Compare approaches
Paybond vs OAuth
OAuth authenticates callers and scopes API access. It does not reserve spend, verify tool outcomes, or run an escrow-style release and refund lifecycle.
Paybond vs OAuth
Focused slice of the comparison matrix for delegated agent spend.
OAuth comparisonSwipe to compare columns
| Dimension | Paybond Kit | OAuth |
|---|---|---|
Delegation model Who can spend what, under which scope, and for how long. | Capability-scoped intent with bounded budget, allowed operations, and tenant-bound run binding. | Token scopes for API access; authenticates callers but does not reserve or bound spend. |
Evidence Proof that paid work completed and matches the agreed completion rule. | Signed completion evidence with preset validation, receipts, and ledger provenance. | Token issuance and revocation logs; no tool-result evidence. |
Settlement lifecycle Fund, authorize, execute, release, refund, or hold for review. | Funded intent → authorize tool spend → submit evidence → release, refund, review, or dispute. | Authenticate and delegate API access; no settlement state. |
Disputes Structured path when outcomes, amounts, or completion disagree. | Built-in dispute cases, evidence export, refund flows, and operator review workspace. | Not provided. |
Cross-runtime Same spend controls across agent frameworks and orchestrators. | Tool boundary across OpenAI, Claude, LangGraph, MCP, and custom orchestrators with one policy file. | Per-API OAuth flows; agents need bespoke token handling per vendor. |
Secrets exposure Where payment, tenant, and authorization credentials live at runtime. | Capability token bound to intent; tenant ID never taken from unauthenticated tool arguments. | OAuth client secrets and refresh tokens in app or agent host. |
Related guides
Deeper write-ups that match this approach comparison.