# Intent Machines: Composition and Components **URL:** \ **Category:** Protocol Design\ **Created:** [July 26, 2023, 3:08pm UTC](https://forum.anoma.net/t/intent-machines-composition-and-components/147 "2023-07-26T15:08:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![degregat](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/forum.anoma.net/degregat/32/449_2.png) [@degregat](https://forum.anoma.net/u/degregat)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2023, 3:08pm UTC](https://forum.anoma.net/t/intent-machines-composition-and-components/147/1 "2023-07-26T15:08:46Z")
> Draft Status: Very We (@cwgoes and I) thought a bit more about how to (de)compose Intent Machines and which roles exist within them. Here’s a draft on that. ## Composition An `Intent Machine` (IM) is composed of a `Selector`, a `Solver` and a `Picker`. IMs can be composed of IMs, in which case the individual roles need to be composed. Parties implementing these roles can announce that they are forming an `Intent Machine` explicitly, or users can request collaboration of different parties to spin up and ad-hoc IM. IM can state policies they implement, and users can request them but IMs can always choose to accept or not. Each Role is governed by an `Identity`, which can be trivial or composed. ## Roles ### Selector The `Selector` decides which `Intents` go into one solving batch. These `Intents` construct and constrain (maybe `span` is a better term?) the solving space. Users submit their `Intents` to `Selectors`. Selectors can be composed in parallel by just accepting the union of submissions within batch bounds, or sequentially, via consensus. > Note: This seems to have similar structure and issues to a mempool. ### Solver A solver only uses computation to produce matchings between intents. These could be deterministic algorithms for PTIME instances, or heuristics for NP-HARD/NP-COMPLETE ones. For deterministic algorithms (at least), receipts can be provided via ZK proofs. `Solvers` behave like a single process to the outside, but could be built on top of e.g. privacy preserving MPC schemes running across multiple machines. ### Picker In case of non-unique solutions, the `Picker` picks one solution according to some metric. ## Policies An Intent can always request to only be included in batches fulfilling certain `IM Policies`, but some policies, called `Intent Policies` can be heterogenous within a batch. These can always be extended to the whole batch, but not the other way around. ### IM Policies Example policy features which need to be decided at the IM level: #### Solving batches being bounded Submission of `Intents` to solve batches and the solving of them could be bounded by wall-clock time via an oracle, logical time in respect to some consensus provider, or compute cycles (verifiable via receipts/proofs) #### Batches could be unbounded Once started, solve time could be unbounded, e.g. for NP-Hard `Intents` and contingent on continued payment for solving. > TODO: Can we have dynamic solving alogrithms, that can incorporate new intents while running? #### Retention of Unmatched Intents across batches E.g. dependent on continued payment. #### Privacy Do the solvers do plaintext solving, or e.g. using a batched MPC scheme. ### Intent Policies This includes most things that are not purely `Resource` based, e.g.: #### Solving rewards - A priori, e.g. payment for inclusion and compute attempts - A posteriori, e.g. outcome dependent #### Matching Constraints - Restrictions on counterparty properties ## Incentives and Economics We assume that most of the MEV-like (SUAVE?) opportunities will lie in the `Selector` and `Picker` role (in cases where `Solving` is verifiably correct). In adversarial settings, composition between `Selectors` and `Pickers` needs to be well structured to not implement unwanted equilibria. ### MEV Mitigations - Ferveo, Commit/Reveal Schemes can help bound MEV opportunity. ### Questions - How to incentivize revelation of `Intents` to composition components? - Can we use trust/entanglement metrics to mitigate some of the incentive problems? ### Open Problems - Characterization of IM/IM composition (SUAVE-ish setting) ---
**Author:** ![cwgoes](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/forum.anoma.net/cwgoes/32/22_2.png) [@cwgoes](https://forum.anoma.net/u/cwgoes)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2023, 8:56am UTC](https://forum.anoma.net/t/intent-machines-composition-and-components/147/2 "2023-08-18T08:56:06Z")
Note: I recapped the basic IM definitions in [Abstract intent machine model](https://forum.anoma.net/t/abstract-intent-machine-model/204).