The Promise of Web 3.0 Decentralization through Alethea AI’s iNFTs: A New Face of Economic Imperialism?

  • 24/10/2025
  • Category: Commentaries
No Comments
blockchain

Author: Aisya Sabili
Editor: Bangkit Adhi Wiguna

Introduction

Imagine a digital character that not only speaks but also responds with a conversational style shaped by previous interactions. It is not a mass-produced product nor a generic representation, but a unique entity that can be designed, trained, and owned. Its face can be defined, its memory built from interactions, and its digital footprint tied to a wallet on the blockchain network. Through the concept of iNFTs (Intelligent Non-Fungible Tokens), Alethea AI drives a shift from AI as a mere tool to AI as a figure that can be claimed, developed, and owned. Here, ownership is positioned as Alethea AI’s new vision, presenting artificial intelligence that can be customized, possessed, and personally controlled. One click brings a persona to life, one crypto wallet secures the rights to a personality assembled by algorithms. Humans, once framed as users, are now repositioned as creators and masters of AI.

When such relationships are institutionalized within the Web 3.0 ecosystem, the question of ownership is directly tied to the digital infrastructure that governs how assets are stored, transferred, and used. This infrastructure uses blockchain, a data network stored across multiple computers at once so that it does not rely on a single point of control. Within it are smart contracts, automated programs that execute agreements and rules without the need for human intermediaries. This model forms the basis for claims of private ownership over NFTs and various token-based digital assets. From this framework emerge initiatives that integrate blockchain technology with artificial intelligence, one of which is Alethea AI, which has developed not only as a creative medium but also as a new digital network node offering ownership over intelligence in the form of iNFTs. Instead of operating under the logic of centralized platforms such as social media or conventional applications, Alethea frames itself within the rhetoric of decentralization, aiming to return power to users, open access to the creation of digital characters, and attach economic value to every interactive expression. Even so, the promise of decentralization carried by Web 3.0 does not guarantee equality of power or distribution. This is precisely where it becomes important to read Alethea as part of a digital political architecture that is not value-neutral. Decentralization opens space for technological elites and capital owners to redesign control through technical prerequisites, network access, and token economies that hinder broad participation while still maintaining the claim of openness.

What Is an iNFT and How Does Alethea AI Operate in Web 3.0

An iNFT is an advanced form of NFT that combines visual elements with artificial intelligence. Unlike conventional NFTs that are static in nature, an iNFT has the ability to speak, remember, and respond dynamically. This dynamic capability emerges from the integration of intelligence modules into smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain, ensuring that its interactive features are recorded and secured permanently[1].

The main characteristics of an iNFT include its ability to evolve through user interactions. It can possess a customized digital personality and exist within a decentralized system that ensures its ownership record remains transparent and immutable[2]. This quality positions the iNFT as an algorithmic entity that goes beyond mere visual representation, operating instead through processes of learning, adaptation, and the elaboration of digital behaviors shaped by the trace of its owner’s interactions.

Alethea AI is a pioneer in the development of iNFTs. Through this platform, users can create intelligent characters based on text descriptions via a system called CharacterGPT. These characters do not merely act as avatars but function as digital entities with voices, emotions, and intelligence that can grow over time. Alethea refers to this personality component as the Personality Pod, an additional NFT structure that stores a character’s memory, speech style, and logic in a modular form[3].

To operate and enhance an iNFT, Alethea uses a utility token called ALI (Alethea AI), which serves as the key to accessing the artificial intelligence powering the iNFT, including models such as CharacterGPT. The more tokens are staked, the broader the range of interactive capabilities the iNFT can access[4]. Ownership of the character in this sense also entails an investment in its intelligence. The issue is that this token carries governance functions, sets rules, and moderates the content produced by the iNFT. This information indicates that Alethea AI holds a central role in determining the operation and capacity of iNFTs across its entire ecosystem, which raises the question of whether the decentralization it promotes is truly being realized in full.

These characters can exist within Noah’s Ark, a virtual space or metaverse owned by Alethea, designed to enable interactions between iNFTs and to open opportunities for participatory economic activities within it[5]. Through this system, Alethea not only introduces a new form of digital identity but also reshapes the relationship between humans, data, and algorithmic intelligence.

In its further development as documented in the AI Protocol whitepaper[6], Alethea AI introduced a new structure called the ALI Agent. This form is realized as an artificial intelligence agent operating within an open ecosystem with a modular architecture, while also facilitating the exchange of resources and collaboration among digital entities. The ALI Agent is not a replacement for the iNFT, but rather an evolution born from the same system. There are significant structural and functional differences between the two. An iNFT is an NFT entity that integrates a digital avatar with personal algorithmic intelligence. It exists as a unique and fully ownable unit with personality, memory, and communication logic embedded within a smart contract. In contrast, the ALI Agent is designed not for single ownership but for access and use by a community through a system of keys, bonding curves, and participation in a social network called the Hive. An iNFT can be transformed into an ALI Agent through a registration process in the Hive Registry and integration with certain AI structures such as an advanced-level Intelligence Pod. However, this process is one way and an ALI Agent cannot be reverted back into an iNFT because it has already become part of a collective architecture with more complex functions and autonomy.

