This is a good question. Indeed, the philosophical position known as “ontic structural realism” posits something like that, but I think it just defers the problem. Essentially you then have a circular set of relationships which define their own boundary. But this is hard to make coherent sense of. The nature of the relationships themselves is grounded in nothing, or rather a circular relationship. It is reminiscent of two propositions whose truth value depends on one another: “the statement on the other side of this paper is false”. One can insert more statements into such a circular scenario, with each statement’s truth dependent on the next until you end up at the start again, but you don’t escape the fact that truth is meaningless in such a self-referential closed loop. Truth needs to be grounded in a wider relational field to make sense.
In the case of physical entities — particles — the properties of the quantum field as a whole would then be intrinsic. But this leads to the uncomfortable situation where we cannot ask why the quantum field has these specific properties and not others. Indeed the fine tuning problem suggests that the quantum field can have different properties. Hence I find it philosophically preferable to reject the entire notion of intrinsic properties at any level.