Intent-based architectures commoditize execution. Users submit declarative goals (e.g., 'swap X for Y at best rate'), not explicit transactions. This moves the competitive arena from block building, dominated by searchers and builders, to a new market for intent solvers like Anoma, UniswapX, and CowSwap.
future-of-dexs-amms-orderbooks-and-aggregators
Blog
Why Intent Solvers Create a New Form of MEV
Intent-based architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap shift the MEV game. Solvers gain a privileged, aggregated view of user demand, enabling network-level coordination and value extraction far beyond simple arbitrage.
introduction
THE NEW MEV FRONTIER
Introduction
Intent-based architectures shift the MEV game from transaction execution to solution discovery.
Solvers create a new MEV surface. The race to find and fulfill optimal solutions generates solver competition MEV. This is distinct from traditional transaction-ordering MEV; value accrues to the entity that discovers the best cross-domain route, not the one that orders the transaction in a block.
This shifts power from validators to solvers. In a transaction-based world, block proposers (e.g., Lido, Coinbase Cloud) capture MEV via PBS. In an intent-based world, specialized solvers with superior market connectivity (e.g., to Across, LayerZero, 1inch) capture value by winning auctions to serve the user's intent.
Evidence: UniswapX, which outsources routing to fillers, has processed over $5B in volume, demonstrating user demand for this abstraction. The solver network for CowSwap regularly outperforms on-chain AMMs by 20+ basis points, quantifying the value of solver competition.
thesis-statement
THE NEW MEV FRONTIER
Thesis Statement
Intent-based architectures shift the MEV supply chain from block builders to a competitive network of specialized solvers, creating a new, more efficient, and extractive market for transaction ordering.
Intent-based architectures commoditize execution. Users submit declarative goals (e.g., 'swap X for Y at best price'), not signed transactions. This transfers the responsibility of finding optimal execution paths from the user to a competitive network of specialized solvers like those on UniswapX or CoW Swap.
Solvers compete on execution quality, not just inclusion. This creates a new MEV supply chain distinct from traditional PBS. Value extraction shifts from block builders (who order transactions) to solvers who compete on pathfinding across DEXs, bridges like Across, and liquidity venues to fulfill the intent.
The solver market is winner-take-most. The most efficient solver, with the best data and routing logic, wins the right to execute the bundled intent. This centralizes a new form of informational and routing MEV into a few sophisticated players, mirroring the builder centralization in today's PBS landscape.
Evidence: On CoW Swap, solvers compete in a batch auction for the right to settle user intents. The winning solver's profit is the difference between the quoted price to the user and their actual execution cost, a direct and measurable form of extracted value.
key-trends
WHY INTENT SOLVERS CREATE A NEW FORM OF MEV
The Intent Landscape: Key Trends
Intent-based architectures shift the MEV game from adversarial searcher-bot wars to a competitive solver market, commoditizing execution and creating new value flows.
01
The Problem: JIT Liquidity & Toxic Order Flow
Traditional AMMs leak value to predatory MEV bots via sandwich attacks and JIT liquidity sniping. This creates toxic order flow that degrades LP returns and user experience.
- ~$1B+ in MEV extracted from DEXs in 2023.
- LPs face adverse selection, reducing sustainable yields.
- Users pay hidden costs via worse execution prices.
$1B+
Annual MEV
-20%
LP Yield Leakage
02
The Solution: UniswapX & the Solver-as-Service Model
UniswapX outsources routing to a competitive network of off-chain solvers. Users submit intents ("I want X token for Y token"), and solvers compete to fulfill it via the best path, including private liquidity.
- 0 gas for users (gas is bundled by the solver).
- Solvers absorb MEV risk, converting it into better prices.
- Creates a positive-sum game between users, solvers, and LPs.
0 Gas
For User
~15%
Price Improvement
03
The New MEV: Solver Extractable Value (SEV)
The value captured by solvers—Solver Extractable Value (SEV)—replaces traditional MEV. It's earned through efficient routing, cross-domain arbitrage, and private order flow aggregation, not exploitation.
- Permissionless competition drives efficiency gains to the user.
- Requires sophisticated infrastructure: Flashbots SUAVE, CowSwap solvers, Across RFQ.
- Shifts the power dynamic from block builders to intent networks.
10x+
Solver Competition
New Asset
SEV
04
The Risk: Centralization & Censorship Vectors
Solver networks introduce new trust assumptions. Dominant solver pools or exclusive order flow agreements (like those seen with Flashbots) could lead to centralization.
