Overview of Autonomous World Definition

Author: syora.eth

Compiler: MetaCat

Introduction

I attended Token2049 and participated in a roundtable discussion. I was surprised to find that even leading builders did not have a clear definition of the Autonomous World (AW). However, it seems that people in the core circle, including myself, share a common dream. So, what is this dream? Upon deeper reflection, let's revisit the concept of the Autonomous World brought by 0xPARC:

"The Autonomous World has strict narrative boundaries, formal introduction rules, and does not require privileged individuals to maintain the vitality of the world."

In fact, this describes its essence rather than defining it, and it seems to have evolved into another concept.

Let me clarify from the outset that this article does not provide a definition of the Autonomous World. The purpose of this article is to provide discussion points when considering what the Autonomous World is. Specifically, I explore individual perspectives on the "Autonomous World," conduct a survey on the awareness of specific products related to the "Autonomous World," and discuss what the "Autonomous World" is from its essence.

Through this article, I hope to clarify various positions, stimulate discussion, and provide an opportunity for current builders and newcomers to deepen their understanding of the Autonomous World. If achieved, the author's purpose will be fulfilled.

The structure of this article is as follows:

• First, I will explain the research methodology of this article and then present the results.
• Next, I will report on the research findings regarding the definition of Fully On-Chain Games (FOCG). This is because the origin of the Autonomous World (AW) is precisely FOCG.
• Then, I will discuss the research results on the definition of AW. This is the main topic, and surprisingly, there is significant disagreement.
• Next, I will list characteristics that may serve as a basis for discussion and examine the definition of AW from these perspectives.
• Finally, I will summarize and discuss future work.

Research Methodology

In my research of existing literature, I included viewpoints from key blog posts, such as those from 0xPARC and guiltygyoza. I summarized the referenced articles at the end. While I tried to incorporate the viewpoints from the blog posts I reviewed, some opinions may still be subjective. In this sense, any criticism of this article is welcome.

For the core circle survey, I conducted a questionnaire in a closed Telegram group that only core builders of AW could join. In this group, I not only asked everyone for their definitions of AW but also whether specific projects were considered AW and why. This helped gauge builders' perceptions of AW.

In summary, I synthesized the opinions of over 20 individuals to complete this article.

Results

First, I would like to discuss the results of the questionnaire. I surveyed builders, and the results are as follows. Although there were only 11 respondents in this survey, I targeted those who were seriously engaged with AW, so this should be sufficient to grasp the general trend.

First, regarding the question "Do you think there are currently representative projects of AW?" the results are as follows:

About 45% of respondents indicated that there are currently representative AW projects.

Next, I asked respondents whether they considered some major projects to be AW.

From the chart, it can be seen that Ethereum is considered the closest to AW. Interestingly, the fully on-chain poker, which many consider to be FOCG, has the lowest percentage of being regarded as AW. Furthermore, while about 45% of respondents answered "yes" to the first question, the percentage that considers Ethereum to be AW exceeds 60%.

These results are indeed intriguing. Why do such results occur? I believe there are two reasons: first, the definition of AW varies from person to person; second, there may be a lack of self-evident, fully realized AW.

To delve deeper into these issues, I would like to first revisit the definition of FOCG.

Definition of FOCG

What is the definition of FOCG? It's simple! It's a game where everything is on-chain, right? You might think so, but that's not the case. This is because, at least the front end does not need to run on-chain.

The basic points that everyone seems to agree on are as follows:

• Logic / rules are on-chain
• State is on-chain

Points that are debatable include:

• Whether the logic needs to run on-chain or if it is sufficient to verify it on-chain
• Whether to include concepts like "Autonomous World"

The first point is clearly up for discussion, but the second point needs clarification. That is, when asked about the definition of FOCG, some mentioned the following requirements:

• It must persist/update and maintain security without developer maintenance
• The blockchain guarantees data reliability and has persistence without relying on clients
• Its goal is to achieve permissionless composability and interoperability, and realize complete ownership, etc.

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 "games," not "worlds," and whether to regard these as definitions of "FOCG" is crucial.

Specifically, the following questions can clarify your position:

Is a simple fully on-chain poker game considered FOCG?

If your answer is yes, then you only require that both the logic and state of FOCG be on-chain. If not, it means you have higher requirements for FOCG, namely that it must be crypto-native.

Definition of AW: Is Bitcoin and Ethereum AW?

Some believe that FOCG and AW are entirely the same concept. As mentioned above, if FOCG is required to be fully crypto-native, then it is very close to the concept of AW. However, that's not all. I realize there is an important distinction between FOCG and AW: whether it is a "world." Perhaps due to the terminology, FOCG remains a game, while AW seems to need to become a world. Additionally, whether it is based on sessions seems to be a good standard for many to distinguish between FOCG and AW.

Moreover, I noticed that most people regard "scalability" and "composability" as the next important elements. This may relate more to the attributes that AW should possess rather than its definition, but many see value in AW here and consider it an intrinsic quality of AW.

To clarify your view on "whether this is an AW world and its scalability/composability," please consider the following question:

Is Bitcoin AW?

