The Survey of the Definition of Autonomous World
Conducted surveys to clarify discussion points on AW’s definition.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to guiltygyoza and stokarz for reviewing.
Introduction
I attended token2049 and participated in the panel session, and to my surprise, there was no clear definition even among the frontline builders. However, it seems that those in the inner circle, including myself, share a common dream. So, what is that? To think about it deeply, let’s revisit the concept of Autonomous World was brought about by 0xPARC:
“Autonomous Worlds have hard diegetic boundaries, formalized introduction rules, and no need for privileged individuals to keep the World alive”.
Actually, this describes its nature rather than defining it, and it now seems to have evolved into another concept.
Let me clarify from the outset that this article does not provide a definition of Autonomous World. The purpose of this article is to provide points for discussion when considering what Autonomous World is. Specifically, I investigate individual thoughts on Autonomous World, conduct a survey on the awareness of specific products related to Autonomous World, and discuss what Autonomous World is based on its nature.
By using this article, I hope to clarify each position, invigorate the discussion, and provide an opportunity for both existing builders and new entrants to deepen their understanding of Autonomous World. If they are achieved, the author’s purpose will be fulfilled.
This blog is structured in the following order:
First, I will describe the research method for this article, followed by presenting the results.
Next, I will report on the research findings regarding the definition of Fully On-Chain Game (FOCG). This is because the origin of Autonomous World (AW) is none other than FOCG.
Then, I will discuss the results of the research on the definition of AW. This is the main topic, and there were surprisingly diverse opinions.
Following that, I will list the characteristics that will likely form the basis for people’s discussions and examine the definition of AW from those perspectives.
Finally, I will conclude and discuss future works.
Research Methodology
I incorporated opinions from key blog articles, such as those from 0xPARC and guiltygyoza, in my survey of existing literature. The articles referred to are summarized at the end. While I tried my best to include opinions from the blog articles I consulted, there’s a possibility that some selections might have been made subjectively. In that sense, any critique regarding this blog is welcome.
Survey for the Inner Circle I conducted a survey in a closed Telegram group, which only core builders of AW can join. In this group, not only did I ask about the definition of the AW, but I also inquired whether individual projects are considered AW and why. This helped in gauging the builders’ perceptions of AW.
Combining all these, I approached the creation of this article by incorporating the opinions of more than 20 individuals.
Results
First, I’d like to discuss the results of the awareness survey. I conducted a survey among the builders, and the results were as follows. Although there were only 11 respondents to the survey, I targeted only those who are seriously engaged with AW, so this should be sufficient to grasp the general trend.
Firstly, regarding the question, “Do you think there are any existing projects that represent AW?”, the results were as follows:
Next, I asked about major projects and whether respondents consider them to be AW.
As can be seen from the graph, Ethereum was deemed the closest to AW. Interestingly, the fully on-chain poker, which many consider to be FOCG, had the lowest percentage. Moreover, even though approximately 45% of respondents answered “yes” to the first question, the proportion of those who consider Ethereum as AW exceeded 60%.
These results are truly intriguing. Why did such outcomes emerge? I believe there are two reasons. One is that the definition of AW varies among individuals. The other is the likely absence of a self-evident, fully realized AW.
To delve deeper into these issues, I would first like to revisit the definition of FOCG.
Definition of FOCG
Definition of FOCG? That’s easy! It’s a game where everything is on-chain, right? You might think so, but that wasn’t the case. This is because, at the very least, there’s no need for the front-end to operate on-chain.
The basic idea that everyone seemed to hold was as follows:
The logic/rules are on-chain.
The state is on-chain.
Points of discussion include:
Whether the logic needs to run on-chain, or if it’s sufficient for it to be verifiable on-chain.
Whether to incorporate concepts like Autonomous World.
The first point is clear for discussion, but the second needs explanation. In other words, when asked about the definition of FOCG, some people mentioned the following requirements:
It must persist/update without developer maintenance and maintain security.
The blockchain guarantees data reliability, and there’s persistence without relying on the client.
It aims for permissionless composability and interoperability, and full ownership is achieved, among other things.
You can check these concepts in articles like “The Strongest Crypto Gaming Thesis”, guiltygyoza’s “game 2.0”, and “Infinite Games”. All these discussions are about “Game”, not “World”, and whether to consider these as the definition of “FOCG” is crucial.
To think in concrete terms, the following question can clarify your stance:
Is a simple fully on-chain poker game considered FOCG?
If your answer is yes, then you’re only demanding that both the logic and state of FOCG be on-chain. If no, it implies that you’re demanding more from FOCG, namely, that it be crypto-native.
Definition of AW: Are Bitcoin and Ethereum AW?