- Relayer/solver cartels could emerge, extracting monopoly rents.
- Potential for transaction censorship if solver set is not permissionless.
- The critical infrastructure is the intent settlement layer (e.g., Anoma, Essential).
1-3
Dominant Solvers
High
Protocol Risk
deep-dive
THE SHIFT
From Atomic Arb to Network-Level Coordination
Intent-based architectures transform MEV from a localized, adversarial game into a systemic, network-level coordination problem.
Intent-based architectures reframe MEV. Traditional MEV extraction, like atomic arbitrage on Uniswap, is a zero-sum competition between searchers. Intents, as seen in UniswapX and CowSwap, externalize execution to a solver network, turning the competitive race into a cooperative optimization problem for the best cross-domain route.
The MEV moves upstream. Value capture shifts from the block builder to the solver. The solver's role in fulfilling a user's intent across chains and venues, using bridges like Across or layerzero, creates a new solver-level MEV opportunity based on superior information and routing logic.
This creates a coordination layer. A successful intent network like CoW Protocol requires solvers to coordinate on shared state, like off-chain order flow auctions. This transforms MEV from a blockchain-specific phenomenon into a network-level coordination challenge, where the most efficient solver consortium wins.
Evidence: CoW Protocol's solver competition for batch auctions demonstrates this. Solvers don't just race; they compute optimal clearing prices across thousands of orders, creating value through coordination that individual atomic arbitrage cannot.
ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
MEV Evolution: Transaction vs. Intent-Based
Contrasts the traditional transaction-based model with the emerging intent-based paradigm, highlighting how solvers create and capture a new form of MEV.
| Architectural Dimension | Transaction-Based (e.g., Ethereum L1) | Intent-Based (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) | Solver-Centric (e.g., Across, Anoma) |
|---|---|---|---|
User Specification | Precise Transaction Path | Declarative Outcome (e.g., 'Swap X for Y at best price') | Declarative Outcome with Constraints |
Execution Responsibility | User / Wallet | Solver Network | Specialized Solver (Competitive or Auction-Based) |
MEV Source | Frontrunning, Backrunning, Sandwiching | Optimization & Routing Efficiency | Cross-Domain Arbitrage & Bundle Optimization |
MEV Capture | Validators & Searchers | Solvers & Protocol | Solvers (Revenue) & Users (Better Price) |
User Cost (Typical Slippage) | 0.3% - 2%+ (includes MEV loss) | < 0.1% (MEV converted to better execution) | Variable, often negative (user gets paid) |
Privacy Leakage | High (mempool exposure) | None (intent sent off-chain) | Controlled (solver sees intent) |
Failure Mode | Revert (gas lost) | Partial Fill or Expiry (no gas cost) | Intent Lapses (no cost) |
Composability Scope | Single-chain, single-DEX | Cross-chain, multi-venue (via Across, LayerZero) | Generalized, cross-domain (Anoma) |
protocol-spotlight
FROM FRAGMENTATION TO FLOW
Protocol Spotlight: Architectures of Intent
Intent-based systems shift the execution risk from users to a competitive network of solvers, creating a new, formalized market for transaction ordering and optimization.
01
The Problem: The User's Burden of Execution
Users today must manually navigate fragmented liquidity and complex transaction paths, exposing themselves to front-running, slippage, and failed transactions. This is the raw, inefficient MEV they currently pay.
- Manual Routing: Users must find the best DEX aggregator or bridge themselves.
- Risk Exposure: Public mempools broadcast intent, inviting front-running bots.
- Failed TX Cost: Gas wasted on reverted transactions due to stale state.
~$1.3B
Extracted MEV (2023)
>15%
Slippage on L2s
02
The Solution: Solvers as Competitive MEV Engines
Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across introduce a solver network that competes to fulfill user intents (e.g., 'swap X for Y at best rate'). Solvers internalize the search and execution risk, turning public, wasteful MEV into a private optimization game.
- Competition: Solvers use private mempools and sophisticated algorithms to find optimal execution.
- Guaranteed Outcome: Users get a signed promise (fill-or-kill) before execution.
- Efficiency Gain: Solvers batch and route across venues, capturing the efficiency gain as profit.
10-30 bps
Solver Profit Margin
~500ms
Auction Resolution
03
The New MEV: JIT Liquidity & Cross-Domain Arbitrage
Intent architectures create new, structured MEV opportunities. Solvers become Just-In-Time (JIT) liquidity providers and cross-chain arbitrageurs, formalizing value capture that was previously extractive.
