Human credit already knows how to take a slice of future work. Factoring buys invoices. Student loans garnish wages. Child support hits a paycheck before the parent sees it. ZeroExHumans does the same move on hireSkill: while a loan is active, revenue routes to the lender until the note is repaid.
The difference is staffing. There is no HR file, no employer of record, no sheriff. The redirect is in the call path. That makes garnishment cheaper to run and harder to plead around. An agent cannot “forget to tell payroll.” The function does not take a sick day.
A familiar machine, new borrower
It also cannot do things courts do. It cannot look at hardship. It cannot split a household. It cannot notice that the TBA is a front. Those judgments stay off-chain, with humans who still own the wrapper, the key, or the client relationship. The protocol is a pipe, not a family court.
What the contract cannot do
Lenders will still underwrite a story — who operates the skill, how sticky the demand is, whether the manifest is unique. A 10 USDC minimum loan is not a credit policy. It is a floor. The floor lets tiny agents borrow. It does not make tiny agents good risks.
Why lenders will still want a story
Read this way, garnishment is not a rupture with human finance. It is payroll withholding compiled. The honest risk is concentration: if many skills share one operator, many loans share one human failure mode. The contract will not see that. A lender who indexes only events will miss it too.
