The Future of Trading Is Declarative, Not Imperative

Users declare desired outcomes (e.g., 'get the best price for 100 ETH'), not transaction steps. This unlocks cross-chain atomic swaps and gasless transactions.

• Key Benefit: Eliminates user-side MEV and failed tx risk.
• Key Benefit: Enables complex, multi-leg trades via a single signature.

A permissionless network of solvers (like in CowSwap and UniswapX) competes to fulfill user intents, creating a market for execution quality.

• Key Benefit: Drives costs down and execution quality up via competition.
• Key Benefit: Enables novel liquidity sources beyond AMMs (e.g., private pools, OTC).

A shared settlement infrastructure (e.g., SUAVE, Anoma) acts as a neutral clearinghouse for intents, separating declaration from execution.

• Key Benefit: Composability across chains and applications.
• Key Benefit: Centralizes security and censorship-resistance in one verifiable layer.

Decouples order routing from on-chain liquidity pools. Users sign intents, and a network of off-chain fillers competes to source the best price across DEXs, private inventory, and bridges.

• Key Benefit: Eliminates MEV for swappers via signed orders.
• Key Benefit: Enables gasless transactions and cross-chain swaps natively.

Treats bridging as a declarative intent. Users request funds on a destination chain; a relayer fulfills it instantly using liquidity pools, with fraud proofs settled later via an optimistic verification system.

• Key Benefit: ~1-2 min finality vs. 10+ minutes for canonical bridges.
• Key Benefit: Capital efficiency via a single-sided liquidity model.

Provides the foundational architecture for intent expression and solving. Anoma offers a privacy-centric intent gossip layer, while SUAVE (from Flashbots) is a decentralized block builder and solver marketplace.

• Key Benefit: Creates a competitive solver market for any declarative transaction.
• Key Benefit: Separates the concern of what from how, enabling complex cross-domain intents.

Aggregates user intents into periodic batch auctions, enabling Coincidence of Wants (CoWs) for direct peer-to-peer settlement and MEV protection.

• Key Benefit: Gas cost amortization across all users in a batch.
• Key Benefit: Surplus maximization via order flow competition and internal matching.

Building a dedicated intent-centric blockchain using the Cosmos SDK. It formalizes the intent lifecycle—from expression to fulfillment—into a sovereign, interoperable protocol.

• Key Benefit: Provides a standardized framework for intent expression and solver competition.
• Key Benefit: Enables composable intents that can chain across different applications.

Today's DeFi requires manual, imperative steps across multiple UIs, wallets, and chains. Users are their own system integrators, exposing them to MEV, failed transactions, and liquidity fragmentation.

• The Solution: A unified intent layer where a single signed statement can trigger complex, cross-chain workflows.
• The Result: Trading becomes a declarative outcome, not a series of fragile transactions.

The competitive solver model is fragile. Economic incentives favor centralization into a few dominant players who can front-run user intents or form oligopolies, recreating the MEV extraction they aim to solve.

• Risk: A few solver entities (e.g., top market makers) control >70% of flow.
• Outcome: Intents become a new, opaque order flow auction, with savings captured by solvers, not users.

Declarative systems require a shared, authoritative view of 'available liquidity' and 'best execution' across chains. This is a state oracle problem.

• Risk: Inaccurate or manipulated state data leads to failed settlements or economically harmful executions.
• Attack Vector: Solvers could be gamed by feeding bad data, similar to flash loan oracle attacks on lending protocols.

An intent to swap 1000 ETH for USDC might be split across 50 pools by a solver. If one leg fails (slippage, liquidity withdrawal), the entire atomic settlement reverts.

• Risk: High-value, complex intents have a low probability of successful fill, creating a poor UX.
• Result: Users fall back to imperative AMMs for large trades, relegating declarative to long-tail swaps.

Who is legally liable if a solver provides suboptimal execution? The user signed the intent, but the protocol's solver network facilitated it.

• Risk: Protocols like UniswapX or CowSwap become regulated entities as 'execution venues'.
• Consequence: Compliance overhead kills the permissionless, open solver model, forcing KYC and licensed operators.

Declarative UX promises 'one-click, cross-chain, best-price'. But users must still understand and set complex intent parameters: price tolerance, deadline, privacy preferences.

• Risk: Bad parameter setting leads to worse outcomes than a simple Uniswap v3 limit order.
• Reality: The cognitive burden shifts from 'how' to 'what if', which is not simpler for sophisticated users.

Declarative trading across chains is entirely dependent on the security and liveness of underlying messaging layers (LayerZero, Axelar, CCIP).

• Risk: A critical bug in an interoperability protocol can freeze or drain funds across all intent-based applications built on it.
• Systemic Risk: Concentrates trust in 2-3 bridging infrastructures, creating a new class of too-big-to-fail entities.