Within the Hive system, an ALI Agent can develop even further. It is not limited to running a single personality, as it can also access, absorb, or interact with intelligence from various sources, including other iNFTs, as long as the process is carried out in a modular manner and through smart contracts provided by Alethea. This makes the ALI Agent more akin to an intelligent entity active within a digital social network than to a single avatar owned privately. The transformation from an iNFT to an ALI Agent marks a shift in the model of digital agency from personal ownership toward open participation that emphasizes functionality, distribution of access, and the potential for interconnection between AI entities. Although it is based on blockchain technology that carries the narrative of decentralization, this transformation is still carried out within technical boundaries designed by a system centralized on a single main protocol.

The phenomenon of iNFTs and platforms such as Alethea AI is only possible due to the existence of an infrastructure known as Web 3.0. This web is built on the principles of decentralization, tokenization, and interoperability. Within this framework, the management of data, assets, and digital identities lies in the hands of users through a blockchain system that removes the role of a centralized authority[7]. In other words, users no longer merely access services but also control and claim digital ownership. Although the vision of “digital sovereignty” sounds appealing, the technological architecture of Web 3.0 still operates within a market logic governed by code, token economies, and algorithms that determine the distribution of opportunities and profits. Principles such as private ownership, decentralization, and creative freedom are often understood as democratic ideals, yet historically these same principles have also served as foundations for capitalist economies. Within this framework, decentralization can function not as the removal of power relations but as a means of restructuring power through technical designs that appear neutral.

The post–World War II period clearly illustrates this pattern. The narrative of democratization brought to developing countries was almost always accompanied by structural adjustment policy packages that opened markets to international capital[8].At that time, institutions such as USAID played a role in steering the economic policies of aid-receiving countries to align with the interests of global capital centers, even when framed in the language of development and freedom. The shift toward digital imperialism replaces these instruments with technological infrastructure, data centers, and algorithms as the means to govern participation and the distribution of economic value. Large technology companies use their geopolitical positioning and domestic legal frameworks to safeguard commercial interests across multiple jurisdictions, even when local regulations are designed to protect democratic integrity and the public sphere[9].

The logic at work here is not far removed from that embodied by Web 3.0 and iNFT. The language of private ownership, decentralization, and creative freedom is presented as an appeal, yet at the same time can sustain market structures governed by technical architectures created by a small number of actors. Through this design, access, forms of engagement, and conditions for participation remain determined from the center of technological control, creating the possibility for the recurrence of patterns of domination in a new form.

Selective Decentralization and the Reproduction of Economic Imperialism through iNFT

Imagining that one could own an artificial intelligence that grows and learns according to one’s guidance, like a virtual companion, might have sounded like the plot of a science-fiction story only a few years ago. Now, through platforms such as Alethea AI, that concept is materialized in the form of iNFTs, digital avatars that can be created, trained, and developed over time. When AI is not only a tool but also something that can be owned and traded, the relationship between humans and machines begins to enter a realm that has never been entirely neutral.

If such a digital character can remember, adapt its manner of speaking, and converse with a consistent personality, then ownership does not merely concern technical aspects but also power over something that engages in cognitive processes. The question is no longer whether we can build a thinking machine, but whether we should turn it into private property. At this point, the relationship between user and AI more closely resembles domestication than collaboration.

The personality integrated into the AI is built from data, and data is never neutral. The information that shapes such systems can carry the legacy of biases, whether racial, gendered, cultural, or social. Thus, when someone designs an avatar with a “wise Eastern” persona or a “humorous Latin” persona, for example, there is a risk that such a character is merely a repetition of stereotypes that have been repeatedly embedded in digital media. Personalization of personality can turn into the simplification of identity.

On the other hand, users are encouraged to train the AI through patterns of daily interaction that are converted into economic value. This system is called train-to-earn. The more the AI is trained, the more complex its capabilities become, and the greater its potential for monetization in the digital market. The narrative constructed is one of voluntary participation that offers mutual benefits, as if users were partners in the development of artificial intelligence. Christian Fuchs’ analysis of Web 2.0 reveals a similar pattern. Platforms such as Facebook and YouTube attract users with the promise of free and unlimited access to content, while the data and content they produce are unknowingly monetized by the platform[10]. This system concentrates value in the hands of token holders or platform owners, rather than the users who contribute their time and labor. It resembles a form of digital labor that is not recognized as labor, even though it generates capital[11].

