The Future of Non-Custodial Security: Intent-Centric Architectures

Anoma proposes a first-principles architecture where users broadcast intents to a shared mempool. A decentralized solver network competes to fulfill them, with validity predicates ensuring state transitions are correct.

• Key Benefit: Full-stack intent-centric L1 with native privacy via homomorphic encryption.
• Key Benefit: Separates consensus on what happened from how it was achieved, a fundamental security shift.

Developed by Flashbots, SUAVE is a decentralized block builder and solver network. It acts as a preferred environment for expressing and fulfilling complex cross-domain intents (e.g., arbitrage, bridging).

• Key Benefit: Decouples intent flow from any single chain, creating a neutral marketplace for execution.
• Key Benefit: Uses threshold encryption to keep intents private until execution, mitigating frontrunning.

These protocols use intents for cross-chain swaps. Users sign a message to send USDC on Ethereum and receive USDC on Arbitrum. A network of solvers (relayers) fulfills it, competing on speed and cost.

• Key Benefit: User experience is abstracted; no need to manage destination chain gas or complex steps.
• Key Benefit: Security model shifts from trusting a bridge's multisig to verifying the fulfillment proof on-chain.

These DEX aggregators have adopted intent-based order flow. Users submit signed orders (intents) which are routed to a network of fillers. This enables gasless, MEV-protected swaps.

• Key Benefit: Execution risk is offloaded to professional fillers, improving price and reliability.
• Key Benefit: Enables novel features like Dutch auctions and cross-chain swaps without canonical bridges.

In intent architectures, the critical trust assumption moves from the protocol's smart contracts to the economic security of the solver network. Malicious or incompetent solvers can cause liveness failures or steal funds.

• Key Problem: Requires robust solver slashing, bonding, and reputation systems.
• Key Problem: Centralization pressure as solving becomes a capital-intensive, specialized service.

The logical conclusion is wallets that act as persistent intent agents. They continuously monitor conditions and execute complex strategies (e.g., "maintain this liquidity pool position") without manual signing for each step.

• Key Benefit: True programmability of user capital without custodianship.
• Key Benefit: Shifts security finality to intent validity checks, not transaction sequencing.

Intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap rely on third-party solvers to fulfill user intents. This creates a new cartel risk where solvers can collude to extract maximal value, re-centralizing MEV. The solver market becomes the new attack surface.

• Risk: A dominant solver or cartel can censor transactions or impose rent-seeking fees.
• Mitigation: Requires robust solver competition, verifiable fulfillment proofs, and credible decentralization of the solver network.

Intents move risk from the user's private key to the fulfillment logic. The security model shifts to cryptographic accountability—proving a solver acted against the signed intent. Projects like Anoma and SUAVE are building this primitive.

• Benefit: Users are protected from malicious fulfillment; solvers can be slashed post-hoc.
• Requirement: Requires standardized intent formats and on-chain verification of fulfillment proofs, increasing computational overhead.

Intents often span multiple chains and domains (e.g., a swap on Ethereum finalized on Arbitrum via Across or LayerZero). A malicious actor can poison the intent fulfillment path, causing partial execution that leaves assets stranded in intermediate contracts.

• Vector: Exploits the time delay and conditional logic between intent declaration and final settlement.
• Defense: Requires atomic cross-chain settlement guarantees and stricter time-bound constraints on intent validity.

Complex intents ("Swap if price > X") depend on external data. The oracle for condition checking becomes a single point of failure. Manipulating this data feed allows attackers to trigger or block fulfillments maliciously.

• Example: A solver could use a manipulated price feed to fulfill a limit order at an unfair price.
• Solution: Decentralized oracle networks like Chainlink or Pyth are mandatory, but introduce latency and cost trade-offs.

Intent signatures are more powerful and complex than simple transaction approvals. A malicious dApp can trick users into signing an intent that appears benign but contains hidden, unfavorable parameters. The interpretation layer is the new phishing frontier.

• Threat: Signing interfaces must accurately simulate complex, multi-step outcomes—a currently unsolved UX challenge.
• Protection: Requires standardized intent simulation clients and hardware wallet integration for intent review.

As solvers compete for optimal fulfillment, liquidity becomes algorithmically routed across dozens of venues and chains. This creates systemic fragility—a bug or exploit in a key bridge or DEX (e.g., a LayerZero endpoint) can cascade, causing mass intent failures and liquidations.

• Impact: Black swan events could propagate faster and more widely than in isolated, transaction-based systems.
• Resilience: Demands solver risk management engines and circuit breakers for cross-domain dependencies.

Users must choose between self-custody complexity (managing gas, slippage, failed tx) or delegating control to custodial aggregators like 1inch or Metamask Swaps. This creates a ~$1B+ annual market for MEV and failed transaction waste.

• Security Risk: Approving unlimited allowances exposes assets.
• Capital Inefficiency: Funds are locked mid-transaction.
• Failed States: Transactions revert, costing gas with no result.

Architectures like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across let users sign an 'intent' (e.g., 'I want 1 ETH for max $1800') instead of a transaction. A network of solvers competes to fulfill it optimally.

• User Security: No token approvals; settlement is atomic.
• Better Execution: Solvers absorb MEV as user savings.
• Chain Abstraction: Intents are naturally cross-chain, bypassing bridge UX.

Security shifts from the user's wallet to the economic security of the solver network. Projects must design robust solver reputation systems, bonding mechanisms, and verification games (like Across's optimistic verification).

• Centralization Risk: A few dominant solvers could collude.
• Liveness Faults: Inadequate solver competition hurts prices.
• Verification Complexity: Ensuring intent fulfillment is correct and timely.

The stack splits into Intent Standardization (ERC-7521), Solver Networks, and Shared Order Flow Auctions. This creates openings for new infra like Anoma, Essential, and PropellerHeads.

• Protocol Agnostic: Intents work across any DEX or bridge.
• Composability: Solvers can bundle intents for complex DeFi strategies.
• Monetization: Auction for order flow and solver fees.

Value accrual moves from L1 gas and DEX fees to the entities that aggregate and route intents. Watch for protocols that capture exclusive order flow or build critical solver middleware.

• Winner-Take-Most: Network effects in solver liquidity are strong.
• Vertical Integration: Wallets (like Rabby) with built-in solvers have an edge.
• Regulatory Moat: Non-custodial intent fulfillment is a defensible position.

Intents are the native language for agentic systems. A user's long-term financial strategy (e.g., 'maintain 60/40 portfolio') becomes a persistent intent, managed by autonomous agents interacting with solver markets.

• Continuous Optimization: Capital is always working optimally.
• True Abstraction: Users interact with goals, not protocols.
• New Primitives: Intent-based credit and risk markets emerge.