Some people believe that FOCG and AW are entirely the same concepts. As mentioned above, if one demands FOCG to be entirely crypto-native, it becomes very close to the concept of AW. However, that’s not all there is to it. I realized that one significant element separates FOCG and AW: whether it’s a “world” or not. It might be due to the impression given by the terminology, but FOCG remains a game, while AW seems to necessitate being a world. Also, whether it’s session-based or not seemed to be a good criterion for many to distinguish between FOCG and AW.
Furthermore, I noticed that most people demand extensibility and composability as the next significant elements. This might be more related to the properties AW should have rather than its definition, but many people see the value of AW here and considered it an intrinsic quality of AW.
To clarify your thoughts on whether it’s a world in AW and its extensibility/composability, consider the following question:
Is Bitcoin AW?
Of course, Bitcoin is crypto-native, but determining whether it’s a “world” is challenging. Moreover, due to its design prioritizing simplicity, it’s less extensible and composable (compared to other projects). Those who value these criteria as elements of AW probably wouldn’t consider Bitcoin as AW.
Another useful starting point for discussion is the following question:
Is Ethereum AW?
Unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum possesses ample extensibility and composability. However, some argue that it lacks the concept of a “world”. There were also opinions that the boundaries of the world are ambiguous, and others felt it falls short due to the absence of a sustainable funding model for builders regarding its extensibility. Among the projects surveyed, Ethereum is the closest to AW. Therefore, discussions based on this should be pursued more actively.
Considering AW from its Characteristics
While it’s beneficial to think based on projects, discussing based on characteristics is also valuable. From the survey, the main properties that AW demands seemed to be as follows. Here, I’d like to break it down into three layers.
Inherent Properties Gained by Using Blockchain:
Censorship resistance
Decentralization
Immutability
Persistence
Verifiability
Ownership
Transparency
Characteristics Achievable Through the Active Utilization of Blockchain Technology:
Autonomy
Composability
Interoperability
Permissionlessness
Additionally, as unique properties of Autonomous World:
Worldness
While not mentioned here, one might also consider the boundaries of the world as a characteristic. However, as can be understood from discussions by BlockScience, this can also be interpreted as autonomy and worldness.
Broad AW vs. Narrow AW
One reason the discussion about AW is complex is that different people demand different characteristics from AW. Some emphasize certain features, and if those are met, they label it as AW. Others believe it’s not AW unless all these features are met. Moreover, some recognize both stances and differentiate between a broad AW and a narrow AW. We need to align our understanding here.
Stance A: This stance recognizes a wide range of entities as AW. In many cases, Ethereum would be considered AW. There are two issues with this stance. One is that it’s challenging to form a common understanding of which characteristics are central to AW when recognizing a broad range. One solution might be to keep it as a philosophical concept without providing specific boundaries. Another issue is that a different name is needed for the narrow definition of AW. Drawing inspiration from DAO and believing that true decentralization meets the characteristics demanded by a narrow AW, I propose the term “Decentralized Autonomous World(DAW)”.
Stance B: This stance only recognizes the narrow definition of AW as AW. Just as there’s no debate about whether Bitcoin is a blockchain, in this case, only universally acknowledged AWs are considered narrow AWs, implying that AW might not yet exist. In this scenario, the term DAW becomes redundant, but it also becomes challenging for people to casually claim that their project is AW.
I welcome both stances. However, given the frequent misalignments when people discuss “Autonomous World”, I hope that a common understanding can be formed as much as possible.
Future Works
To reiterate, the purpose of this article was not to provide a definition but to organize the points of discussion among people. Also, I consciously refrained from delving deep into each characteristic in this article. Discussions about each characteristic could warrant ten articles on their own, and determining whether they are met often involves many gray areas. For instance, while decentralization is crucial, I’ve yet to see discussions at the sequencer level in the context of AW. Discussions about decentralized operations seem to be lacking. Beyond that, discussions about “Autonomy” and “Worldness” would be particularly important.
Another area for future work would be to delve deeper into reconciling seemingly conflicting characteristics. The primary ones are immutability and permissionless composability. The concept of immutability, in particular, is likely to pose various challenges.
Furthermore, considering the narrow definition of AW, which we’ll call DAW for convenience, it would be beneficial to think about the technical methods to meet all its requirements. Why doesn’t a DAW exist currently? Is it due to technical constraints? If so, what are these constraints? Is speed or latency a barrier to meeting all the aforementioned characteristics? Considering technical constraints after clarifying goals often proves more beneficial than not doing so.
Conclusion
In this article, through literature reviews and surveys, I conducted a consciousness survey on the definitions related to FOCG/AW. Surprisingly, even the definition of FOCG was ambiguous, and it became evident that there are two definitions for AW: broad and narrow. Whether we call the broad AW as AW and the narrow AW as DAW, or only refer to the narrow AW as AW, I hope a common understanding forms soon.
References
I’d also like to extend my gratitude to everyone who responded to the survey.
Donation: syora.eth
Contact: @0xsyora