Intent-centric design centralizes power. It shifts transaction construction from users to specialized solvers, creating a new bottleneck. This solver layer becomes the primary MEV extraction point, replacing a distributed network of searchers.
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog
Intent-Centric Design Could Centralize MEV Capture
A first-principles analysis of how generalized intent solvers, designed to protect users, may inadvertently create the most powerful and centralized MEV cartels in crypto history by controlling the flow of user desires.
introduction
THE CENTRALIZATION PARADOX
Introduction
Intent-centric design, while solving UX, creates a new vector for centralized MEV capture.
UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate the model. These protocols outsource order routing to third-party solvers who compete on price. The winning solver captures the spread, internalizing what was once public mempool MEV.
The winning solver architecture is winner-take-most. Solvers with superior capital, data, and integration (e.g., with Flashbots Protect or private RPCs) consistently win auctions. This leads to solver oligopoly, mirroring traditional finance's market-maker concentration.
Evidence: 85% of CowSwap volume is settled by a small cohort of professional solvers. The protocol's batch auctions, designed to minimize MEV, instead concentrate its capture within this privileged group.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL TENSION
The Core Contradiction
Intent-centric design optimizes for user experience but creates a natural funnel for centralized MEV extraction.
Intent-based architectures centralize routing. Users submit desired outcomes, not transactions, delegating pathfinding to specialized solvers. This creates a winner-take-most market where a few sophisticated actors like UniswapX solvers or CowSwap solvers capture the majority of order flow.
The solver role is inherently extractive. These entities compete to fulfill user intents at the best price, but their profit is the delta between public market rates and their private execution. This is MEV capture formalized as a service, shifting extraction from public mempools to private order books.
Decentralization becomes a performance tax. Truly decentralized solver networks, like those envisioned by Anoma or SUAVE, introduce latency and coordination overhead. In practice, speed and capital efficiency favor centralized, vertically-integrated operators, replicating the CEX-to-DEX liquidity dynamic.
Evidence: Solver market concentration. On CowSwap, a handful of professional market makers consistently fill over 80% of orders. This demonstrates the natural oligopoly that emerges when execution complexity is outsourced from the user.
key-trends
INTENT-CENTRIC DESIGN
The Centralization Flywheel: Three Inevitable Trends
Intent-based architectures promise a better UX, but their core mechanics create natural monopolies in MEV capture and execution.
01
The Problem: Solver Oligopoly
Intents rely on specialized solvers to find optimal execution paths. This creates a high-stakes competition where capital efficiency and data access dominate.\n- Capital advantage enables solving complex, high-value cross-chain bundles, creating a winner-takes-most dynamic.\n- Data moats from historical transaction flow and private orderbooks give incumbents like UniswapX and CowSwap solvers an insurmountable edge.
>80%
Market Share
$B+
Required Capital
02
The Solution: Centralized Sequencing
To guarantee intent fulfillment, systems naturally converge on centralized sequencers or matchmakers. This is the logical endpoint for minimizing latency and maximizing cross-domain arbitrage.\n- Fastlane networks operated by entities like Flashbots and Across become the de facto execution layer.\n- Cross-chain intents (e.g., via LayerZero) require a centralized coordinator to atomically settle across fragmented liquidity, cementing a hub-and-spoke model.
~500ms
Settlement Latency
1-of-N
Trust Model
03
The Outcome: Protocol Captivity
The most efficient intent infrastructure will be vertically integrated, capturing value that once flowed to decentralized searchers and builders.\n- MEV capture shifts from a permissionless network to a few sanctioned solver/sequencer entities.\n- Applications become dependent on a single intent infrastructure provider for reliability and cost, replicating the AWS dilemma in DeFi.
-90%
Searcher Profit
Single Point
Of Failure
INTENT-BASED ARCHITECTURES
Solver Network Concentration: A Comparative Snapshot
Comparison of solver network centralization risks and economic incentives across major intent-based protocols.