- JIT Liquidity: A solver can provide liquidity in a pool only for the instant a user's swap requires it, earning fees with minimal capital risk.
- Cross-Domain Bundles: Solvers on Across or using LayerZero can atomically fulfill intents across chains, capturing arbitrage between venues.
- Formalized Revenue: This 'MEV' becomes a transparent, bid-based service fee, not a hidden tax.
$100M+
JIT Volume (30d)
>50%
Fill Rate Improvement
04
The Architectural Risk: Centralization & Censorship
The solver model trades miner/dvalidator-level MEV for potential solver-level centralization. A dominant solver network or exclusive order flow agreements could recreate the very problems intent aims to solve.
- Solver Oligopoly: High capital and tech requirements could lead to few dominant players.
- OFAC Compliance: Solvers operating under regulatory pressure may censor transactions.
- Trust Assumption: Users must trust the solver's commitment to fulfill the signed intent.
<10
Major Solver Entities
Permissioned
Key Risk
05
UniswapX: The AMM Endgame
UniswapX abstracts all AMMs and private pools into a single intent-based liquidity layer. It demonstrates how intent architectures can commoditize execution venues, turning them into backends for a solver network.
- AMM Agnostic: Solvers can route orders to any pool (v3, v4 hooks, competitors) for best price.
- Gasless Signing: Users sign off-chain orders, eliminating upfront gas costs and wallet pop-up fatigue.
- Dutch Auction Logic: Orders are filled at continuously improving prices during the auction period.
$10B+
Cumulative Volume
~0
User Gas Cost
06
The Verdict: A More Efficient, But More Complex, Market
Intent solvers don't eliminate MEV; they institutionalize and optimize it. The value extraction moves from adversarial searchers/bots to a licensed, competitive service layer. The net result is better UX and price execution for users, but introduces new systemic dependencies.
- Net Positive: Users get better prices and guaranteed outcomes, paying for a service rather than being exploited.
- New Attack Vectors: The system's security now depends on solver economics and decentralization.
- Infrastructure Play: This is a foundational shift, making projects like Ana, Essential, and Suave critical middleware.
1-2 Years
Maturation Timeline
Core Stack
Architecture Shift
counter-argument
THE MARKET STRUCTURE SHIFT
Counter-Argument: Isn't This Just Efficient Markets?
Intent-based architectures do not merely optimize existing markets; they create a new, non-atomic market structure that fundamentally redefines value capture.
Intent solvers create non-atomic markets. Traditional DEX arbitrage is a zero-sum, atomic game where value is extracted from user slippage. Solvers in UniswapX or CowSwap compete in a sealed-bid auction for a user's declared outcome, turning MEV into a positive-sum competition for execution quality.
The value capture flips from extraction to service. In an atomic market, the searcher's profit is the user's loss. In an intent-based market, the solver's profit is a fee for a service the user explicitly values, like better price or cross-chain delivery via Across or LayerZero.
Evidence: Solver revenue is not stolen liquidity. Analysis of Anoma's architecture or Flashbots SUAVE's roadmap shows the economic surplus shifts from pure arbitrage to a fee-for-service model, decoupling profitability from user detriment. This redefines the fundamental source of MEV.
risk-analysis
THE CENTRALIZER'S DILEMMA
Risk Analysis: The Bear Case for Intent MEV
Intent architectures shift complexity from users to solvers, creating a new, opaque market for value extraction.
01
The Solver Oligopoly Problem
Intent execution converges to a few dominant players. High capital requirements and data advantages create winner-take-most dynamics, mirroring the validator centralization in PoS. This centralizes trust and creates a single point of failure for censorship and capture.
- Network Effects: Winning solvers get more orderflow, improving their data models and capital efficiency.
- Barrier to Entry: Requires sophisticated MEV detection, cross-chain liquidity, and risk management, favoring incumbents like Jupiter LFG Launchpad or established DEX aggregators.
>60%
Market Share
$100M+
Capital Required
02
Opaque Pricing & Hidden Spreads
Users submit intents, not transactions, ceding pricing control. Solvers can extract value through non-competitive spreads and latency arbitrage, a form of informational MEV that's harder to audit than on-chain slippage.
- Intent Griefing: Solvers can front-run or sandwich user intents across chains using systems like LayerZero or Axelar.
