Intent-Based Payment in the Zero-Click Economy: Impacts, Risks and Responsible Innovation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61173/40hrsv06Keywords:
Intent-Based payment, Zero-Click economy, Digital financeAbstract
Against the backdrop of the booming Zero-Click Economy, AI-driven intent-based payment has emerged as a vital innovation in digital finance, bringing unprecedented transaction convenience while triggering potential risks and ethical problems. Taking Alibaba’s Qianwen as a case study, this paper explores the operating mechanism of intent-based payment and examines its comprehensive effects from five dimensions: consumer behavior, enterprise operation, social governance, cultural psychology and technical ethics. The study reveals that intent-based payment falls into the "Frictionless Trap" while boosting efficiency, which erodes consumer sovereignty, forms enterprise data hegemony, causes regulatory gaps, and gives rise to ethical predation via affective computing and algorithmic discrimination. To address these issues, this paper proposes a systematic responsible innovation framework covering technical design, policy supervision, corporate responsibility and social participation. This research enriches the theoretical research on digital payment ethics and provides practical references for the standardized and sustainable development of intentbased payment as well as the protection of public digital sovereignty.
References
prediction, representing an important direction for digital AI-enhanced future. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2022, 5: financial innovation. However, the unrestricted develop- 890651. ment of such technology has formed a "Frictionless Trap," [4] DAVIES T, GEORGIEVA Z. Zero price, zero competition: which erodes consumer sovereignty, forms enterprise data How marketization fixes anticompetitive tying in monetized hegemony, creates regulatory vacuum, and triggers ethical markets. Environment for Innovation eJournal, 2022. predation based on affective computing, resulting in cog- [5] WANG M. Regulation of Algorithmic Decision-Making nitive debt and digital inequality. in China: Development, Problems and Implications. SSRN To balance efficiency and security, this paper constructs a Electronic Journal, 2022. multi-dimensional responsible innovation framework from [6] MCSTAY A. Emotional AI, soft biometrics and the technical design, policy regulation, corporate responsibilsurveillance of emotional life: An unusual consensus on privacy. ity and social supervision. It proposes measures such as
building a transparent layer of explainable AI, implement- Big Data & Society, 2020, 7(1): 1-68. ing mandatory algorithmic impact assessment, setting up [7] VAN DER REST J I, SEARS A M, MIAO L, et al. A note on double verification for high-value transactions and active the future of personalized pricing: cause for concern. Journal of
guardian mode for vulnerable groups. Revenue and Pricing Management, 2021, 20(2): 119-123. The research enriches the theoretical understanding of [8] LI Z, PRINCE O, WANG B, et al. Exploring Perception of automated payment ethics and provides practical refer- Platform Language on Consumer Decision Making: A Cognitive ences for the standardized development of intent-based Load Perspective. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,
payment. In the future, with the continuous iteration of 2025, 26(1): 34-52. agentic AI, the boundary between human decision and [9] SLAUGHTER R K, KOPEC J, BATAL M. Algorithms and algorithmic execution will be further blurred. Therefore, economic justice: A taxonomy of harms and a path forward how to maintain digital sovereignty while enjoying tech- for the federal trade commission. Yale Journal of Law &
nological convenience will remain a core issue in the sus- Technology, 2021, 23: 113. tainable development of digital finance. [10] SHELBY R, RISMANI S, HENNE K, et al. Sociotechnical Despite its contributions, this study acknowledges certain harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm limitations that indicate directions for future adjustment. reduction //Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness,
Firstly, the analytical scope is primarily confined to a sin- Accountability, and Transparency, 2020: 361-376. gle case study-Alibaba's Qianwen-and is deeply rooted [11] KLEANTHOUS S, KASINIDOU M, BARLAS P, et within the specific regulatory environment of China, such al. Perception of fairness in algorithmic decisions: Future
as the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL). There- developers' perspective. Patterns, 2021, 2(11): 100375. fore, the findings and the proposed responsible innovation [12] KAMINSKI M E, MALGIERI G. Algorithmic impact framework may not fully reflect the diverse market strucassessments under the GDPR: producing multi-layered tures, cultural variations, or legislative landscapes across
explanations. International Data Privacy Law, 2021, 11(2): 125- other global regions. Secondly, while this paper constructs 144. a multi-dimensional conceptual framework, the arguments [13] DOERR S, FROST J, GAMBACORTA L, et al. Population rely heavily on qualitative analysis and pilot data. It lacks long-term quantitative empirical validation regarding the ageing and the digital divide. SUERF Policy Brief, No. 402, precise psychological accumulation of "cognitive debt" or 2023.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 by the authors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
