Can we create completely decentralized products based on collective intelligence through intention?

Author: Tia, Techub News

"The reason is that I feel current products are not decentralized enough, because products are always designed by someone, and by the time they take shape, they already reflect the centralized ideas of a person or a team. Intent is a great carrier. When everyone shares the same intent, or when the same intent emerges collectively, a certain degree of emergence may occur, leading to the birth of a demand, idea, or potential product."

I have encountered some DAOs, which are usually initiated by a person or a group of people, operating with a vision as the main goal. The decentralized aspect typically only appears when appointing positions, that is, determining roles through voting. Moreover, DAOs have almost no profitability; their funding usually comes from founders, other investors, or grants from other projects. However, as a decentralized organization, the role of the founder inherently does not integrate with the DAO; a DAO should be a product of collective wisdom and should not be initiated by a single person. Additionally, a crucial aspect of operation—finance—comes from a certain group of people. This is not a good phenomenon. On one hand, DAOs cannot allow investors to completely disregard profitability, merely generating for love. On the other hand, due to funding influences, it becomes difficult to say that the subsequent development path of the DAO is not affected by the investors.

But the emergence of "intent" may reverse this situation. If the biological world relies on pheromones for information transmission, then intent is a good tool for information transmission in human society, and this tool should be much better than the current methods of information transmission in society in terms of "price." Intent can emerge as thoughts and then evolve into visions. Anoma's intent machine allows users to express preferences and intents, creating a soil for groups with shared intents and preferences to co-create. So perhaps we can also build products or co-create based on a set of collective intents.

As for the financing issue, I think we can explore the broader group's views on this intent or preference in the form of meme tokens, so that meme tokens are not just a preference expression based solely on price. It can gauge the market's perception of this intent and bring capital inflow and a certain degree of marketing for the next step of "creation."

The remaining issue is governance. Compared to the popular hotspots like DeFi, chain abstraction, and DAOs, decentralized governance and DAOs have always received less attention. Many people underestimate the importance of governance. People often say, "in blockchain, we trust." Indeed, we have eliminated the need for trust through code and smart contracts, but behind a series of codes lies a set of established rules. Without achieving decentralized governance, web3 will ultimately revert to the cycle of web2.

The benefits and drawbacks of leadership are quite evident. The process of natural evolution without a leader based on intent is a collective progress, slow but steady. When a person with significantly different thoughts emerges in the collective, having them lead can indeed speed things up. However, there are many downsides, especially when the collective wisdom lags significantly behind individual wisdom, which makes the collective vulnerable to deception, particularly when another equally wise person with malicious intent appears. Following is not a good approach; the collective needs to gradually grow its own wisdom.

This is my personal political inclination; of course, when we think from a corporate perspective, it becomes another matter. This involves competition, which is a key characteristic in distinguishing whether something is a public good. Public goods are anti-competitive. From this perspective, it may also promote the construction of an anti-competitive society. However, further research is needed to see if there are better answers in this area. Alternatively, we could treat it as an open option, allowing the group to choose for itself.

In what form governance should take place, how the governance medium should be set—whether in the form of NFTs or tokens, whether economic value should be assigned to it or whether it should maintain its purity, and how the weight of voting should be decided—all require extensive systematic research.