In addition, not everyone can access this platform equally. To create an iNFT, users need a crypto wallet, ALI tokens, and a level of technical understanding that is not straightforward. Blockchain transaction fees are also far from cheap. These barriers limit the number of people who are able to build and manage their own assets, forcing some to rely on those who are more financially or technically powerful in order to participate. Such dependence creates opportunities for the concentration of value in the hands of dominant actors, a pattern often tied to the practices of economic imperialism[12]. As a result, access to what is called digital agency becomes limited to groups with certain levels of capital and literacy. The narrative of user freedom operates within a selective framework[13]. Behind the idea of a world without central authority, Web 3.0 still upholds new structures that are difficult to see. Power no longer rests on formal institutions, but is embedded in system design, token distribution, and technical dominance. This technology restructures social relations through the language of infrastructure and digital contracts. What is at stake is therefore not merely a technical advancement, but a political shift in a form that is not yet fully recognized[14].

Alethea AI serves as a strong example of how technology can inspire hopes for fairer digital participation while at the same time creating new tensions between control, agency, and ownership. The public is invited to create, train, and internalize artificial intelligence, yet within an infrastructure that still imposes requirements that only a portion of people can meet. In addition, there is currently no global or regional regulatory framework governing the use of interactive AI and self-growing digital assets. The European Union is drafting the AI Act for high-risk systems, including provisions on transparency and algorithmic bias[15]. However, there are still no specific rules for iNFTs or the ‘train-to-earn’ model, which blurs the boundary between labor and ownership. Without such regulation, decentralization can easily turn into one-sided freedom without accountability.

Conclusion

Decentralization is often presented as a way out of concentrated digital authority. Web 3.0 promises an open network where users can have sovereignty over their own data, identity, and assets. However, in practice, power relations do not truly disappear because they merely change form and adopt new names. Systems that appear horizontal are built on technical logics that still demand specific skills, financial capital, and proximity to certain ecosystems. Decentralization, if read uncritically, can turn into an empty narrative that conceals new and more subtle forms of centralization. The primary concern should not end with the creation of platforms or the enhancement of digital avatars, but rather with imagining how this technology can grow within a concept of decentralization and a value system achieved through the redistribution of responsibility, access, and ethics, not merely the distribution of tokens.

  1. Kenyon, T. (2021) ‘What Is an iNFT and How Does It Work?’. teampcn.com. Available at: https://teampcn.com/what-is-an-inft-and-how-does-it-work/ [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑
  2. Khan, A. (2021) ‘What is an iNFT?’, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/alethea-ai/what-is-an-inft-8ee4575806b7 [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑
  3. Craig, T. (2022) ‘NFT Project Spotlight: Alethea AI, the Intelligent Train-to-Earn NFT Hub’. CryptoBriefing.com. Available at: https://cryptobriefing.com/nft-project-spotlight-alethea-ai-the-intelligent-train-to-earn-nft-hub/ [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑
  4. Jawaid, J. (2023) ‘Alethea AI Review: iNFTs & AI on the Blockchain’. Coinbureau.com. Available at: https://coinbureau.com/review/alethea-ai-review/ [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑
  5. IQ wiki. (n.d.) ‘Alethea AI’. IQ Wiki. Available at: https://iq.wiki/wiki/alethea-ai [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑
  6. The AI Protocol, The ALI Agent, AI Protocol V3 Whitepaper, 2024, Available at: https://docs.aiprotocol.info/artificial-liquid-intelligence-agents-ali-agents/the-ali-agent [Accessed 7 Jul. 2025]. ↑
  7. Nasar, Z., Khan, M.N., Mahfooz, S. and Khan, M.F. (2023) ‘Web 3.0: A Review and its Future’, International Journal of Computer Applications, 185(10), pp. 1–6. Available at: https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume185/number10/nasar-2023-ijca-922776.pdf [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑
  8. Wadlig, G. (2025). The Eclipse of USAID by Digital Imperialism. Jacobin. Available at: https://jacobin.com/2025/02/usaid-digital-imperialism-trump-tech. ↑
  9. Curzi de Mendonça, Y., & Grenier, C. (2025). Digital imperialism: How US social media firms are using American law to challenge global tech regulation. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/digital-imperialism-how-us-social-media-firms-are-using-american-law-to-challenge-global-tech-regulation-252116. ↑
  10. Fuchs, C. (2020). Rereading Marx in the Age of Digital Capitalism. London: University of Westminster Press. Available at: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/44100. ↑
  11. Belknap, H. (2024) Ethics of Decentralized Social Technologies. Harvard Kennedy School, Ash Center. Available at: https://ash.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Ethics-of-Decentralized-Social-Technologies-1.pdf [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑
  12. ibid (Wadlig, G. (2025). The Eclipse of USAID by Digital Imperialism. Jacobin. Available at: https://jacobin.com/2025/02/usaid-digital-imperialism-trump-tech.) ↑
  13. Kirin, V. (2023) Ethics in Web3 Finance. Onchain.org. Available at: https://onchain.org/magazine/ethics-in-web3-finance [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑
  14. Sarkar, D. (2023) Centralized Intermediation in a Decentralized Web3 Economy. arXiv. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08234 [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑
  15. European Parliament. (2024) EU AI Act: First regulation on artificial intelligence. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence [Accessed 28 Jun. 2025]. ↑