- Lack of Slippage Controls: Traditional AMM slippage parameters are irrelevant; the solver's proposed fulfillment is a black box, as seen in early UniswapX transactions.
50-200 bps
Hidden Spread
~500ms
Arb Window
03
Regulatory & Compliance Attack Surface
Solver networks acting as centralized order matchers may trigger securities broker-dealer regulations. Their role in routing and batching user funds creates a clear, liable intermediary, unlike permissionless AMMs.
- KYC/AML Pressure: Centralized solvers facilitating cross-chain intents could be forced to implement identity checks, breaking pseudonymity.
- OFAC Sanctions Risk: A sanctioned solver entity could censor or manipulate transaction flows for an entire intent network like Across or CowSwap.
SEC Rule 3b-16
Regulatory Hook
100%
Censorable Flow
04
The Liveness & Censorship Trilemma
Intent systems face a trade-off between decentralization, liveness guarantees, and finality. A decentralized solver set may fail to fulfill complex intents, while a fast, centralized set is censorable. This is a core vulnerability for cross-chain intents.
- Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) Parallel: Just as PBS in Ethereum led to builder cartels, intent solving may require a similar centralized layer for reliability.
- Time-Sensitive Failure: If top solvers go offline, user intents expire, resulting in failed transactions and lost opportunities.
<2s
Solver Deadline
3-5
Dominant Solvers
future-outlook
THE NEW MEV FRONTIER
Future Outlook: The Battle for the Solver Layer
Intent-based architectures shift the competitive landscape from transaction ordering to solution discovery, creating a new, extractable value layer.
Intent-based architectures commoditize execution. By separating user intent from transaction mechanics, protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap outsource pathfinding to a competitive solver network. This transforms the value capture point from block builders to the entities that can best fulfill complex intents.
Solver competition creates extractable value. The race to find optimal execution paths for bundled intents generates Solver Extractable Value (SEV). This is distinct from traditional MEV; it's value derived from superior information processing, cross-chain liquidity discovery, and coordination, not just transaction ordering.
The solver layer will consolidate. The capital requirements for cross-domain optimization and the data advantages of solving at scale create natural oligopolies. We will see a handful of dominant solver networks, similar to the current dominance of a few block builders like Flashbots and Titan.
Evidence: Across Protocol's intent-based bridge already routes over 60% of its volume through its solver network, demonstrating the efficiency gains and the centralizing pressure within this new layer.
takeaways
INTENT-BASED MEV
Key Takeaways
Intent-based architectures shift the execution risk and complexity from users to a new class of actors called solvers, fundamentally reshaping the MEV supply chain.
01
The Problem: The User-as-Executor Model
Traditional transactions force users to specify low-level execution paths, making them vulnerable to front-running and sandwich attacks. This creates wasted gas on failed transactions and suboptimal pricing due to fragmented liquidity.
- Exposes users to predatory MEV.
- Inefficient capital locked in isolated pools.
- Poor UX requiring manual route discovery.
$1B+
Annual MEV Extracted
~15%
Slippage on L2s
02
The Solution: Declarative Intents & Solver Competition
Users declare a desired outcome (e.g., 'Get the best price for 1 ETH in USDC'). A competitive network of solvers (UniswapX, CowSwap, Across) races to fulfill it, abstracting away execution complexity.
- Shifts MEV risk from user to solver.
- Enables cross-domain liquidity via intent-based bridges like Across and layerzero.
- Creates a solver market for execution quality.
10x+
More Liquidity Sources
-90%
Failed Tx Rate
03
The New MEV: JIT Liquidity & Solver Extractable Value
Solvers generate profit not from attacking users, but from optimizing execution across a fragmented landscape. This creates Just-in-Time (JIT) Liquidity and Solver Extractable Value (SEV).
- SEV is aligned: Profit comes from efficiency gains, not user loss.
- Enables novel primitives like flash loan-lite atomic executions.
- Centralizes execution risk into professional, capital-backed entities.
$100M+
Solver Capital Deployed
<100ms
Auction Resolution
04
The Centralization Risk: The Solver Oligopoly
Efficient intent resolution requires deep capital, sophisticated algorithms, and cross-chain infrastructure, creating high barriers to entry. This risks consolidating power in a few dominant solver entities.
- Creates new trusted intermediaries (e.g., UniswapX's fillers).
- Incentivizes vertical integration of solvers, order flow, and block building.
- Threatens censorship resistance if solver set is not permissionless.
<10
Dominant Solvers
>80%
Market Share
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall