The question of 'transaction driven' or 'intention driven' is worth pondering Simply put, my understanding of transaction driven is' you write the script, the system plays it for you '. And intention driven is' what you say you want, the system will write the script+direct+perform '. The biggest difference between these two is actually the blockchain thinking, in other words, a different approach to constructing transaction methods from the underlying logic. The way we are currently accustomed to is based on a fixed model of "transaction driven", which means we need to write down each step of the operation ourselves, such as: how many tokens do I want to transfer Which contract address to use, which function to call, how much gas to adjust, etc. I need to operate everything myself in detail and then broadcast it on the chain through the system. Although it has a lot of autonomy, upon careful consideration, it is still quite unfriendly to people. It's like I'm the one who spends money, I go to a restaurant to treat someone to a meal. I also need to provide the menu and ingredient ratios to the restaurant before they can help me cook. Under the "intention driven" approach, it is actually a reverse output, where I only need to say what dish I want, not how to make it. From a human perspective, intention can be divided into two situations. The first condition must be met, such as being economically affordable. The second preference is the best, such as Cantonese cuisine as the main dish. As for getting it on the chain, I don't need to submit a specific transaction. Just tell the system 'I want to replace A with B, I hope the price is the most suitable'. Then the system will find out who can match you, which path is the best, how to match, how to settle, and how to protect privacy, all of which will be handled by the "Solver" in the @ anoma network. As mentioned in previous articles, Solver is not a centralized service, nor is it a robot arranged by the platform. But it is a participant with 'no permission access', anyone can participate to fulfill others' intentions, as long as the efficiency is high enough and the strategy is smart enough, they can benefit from it. Imagine, we originally wanted to learn about a project. Starting from the testing network, continuously learn and understand the underlying operational logic, run node tests, and debug configurations. And now all you need to say is' the result you want 'clearly The most noteworthy aspect of this person is the default privacy of @ anoma. For some undisclosed mempools, others cannot monitor the next operation through the chain, so there is no need to worry about being hacked, let alone the so-called "alpha leak". Realize behavior verification without exposing data through ZK technology. In my understanding, Anoma has turned "transaction processing" into a game. By allowing users to express their needs, Solver races to meet them, and developers build tools to serve the entire process. The entire system has become an open 'intention coordination game', with flow, collaboration, and competition all transparent.