Intent-based trading abstracts execution. Users declare a desired outcome, while a network of solvers competes to fulfill it. This inverts the AMM model where users must manually route through a fixed, on-chain liquidity pool.
future-of-dexs-amms-orderbooks-and-aggregators
Blog
Why Intent-Based Trading is an Existential Threat to Traditional AMMs
Intent-based systems like UniswapX and Across Protocol are not just an upgrade; they represent a fundamental paradigm shift from transaction execution to outcome fulfillment, directly siphoning volume and value from incumbent AMMs.
introduction
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Introduction
Intent-based architectures are not an upgrade to AMMs; they are a fundamental re-architecting of user interaction that renders their core mechanics obsolete.
This creates a new liquidity layer. Solvers aggregate liquidity from Uniswap V3, Curve, and centralized exchanges, while also leveraging Across and LayerZero for cross-chain settlement. The AMM becomes a passive backend, not a front-end destination.
The threat is existential. AMMs monetize failed trades (MEV and slippage). Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap eliminate this by having solvers internalize routing costs, capturing the AMM's revenue stream.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume in its first six months, demonstrating immediate demand for intent-based execution that bypasses traditional AMM router complexity.
thesis-statement
THE EXISTENTIAL SHIFT
Thesis Statement
Intent-based trading abstracts execution complexity from users, rendering the core value proposition of traditional AMMs obsolete.
Intent-based architectures invert the user model. Traditional AMMs like Uniswap V3 require users to specify how to trade (pool, route, slippage). Systems like Uniswap X and CowSwap let users specify only the what (desired outcome), delegating execution to a competitive network of solvers.
This abstracts liquidity source competition. An AMM is a single, static liquidity venue. An intent solver aggregates liquidity across AMMs (Uniswap, Curve), private market makers, and cross-chain bridges (Across, LayerZero), guaranteeing the user the best price. The AMM becomes a commodity.
The fee model collapses. AMMs earn fees from on-chain swaps. Intent solvers capture value by optimizing execution, paying AMMs only for residual liquidity. The economic moat shifts from liquidity depth to solver efficiency and cross-venue routing.
Evidence: Uniswap's own pivot. The creation of Uniswap X, which uses an intent-based, off-chain auction model, is a canonical admission that the traditional on-chain AMM design is insufficient for optimal execution.
key-trends
WHY AMMS ARE OBSOLETE
Key Trends: The Intent Onslaught
Intent-based architectures are flipping the DeFi stack, moving execution from public mempools to private solvers.
01
The Problem: MEV is a Tax on Every Swap
Traditional AMMs broadcast transactions publicly, inviting front-running and sandwich attacks that extract ~$1B+ annually from users. This is a structural flaw of the public mempool model.
- Cost: Users pay for their own exploitation via inflated gas and worse prices.
- Inefficiency: Liquidity is fragmented as users chase protection.
$1B+
Annual Extract
>90%
Swaps Vulnerable
02
The Solution: Private Order Flow to Solvers
Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap let users submit signed intents (what they want) instead of transactions (how to do it). Private solvers (e.g., Across, 1inch Fusion) compete off-chain to fulfill them optimally.
- MEV Resistance: No public transaction = no front-run.
- Price Improvement: Solvers aggregate liquidity across CEXs, DEXs, and private pools for better rates.
~$10B+
Processed Volume
0ms
Mempool Latency
03
The Existential Shift: AMMs Become a Backend
With intents, the AMM's liquidity pool is just one potential source for a solver. The user relationship and fee capture move to the intent layer (UniswapX, 1inch), reducing AMMs to commoditized infrastructure.
- Disintermediation: The front-end that aggregates solvers owns the user and the fees.
- Capital Efficiency: Solvers can use just-in-time liquidity or RFQ systems like LayerZero's OFT, bypassing locked TVL.
-80%
Protocol Fees at Risk
10x
Solver Competition
04
The Endgame: Intents as the New API
The intent standard becomes the primary interface for DeFi. Wallets and apps submit intents to a network of solvers, making execution a competitive service. This mirrors the shift from self-hosted servers to AWS.
- Composability: Cross-chain intents (via LayerZero, Axelar) become trivial.
- User Experience: Gas abstraction, batch settlements, and guaranteed execution become default.