Of course, Bitcoin is crypto-native, but whether it is a "world" is challenging. Additionally, due to its design prioritizing simplicity, its scalability and composability are relatively poor (compared to other projects). Those who regard these standards as elements of AW may not see Bitcoin as AW.

Another useful starting point for discussion is the following question:

Is Ethereum AW?

Unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum has sufficient scalability and composability. However, some believe it lacks the concept of a "world." Others think its world boundaries are ambiguous, while some believe its shortcomings stem from a lack of sustainable funding models for its scalability. Among the projects surveyed, Ethereum is the closest to AW. Therefore, discussions based on this should be conducted more positively.

Considering AW from its characteristics

While thinking based on projects is beneficial, discussions based on characteristics are also valuable. According to the survey, the main characteristics required by AW are as follows. Here, I would like to categorize them into three layers.

Inherent properties obtained from blockchain:

• Censorship resistance
• Decentralization
• Immutability
• Permanence
• Verifiability
• Ownership
• Transparency

Characteristics achievable through active use of blockchain technology:

• Autonomy
• Composability
• Interoperability
• Permissionlessness

Additionally, as unique attributes of an autonomous world:

• Worldness

Although not mentioned here, one can also view the boundaries of the world as a characteristic. However, from the discussion by BlockScience (https://medium.com/block-science/disambiguating-autonomy-ca84ac87a0bf), this can also be understood as autonomy and worldness.

Broad vs. Narrow AW

One reason the discussion about AW is complex is that different people have different needs for AW. Some emphasize certain characteristics, and if these characteristics are met, they will label it as AW. Others believe that unless all these characteristics are met, it is not AW. Additionally, some acknowledge both positions and distinguish between broad AW and narrow AW. We need to unify our understanding here.

Position A: This position believes that the scope of AW entities is broad. In many cases, Ethereum will be viewed as AW. This position has two issues. One is that it is difficult to reach a consensus on which characteristics are core to AW when recognizing the broad scope. One solution may be to keep it as a philosophical concept without providing specific boundaries. The other issue is that the narrow definition of AW requires a different name. Inspired by DAOs and believing that true decentralization meets the characteristics required by narrow AW, I propose the term "Decentralized Autonomous World (DAW)."

Position B: This position only recognizes the narrow definition of AW as AW. Just as there is no dispute over whether Bitcoin is a blockchain, in this case, only universally recognized AW is considered narrow AW, which means AW may not yet exist. In this case, the term "DAW" becomes redundant, but it becomes intriguing for people to casually claim their projects as AW.

I welcome both positions. However, given that deviations often occur when people discuss the "Autonomous World," I hope we can reach a consensus as much as possible.

Future Work

To reiterate, the purpose of this article is not to provide a definition for AW but to organize everyone's discussion points. Additionally, I consciously avoided delving deeply into each characteristic mentioned in this article. Discussions on each characteristic could itself require ten articles, and determining whether these characteristics are met often involves many gray areas. For example, while decentralization is crucial, I have not yet seen discussions at the sequencer level in the context of AW. Discussions about decentralized operations seem lacking. Besides, discussions about "autonomy" and "worldness" will be particularly important.

Another area for future work is to explore the coordination of seemingly conflicting characteristics more deeply. Mainly, the concepts of immutability and permissionless composability. Especially, the concept of immutability may bring various challenges.

Furthermore, considering the narrow definition of AW (for convenience, we will call it DAW), it will be helpful to think about the technical approaches to meet all its requirements. Why does DAW not currently exist? Is it due to technical limitations? If so, what are these limitations? Will speed or latency become obstacles to meeting all the aforementioned characteristics? It turns out that considering technical limitations after clarifying goals is often more beneficial than not doing so.

Conclusion

In this article, I conducted a cognitive survey on the definitions related to FOCG/AW through literature review and questionnaire. Surprisingly, even the definition of FOCG is vague, and it is evident that AW has two definitions: broad and narrow. Whether we refer to the broad AW as AW, the narrow AW as DAW, or only call the narrow AW AW, I hope we can reach a consensus soon.

References 0xPARC: Autonomous Worlds (Part 1) https://0xparc.org/blog/autonomous-worlds guiltygyoza: Autonomous World https://www.guiltygyoza.xyz/2022/12/why-aw guiltygyoza: Game 2.0 https://www.guiltygyoza.xyz/2022/07/game2 Gubsheep: The Strongest Crypto Gaming Thesis https://gubsheep.substack.com/p/the-strongest-crypto-gaming-thesis ronan: Infinite Games https://ronan.eth.limo/blog/infinite-games/ stokarz: On the Properties of Bitcoin and AW https://twitter.com/stokasz/status/1671509868623044608 Autonomous Worlds Books (AW Bible) https://www.docdroid.net/DlVSLIm/autonomous-worlds-book-pdf AW Research: Review of AW Meetup Group Discussion at Token 2049 https://twitter.com/AWResearch/status/1705117840934871310 pe3rapan: On-Chain Games ⮕ Autonomous World https://twitter.com/pet3rpan/status/1654168452205268992