| Metric / Feature | UniswapX | CowSwap (CoW Protocol) | Across (Across v3) | LayerZero OFT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Active Solver Count (Est.) | ~10-15 | ~8-12 | ~3-5 | N/A (No Solver Role) |
Top 3 Solvers' Fill Share |
|
|
| N/A |
Solver Bond Requirement | 0 ETH (Reputation-based) | 10,000 COW (~$15K) | 1,000 ACX (~$1.5K) | N/A |
Solver Revenue Model | MEV + Fill Price Improvement | MEV + Protocol Fees | Relayer Rewards + Tips | Gas Abstraction + Native Fees |
Permissioned Solver Entry | ||||
Intent Auction Type | Open Dutch Auction | Batch Auction (1 block) | RFQ-style (Fast Fill) | Pre-configured Messaging Path |
Primary Centralization Vector | Off-chain order flow | Bond size & governance | Relayer capital & staking | Validator set & oracle |
User-Paid Fee (Avg.) | 0.1-0.3% | 0.05-0.15% | 0.05-0.1% + gas | < 0.1% |
deep-dive
THE CENTRALIZATION RISK
From Permissionless Solvers to Opaque Cartels
The shift to intent-centric architectures risks replacing transparent, permissionless MEV competition with centralized, opaque cartels of solvers.
Intent architectures centralize execution power. Permissionless block builders compete on public mempools. Intent solvers operate in private order flows, creating information asymmetry and barriers to entry.
The solver role becomes a cartel. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap rely on a small set of whitelisted solvers. This creates a closed-loop system where MEV is captured by a few entities, not redistributed to users.
Opaque competition replaces transparent auctions. On-chain auctions (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE) have verifiable outcomes. Solver competition happens off-chain, making MEV extraction and fee distribution impossible to audit publicly.
Evidence: The top three solvers on CowSwap consistently capture over 60% of order flow. This concentration mirrors the early days of Flashbots before PBS, but with less visibility.
counter-argument
THE CENTRALIZATION RISK
The Rebuttal: Isn't This Just Efficient Markets?
Intent-centric design risks consolidating MEV capture into a few sophisticated solvers, creating new centralization vectors.
Intent-centric design centralizes solver power. The most efficient solvers win the majority of orders, creating a natural oligopoly. This mirrors the validator centralization seen in Proof-of-Stake networks.
Solvers become the new rent-extractors. They internalize MEV that users currently leak to searchers. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap route orders through a permissioned set of solvers, creating a new trusted layer.
The market for solvers is not permissionless. High capital requirements and technical complexity create barriers to entry. This favors incumbent players like Flashbots SUAVE or vertically-integrated entities.
Evidence: In CowSwap, a handful of solvers consistently fill over 80% of orders. This concentration is the logical endpoint of solver competition, not a temporary phase.
risk-analysis
CENTRALIZATION VECTORS
The Bear Case: Risks of a Solver-Oligopoly
Intent-centric design outsources execution to specialized solvers, creating a new, potentially extractive, middleman layer.
01
The Economic Moat Problem
Solving complex cross-domain intents requires capital, data, and sophisticated algorithms, creating a high barrier to entry. This favors incumbents like Jupiter, 1inch Fusion, and institutional players, leading to market concentration.
- Winner-Take-Most Dynamics: Top solvers capture the most order flow, improving their data advantage in a recursive loop.
- Solver Collusion Risk: A small set of dominant solvers could coordinate on fees or extract maximal MEV, negating user benefits.
>60%
Market Share Risk
O(1)
Solver Count
02
The MEV Re-Centralization Paradox
Intents aim to democratize MEV, but solvers become the new centralized extractors. The competitive solver auction model (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) can fail if few participants exist.
- Vertical Integration: Solvers with proprietary order flow (e.g., from a frontend like Jupiter) have an insurmountable data edge.
- Cross-Chain Amplification: Solvers for protocols like Across and LayerZero control critical liquidity bridges, becoming systemic chokepoints.
$100M+
Capturable MEV
~3-5
Dominant Solvers
03
Infrastructure Fragility & Censorship
Reliance on a handful of solver networks introduces systemic risk. Their infrastructure becomes a single point of failure for intent-based ecosystems like Anoma or SUAVE.
- Geopolitical Risk: Regulators can target a few corporate solver entities more easily than a decentralized validator set.
- Execution Blackouts: Solver downtime or malicious filtering could censor entire classes of transactions (e.g., privacy-preserving swaps).
99.9%
Uptime Reliance
High
Censorship Surface
04
The Solution: Credibly Neutral Settlement
Mitigation requires enforcing solver neutrality at the protocol layer. This involves cryptoeconomic slashing, forced inclusion lists, and decentralized solver networks.
