Trying to explain "intents" in the context of today’s mainstream smart contract chains is like trying to explain "smart contracts" to Bitcoin folks back in 2014. Vitalik had to describe it as "conditional spends”. It wasn’t wrong, but it was definitely an attempt to fit it into how people understood blockchain architecture at the time. It’s the same with "intents" today. Sure, you can explain it as a signed message that constrain state transitions. But the real potential and deeper understanding of "intents" is something that will need a fresh, new architecture. So, how we understand the concept really depends on the context of the explanation. - Are we trying to define it strictly within the current EVM/SVM/MoveVM architecture, or are we talking about an "intent-centric architecture" where everything revolves around intents? - Are we looking at it in a single-chain context, or a multi-chain context? - Are we defining it as a specific way to interact with blockchains, a new way to design dApps, a method of scaling blockchains, or as a way to simplify multi-chain complexity? I’ve got my own set of concepts projecting it into a new architecture, and so do others building intent-centric infrastructure. But a lot of it might just come off as jargon that feels ungrounded. I think we’ll only know the boundary of this concept once we see the first true intent-centric architecture ecosystem in action.