Can we create fully decentralized products based on collective intelligence through intent?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Can we create fully decentralized products based on collective intelligence through intent?
If the biological world relies on pheromones for information transmission, then intention is an excellent tool for information transfer in human society.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Tia, Techub News
"The motivation stems from the belief that current products are not sufficiently decentralized, because any product is inherently designed by someone—once formed, it already embodies the centralized ideas of an individual or a specific team. Intention, however, serves as an excellent medium. When people share the same intention, or when similar intentions emerge collectively, a certain level of emergence may occur—perhaps giving birth to a new need, idea, or even a latent product."
I’ve interacted with several DAOs, which typically originate from one person or a central group, operating around a shared vision. In most cases, decentralization only appears during role appointments—such as voting for positions. Moreover, DAOs generally lack profitability; their funding usually comes from founders, investors, or grants from other projects. Yet, within a decentralized organization, the very concept of a 'founder' is inherently contradictory. A DAO should be a product of collective intelligence, not initiated by a single individual. Additionally, a crucial aspect of operations—finances—relies on contributions from a select few. This is problematic. First, DAOs cannot rely solely on investors’ goodwill without prioritizing sustainable revenue. Second, due to financial dependencies, it's difficult to claim that a DAO’s future development remains unaffected by its funders.
But perhaps the concept of 'intention' could shift this dynamic. If the biological world relies on pheromones for information transmission, then intention is an excellent tool for human society—one far superior to today’s dominant method of signaling preference: price. Intention can emerge as thought, and evolve into vision. Anoma’s intent machine allows users to express preferences and intentions, creating fertile ground for groups with shared intentions to co-create. Thus, we might build products—or engage in collaborative creation—based on a collective set of intentions.
As for fundraising, perhaps we can leverage meme tokens to explore broader public sentiment toward a given intention or preference, allowing meme tokens to become more than just price-driven expressions of value. They could serve as indicators of market perception regarding a particular intention, while also channeling capital and providing early-stage marketing for the next phase of 'creation'.
The remaining challenge lies in governance. Compared to popular trends like DeFi, chain abstraction, or data availability (DA), decentralized governance and DAOs have long been overlooked. Many underestimate the importance of governance. People often say, 'in blockchain, we trust.' Indeed, through code and smart contracts, we eliminate the need for trust—but behind every line of code lies a set of rules. Without achieving truly decentralized governance, web3 will ultimately fall back into the same cycles as web2.
The advantages and disadvantages of leadership are clear. A leaderless, intention-driven evolutionary process represents collective progress—slow but steady. If someone in the group possesses exceptional insight, letting them lead could accelerate progress significantly. But there are serious downsides: especially when collective intelligence lags far behind that of the individual, making the group vulnerable to manipulation. This risk intensifies if another highly intelligent individual with malicious intent emerges. Blind following is not a sustainable model—the collective must gradually cultivate its own intelligence.
This reflects my personal political inclination. Of course, when approaching this from a corporate perspective, the situation differs—because competition enters the picture, which is a key factor distinguishing public goods. Public goods are non-competitive by nature. From this angle, such models might even contribute to building a less competitive society. However, further research is needed to determine whether better solutions exist—or perhaps we can leave it as an open option, allowing the collective to choose its own path.
What form should governance take? How should governance mechanisms be structured—via NFTs, tokens, or otherwise? Should economic value be attached, or should governance remain purely intentional? How should voting power be allocated? These questions demand extensive, systematic research.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@News_Techub
