OAuth vs consent receipts
OAuth is designed to authorize API access. Consent receipts are designed to authorize transactions—with constraints, replay safety, and audit-grade evidence. In agentic commerce you often need both.
See transaction-scoped verification.
Run the live demo, then review the consent receipt model.
Comparison
| Dimension | OAuth | Consent receipts |
|---|---|---|
| Primary goal | Authorize API calls | Prove transaction permission |
| Scope model | Scopes (often broad) | Action + explicit constraints |
| Constraint enforcement | Not native (app-defined) | Native: amount/MCC/time/merchant |
| Replay safety | Token theft risk | Nonce/receipt ID semantics |
| Audit evidence | Access logs | YES/NO + proof record |
| Best fit | API access control | Authorization at moment of transaction |
Where OAuth falls short for agent transactions
- Scopes don’t reliably encode spending caps, MCC restrictions, or time windows.
- Access tokens don’t produce dispute-grade evidence that the transaction was in-scope.
- Replay and reuse semantics are not transaction-specific.
Where consent receipts fit
Consent receipts act as the permission artifact that a verifier evaluates. The verifier produces a stateless eligible decision and a proof record that can be stored with the payment/order/authorization.
Practical recommendation
- Use OAuth to authenticate/authorize API access for the agent platform.
- Use consent receipts + stateless verification to authorize the transaction itself.
- Log a proof record for disputes and audits.
Internal links
FAQ
Do I have to choose one?
No. OAuth and consent receipts solve different problems. In agentic payments, use OAuth for API access and consent receipts for transaction-scoped permission proof.
Can consent receipts be used without OAuth?
Yes, as long as you can bind the agent and issuer authority to a verifiable signature/proof model. OAuth is common but not required.