100%
UX Focus
Any Chain
Native Reach
EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO AMVS
Paradigm Shift: Transaction vs. Intent
A first-principles comparison of the execution paradigms that define on-chain trading, highlighting why intent-based architectures are a structural threat to the AMM model.
| Core Feature / Metric | Traditional AMM (Uniswap V3) | RFQ / OTC (0x, 1inch) | Intent-Based (UniswapX, CowSwap) |
|---|---|---|---|
Execution Paradigm | User submits a signed transaction with explicit parameters (price, slippage). | User requests a quote; a professional market maker fills it off-chain via a signed message. | User submits a signed intent declaring a desired outcome; a decentralized solver network competes to fulfill it. |
Price Discovery | On-chain constant product formula (x*y=k) or concentrated liquidity. | Off-chain, via private RFQ to a curated set of professional market makers. | Off-chain competition among solvers, which can aggregate liquidity across DEXs, private pools, and OTC desks. |
Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) Exposure | High. Susceptible to frontrunning, sandwich attacks, and backrunning. | Low. Settlement is a 1:1 atomic swap, minimizing arbitrage surface. | User receives a share of MEV as a refund. Solvers internalize and compete on net user payoff. |
Gas Cost Responsibility | User pays 100% for failed and successful transactions. | User pays gas only for the final settlement transaction. | User pays zero gas. Solver pays gas and bundles intents for efficiency. |
Liquidity Source | Isolated, on-chain pool liquidity. Fragmented across venues. | Private inventory of professional market makers. Requires counterparty relationship. | Anywhere. Solvers tap DEXs (Uniswap, Curve), private pools, OTC desks, and their own inventory. |
Failure Mode & Cost | Transaction reverts; user loses gas. Slippage tolerance dictates worst price. | Quote expires; user incurs no cost. Fill is guaranteed at quoted price. | Intent expires; user incurs no cost. If unfilled, user can resubmit. |
Typical Fee for User | 0.05% - 1% pool fee + network gas + implicit MEV loss. | Typically 0-10 bps, negotiated in the quote. No network gas for quoting. | Solver's fee is baked into the quoted outcome. Often results in negative net fees (refund) due to MEV capture. |
Composability & Cross-Chain | Native to one chain. Cross-chain requires separate bridging transactions. | Typically single-chain. Cross-chain requires wrapped assets or separate bridges. | Native cross-chain intent support. Solvers use bridges like Across, LayerZero, or Chainlink CCIP for atomic cross-chain settlement. |
deep-dive
THE EXECUTION PARADIGM SHIFT
Deep Dive: How Intent Architectures Bypass AMMs
Intent-based trading abstracts execution from users and routes orders to the most efficient liquidity source, rendering on-chain AMM pools a commodity.
AMMs are execution venues. Traditional DEXs like Uniswap V3 require users to specify how to trade by interacting directly with a liquidity pool. This creates a fragmented, inefficient market where the best price is rarely found.
Intents are declarative outcomes. Users sign a message stating what they want (e.g., 'Receive 1 ETH for max 1800 USDC'), delegating the 'how' to a solver network. This separates demand from supply.
Solvers bypass pools for CEXs. Aggregators like UniswapX and CowSwap allow solvers to source liquidity from private market makers, OTC desks, or even centralized exchanges like Coinbase. The winning solver submits the cheapest route on-chain.
AMM liquidity becomes a backstop. The winning route often uses Across for bridging and a private fill, only falling back to an on-chain AMM pool if it's the best price. This commoditizes AMM liquidity.
Evidence: Over 70% of swaps on CowSwap are settled via coincidence of wants (CoWs), bypassing on-chain liquidity entirely. This demonstrates the latent demand for non-AMM execution.
counter-argument
THE REALITY CHECK
Counter-Argument: Are AMMs Really Doomed?
The threat to AMMs is not about extinction but about being relegated to a back-end settlement layer for intent-driven systems.
AMMs become liquidity backbones. Their core utility shifts from direct user interaction to providing deep, permissionless pools for solvers. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap already use this model, sourcing liquidity from AMMs like Uniswap V3 but abstracting the execution complexity away from users.
Intent architectures require settlement. Every filled intent must finalize on-chain. AMMs, with their deterministic pricing, provide the verifiable settlement layer that intent systems like Across and Anoma rely upon. They are the final, trust-minimized state transition.
The existential threat is to front-ends. The user-facing application layer—where fees and engagement are captured—migrates to intent-based aggregators. The AMM's economic moat erodes as its interface becomes a commodity, similar to how HTTP became a commodity beneath Google's search dominance.
Evidence: Uniswap's own V4 hooks represent an admission. They are an attempt to embed programmable logic directly into the pool, a defensive move to prevent AMMs from becoming dumb liquidity silos as intent abstraction advances.
protocol-spotlight
THE AMM DISRUPTION
Protocol Spotlight: The Vanguard of Intent
Intent-based architectures are flipping the on-chain trading paradigm from passive liquidity provision to active, user-centric execution, rendering traditional AMMs a legacy settlement layer.
01
The Problem: AMMs Are Dumb Pools
Traditional AMMs like Uniswap V3 are passive, stateful contracts that wait for arbitrage to correct prices. This creates inherent inefficiencies: MEV leakage, price impact from large orders, and fragmented liquidity across thousands of pools.
- Wasted Capital: Billions in TVL sits idle, earning fees only when a trader happens upon that specific pool.
- Guaranteed Loss: LPs are systematically exploited by arbitrageurs and sandwich bots, a ~$1B+ annual value transfer.
$1B+
Annual MEV Loss
Idle
Capital State
02
The Solution: UniswapX & CowSwap
These protocols shift the model from 'push' (user submits tx) to 'pull' (user declares intent). Users sign an off-chain order expressing desired outcome; a network of solvers competes to fulfill it optimally across all liquidity sources.