- SUAVE's Vision: A decentralized block builder and solver marketplace to prevent centralized capture.
- Anoma's Approach: Native intent gossip and matchmaking to reduce solver privilege.
- Shared Sequencers: Networks like Astria or Espresso provide a neutral execution layer, separating settlement from solving.
1000+
Solver Nodes Goal
0
Trust Assumptions
future-outlook
THE INTENT TRAP
The Fork in the Road: 2024 and Beyond
Intent-centric design, while improving UX, creates a new vector for centralized MEV capture and systemic risk.
Intent solvers become the new validators. The core promise of intents—letting users declare what they want, not how to do it—shifts execution complexity to specialized solvers like those in UniswapX or CowSwap. This creates a new, powerful execution cartel that intermediates all user transactions.
MEV is not eliminated, it is privatized. The competitive solver market for filling intents is a zero-sum game for MEV. The winning solver captures the entire surplus, consolidating value that was previously contested in public mempools. This centralizes economic power faster than Proof-of-Stake.
Systemic risk migrates to the solver layer. A dominant solver network like Anoma or SUAVE becomes a single point of failure. Its optimization algorithms and liquidity access dictate network-wide transaction ordering, replicating the centralization flaws of today's Flashbots MEV-Boost relay market.
Evidence: In Across Protocol's intent-based bridge, over 80% of relay volume is handled by three professional market makers. This is the blueprint for intent-based centralization across all DeFi.
takeaways
INTENT-CENTRIC DESIGN
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Shifting from transaction-based to intent-based architectures centralizes MEV and control into a new solver layer.
01
The Solver Oligopoly Problem
Intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap outsource execution to competitive solvers. In practice, this creates a winner-take-most market where a few sophisticated players (e.g., PropellerHeads, Barter) with superior capital and data capture the majority of order flow and MEV.\n- Centralized Control Point: Solvers become the new, centralized block builders.\n- Barrier to Entry: Requires $10M+ in capital and sub-second cross-chain infrastructure.
~80%
Top 3 Solver Share
$10M+
Capital Floor
02
The Privacy-for-Centralization Tradeoff
User privacy (hiding intent) is a primary benefit, but it requires submitting orders to a centralized intermediary (e.g., solver network, Anoma). This abstracts away the mempool but creates a new, opaque off-chain marketplace.\n- Opaque Auction: MEV extraction moves from public mempool to private solver networks.\n- Trust Assumption: Users must trust the solver's routing and fairness without on-chain proof.
0
Mempool MEV
100%
Off-Chain Auction
03
Cross-Chain Intents Cement Moats
Cross-chain intent fulfillment (via LayerZero, Axelar, Across) is the ultimate moat. Solvers with exclusive liquidity and messaging integrations become unavoidable infrastructure, replicating the validator/miner centralization problem.\n- Unavoidable Hub: Becomes the central router for cross-chain value flow.\n- Protocol Capture: DApps integrate solver SDKs, locking in their user flow.
5-10
Dominant Solvers
~200ms
Latency Edge
04
The Verifier's Dilemma & Enforcement
On-chain verification of complex, multi-chain intent fulfillment is computationally impossible. Systems rely on optimistic or zk-based attestations (e.g., Succinct, Herodotus), creating a new layer of verifiers that must be trusted.\n- New Trust Layer: Verifiers become critical, audited entities.\n- Slow Finality: Fraud proofs or proof generation add ~10 min delays to cross-chain settlements.
~10 min
Finality Delay
Audited
Trust Assumption
05
Solution: Open Solver Markets & Shared Order Flow
Prevent centralization by designing protocols that enforce open participation and shared order flow. Flashbots SUAVE aims to be a decentralized block builder and intent mempool. Force solver competition on equal footing.\n- Permissionless Solvers: No whitelists; open bidding for all orders.\n- Order Flow Auctions (OFA): Aggregate user intents and auction them publicly.
100+
Solver Pool
+30%
User Yield
06
Solution: Intents as a Public Good
Treat the intent specification standard and settlement layer as neutral infrastructure. Decouple the application layer (where users express intents) from the execution layer (solvers). This mirrors the Ethereum execution/consensus split.\n- Standardized Schemas: Common standards (e.g., ERC-7521) for intents.\n- Settlement as L1: Use a base layer (e.g., Ethereum, Cosmos) solely for final, verified settlement.
1
Settlement Layer
N
App Layers
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