Why Account Abstraction Fails Without Intent-Centric Design

ERC-4337 Paymasters let users pay fees in any token, but they still require users to sign and broadcast a specific transaction. This fails for cross-chain swaps, MEV protection, and optimal routing.

• User still defines the 'how': Must specify exact slippage, routes, and gas.
• No MEV protection: Signed tx is vulnerable to front-running on public mempools.
• Fragmented liquidity: Cannot natively source liquidity from venues like Uniswap, Curve, and 1inch simultaneously.

Users sign a statement of desired outcome (e.g., 'Swap 1 ETH for best priced USDC on any chain'). A competitive network of solvers (like UniswapX, CowSwap) executes optimally.

• User defines the 'what': Specifies only the end state, not the path.
• Solver competition: Drives better prices, lower fees, and cross-chain execution via LayerZero or Axelar.
• Built-in MEV resistance: Intents are settled off-chain or in private mempools.

A decentralized settlement layer (e.g., Anoma, SUAVE) acts as a verifiable clearinghouse. It uses cryptographic proofs to ensure solvers fulfill the signed intent correctly before funds are released.

• Atomicity guarantee: User gets the promised asset or the transaction reverts.
• Solver slashing: Malicious or failed executions penalize the solver's stake.
• Universal compatibility: Can settle intents for ERC-4337 wallets, traditional EOAs, and even non-EVM chains.

ERC-4337's paymaster feature lets apps pay for gas, but it's a blunt instrument. It doesn't solve the core UX failure: users still must manually approve every transaction and navigate liquidity fragmentation.

• User still signs every step of a multi-chain swap.
• No price optimization across DEXs like Uniswap, 1inch, or CowSwap.
• Sponsorship is a cost center, not a value generator.

These are not just protocols; they are new architectural paradigms that start with user intent as the primitive. They separate the declaration of a goal from its execution.

• Anoma's sovereign intent coordination uses a matchmaker to find counterparties off-chain.
• SUAVE (Flashbots) creates a decentralized preference and execution market for MEV.
• Fundamental shift: The network's job is to satisfy constraints, not just process commands.

These are live, production-grade intent systems. Users submit signed orders (intents) for fill, and a network of solvers competes to provide the best execution.

• UniswapX: Aggregates liquidity across all DEXs and private market makers via off-chain order flow auctions.
• Across: Uses a unified auction for bridge liquidity, letting solvers on the destination chain fulfill the intent.
• Result: Users get better prices and guaranteed execution without managing complexity.

Intents are useless without a competitive layer of solvers. This is the engine room where economic efficiency is realized.

• Solvers (e.g., in CowSwap, UniswapX) are sophisticated bots that bundle, route, and optimize execution for profit.
• They compete on price, creating a market for execution quality.
• Critical Mass Required: A solver network needs high volume and diverse liquidity (CEX & DEX) to be effective.

Public mempools make intents vulnerable to frontrunning. True intent systems must protect order flow to be viable.

• SUAVE aims to create a neutral, encrypted mempool where solvers compute on encrypted intent data.
• CowSwap uses batch auctions settled at a uniform clearing price, neutralizing MEV.
• Without this, intent systems leak alpha and become extractive.

Native intent execution requires seamless cross-chain communication. These messaging layers are becoming the plumbing for cross-chain intent solvers.

• Not just asset transfer: They enable solvers to orchestrate actions across chains (e.g., borrow on Aave on one chain, swap on Uniswap on another).
• Critical for composability: A solver's strategy is only as good as the liquidity and functions it can access chain-agnostically.
• Becomes the settlement layer for a global intent marketplace.