checks annually and serves major banks, telcos, fintechs and governments. Agentic Identity positions the company to extend that trust layer into the era of autonomous agents.

From a strategic viewpoint, this product signals that identity firms believe the next big friction point in enterprise security isn’t just users logging in—it’s agents executing actions on behalf of users. That opens up:

• A new category of identity management: agent lifecycle, human-to-agent binding, consent-token governance.

• Opportunities for vendors that already verify humans to layer in agent oversight.

• A competitive dimension in which identity/fraud vendors will differentiate by how well they manage “machine actors” as opposed to just humans.

It also raises questions: how will enterprises implement this in practice? What governance frameworks will be required? Will regulators treat autonomous agent actions as human actions—or a new class altogether? Those questions are emerging rapidly.

What to watch

• Pilot deployments: Incode says pilot programs began in Q4 2025, with enterprises integrating Agentic Identity into existing identity verification, risk and fraud systems. How fast will uptake be?

  
  

• Standards and protocols: For agents to be reliably bound to humans across ecosystems, industry standards (including token formats, revocation, chain of trust) will matter.

• Regulatory response: As agents transact and act, who is responsible—the human owner, the organization, the agent’s “identity”? New liability zones may appear.

• Fraud evolution: As identity vendors try to lock down human-agent binding, fraud actors will inevitably shift focus to “agent impersonation,” “agent takeover,” or “agent masquerading as human” scenarios. Incode’s game is to head those off pre-emptively.

Bottom line

With Agentic Identity, Incode is making a bold signal: the next frontier of identity and fraud prevention isn’t just about humans logging in—it’s about machines acting on behalf of humans. Enterprises eyeing higher-order automation and agentic workflows now have one more trust layer to consider. If they implement it thoughtfully, the promise is safe scale; if they ignore it, the risk is that autonomous operations become a vector for emergent fraud, compliance failure or governance collapse.

Ultimately, in a world where bots chat, transact, negotiate and decide, Agentic Identity stakes a claim that identity, accountability and consent must extend not just to the user—but to the agent.