- MEV Reversal: Solvers internalize value (e.g., backrunning) and return it to the user as better prices.
- Liquidity Aggregation: Taps into on-chain AMMs, private OTC pools, and Across & layerzero for cross-chain fills in a single order.
~5-20%
Price Improvement
Gasless
User Experience
03
The Architecture: Solver Networks
The competitive solver market is the engine. Entities like PropellerHeads and Barter run sophisticated algorithms to source liquidity, bundle orders, and optimize execution, paying users for the right to fulfill their intent.
- Economic Flywheel: More users attract more solvers, increasing competition and improving execution.
- Cross-Chain Native: An intent for 'ETH on Arbitrum for USDC on Base' is a single signature; solvers handle the bridging via layerzero or CCIP.
100+
Active Solvers
~500ms
Auction Time
04
The Endgame: AMMs as Settlement
In the intent-centric future, AMM pools are reduced to a backstop liquidity source, not the primary venue. The value accrual shifts from passive LPs to active solvers and the protocol coordinating them.
- AMM TVL Compression: Why provide to a single pool when solvers can route to yours automatically? Fragmentation solves itself.
- Protocols Win: The coordinating layer (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) captures fees from solver competition, not from LP spreads.
>50%
Volume Share by 2025
Infra
AMM New Role
future-outlook
THE ENDGAME
Future Outlook: The Liquidity Black Hole
Intent-based architectures will systematically drain liquidity from on-chain AMMs by routing orders to the most efficient venue, regardless of chain or mechanism.
Intent-based solvers win on price. UniswapX and CowSwap solvers don't compete on liquidity depth; they compete on sourcing it. They atomically route orders across DEXs, private market makers, and bridges like Across, extracting the best price for the user. The AMM becomes a passive liquidity backstop.
AMMs become commoditized liquidity pools. The value shifts from the AMM's bonding curve to the solver's routing intelligence. Protocols like 1inch Fusion and UniswapX treat Uniswap V3 and Curve pools as interchangeable inputs, not destinations. This commoditization collapses AMM fee margins.
Cross-chain intents are the final phase. LayerZero's Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard and Circle's CCTP enable native cross-chain swaps without wrapped assets. An intent to swap ETH for USDC on Arbitrum gets filled by a solver sourcing liquidity from Base, Optimism, and Ethereum L1. Liquidity fragments across chains but aggregates in the solver network.
Evidence: UniswapX already routes over 50% of its volume through private pools and RFQ systems, bypassing its own AMM liquidity. This percentage will approach 100% as solver networks mature.
takeaways
WHY INTENTS ARE DISRUPTIVE
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
Intent-based trading abstracts away execution complexity, shifting power from liquidity pools to a competitive network of solvers.
01
The End of the Dumb Liquidity Pool
Traditional AMMs like Uniswap V3 require capital to be locked in static, inefficient ranges. Intents (via UniswapX, CowSwap) treat liquidity as a dynamic, on-demand resource.
- Capital efficiency shifts from LPs to users; idle TVL becomes optional.
- MEV protection is native; solvers compete for best net price, not front-running opportunities.
- Multi-chain execution is trivial; a single intent can be filled across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Solana without user bridging.
~90%
Less Idle TVL
1 Intent
N Chains
02
The Solver Network is the New Mempool
Execution moves from a public, adversarial mempool to a private competition among permissionless solvers (e.g., Across, 1inch Fusion).
- Price discovery happens off-chain; users get a guaranteed outcome, not a volatile transaction.
- Latency and cost become solver problems, not user problems, enabling sub-second finality.
- Composability explodes; solvers can batch, route, and hedge across any venue, making traditional AMM routing obsolete.
~500ms
Solver Latency
0 Slippage
Guaranteed
03
AMMs Become a Commoditized Backend
Intents turn AMM pools from primary venues into mere liquidity sources for solver algorithms. The value accrues to the intent infrastructure (Anoma, SUAVE, UniswapX).
- Fee capture shifts from LP fees to solver/network fees, disrupting the $2B+ annual AMM revenue model.
- Innovation stagnates at the AMM layer; all future upgrades (cross-chain, RFQ aggregation) happen at the intent layer.
- User loyalty follows the abstracted interface, not the underlying pool, eroding Uniswap's direct moat.
>50%
Fee Shift
1 Aggregator
All Liquidity
04
The Regulatory Arbitrage Play
By decoupling declaration (user intent) from execution (solver), the architecture creates a natural compliance buffer. Regulators target executors, not protocols.
- OFAC compliance can be pushed to the solver layer, keeping the core protocol neutral (see Tornado Cash precedent).
- Institutional adoption accelerates; intents mirror traditional RFQ workflows familiar to TradFi.
- Legal liability is ambiguously distributed, providing a years-long runway before clear jurisdiction is established.
Executor
Liability Target
TradFi Flow
Native Fit
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