User intents abstract execution complexity. Instead of specifying low-level transactions, users declare desired outcomes like 'swap X for Y at the best rate'. This shifts the burden of routing and optimization to a competitive network of specialized solvers like those in UniswapX or CowSwap.
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog
Why Intent-Based Architectures Will Redefine MEV Extraction
Intent propagation networks are shifting the MEV supply chain's power center from transaction ordering to solution finding, turning solvers into the new block builders. This analysis breaks down the mechanics and consequences.
introduction
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Introduction
Intent-based architectures are moving the locus of value extraction from searchers to solvers, fundamentally altering the MEV supply chain.
MEV extraction becomes a formalized service. In the current model, searchers compete in dark pools for extractable value. Under an intent-based model, solvers bid for the right to fulfill the intent, internalizing MEV as a competitive cost of service and returning value to the user.
This redefines the blockchain's role. The base layer transitions from a pure execution environment to a settlement and verification hub. Protocols like SUAVE and Anoma are building this new stack, where the chain's primary function is to resolve competing claims from solvers, not to sequence transactions.
key-trends
FROM TRANSACTIONS TO OUTCOMES
The Intent Revolution: Three Core Shifts
Intent-based architectures flip the script: users declare what they want, not how to do it, fundamentally altering the MEV supply chain.
01
The Problem: The Opaque MEV Supply Chain
Users sign raw transactions, exposing them to a fragmented, extractive network of searchers, builders, and validators. This creates negative-sum value extraction and poor UX.\n- ~$1B+ in MEV extracted annually, often from users\n- Front-running and sandwich attacks are systemic\n- Failed transactions waste gas on public mempools
$1B+
Annual Extract
~10%
Failed Tx Rate
02
The Solution: Declarative Execution with Solvers
Users sign intents (e.g., 'Swap X for Y at best price'). A competitive network of solvers (like in UniswapX or CowSwap) fulfills it off-chain, competing on cost and speed.\n- Permissionless solver competition drives efficiency\n- Atomic composability enables complex cross-chain swaps\n- Gasless experience for users; solvers bundle and pay
10x+
More Solvers
~0 Gas
User Cost
03
The Shift: MEV Becomes a Commodity
Value capture moves from opportunistic extraction to a competitive service fee. Solvers internalize MEV (e.g., back-running, arbitrage) to offer users better prices, transforming MEV from a tax into a subsidy.\n- Positive-sum outcomes via improved price execution\n- Protocols like Across and Anoma architect for this shift\n- Validators earn fees from bundles, not exploitation
+50 bps
Better Price
Service
MEV as Fee
ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
MEV Supply Chain: Transaction vs. Intent Models
A first-principles comparison of how value flows and is captured in the MEV supply chain under competing paradigms.
| Core Feature / Metric | Transaction Model (Status Quo) | Intent-Based Model (Emerging) | Hybrid Model (e.g., UniswapX) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Abstraction | State Transition (Execute X) | Outcome Declaration (I want Y) | Outcome Declaration with Execution Constraints |
User's Role | Micro-manager (gas, slippage, routing) | Declarative specifier | Declarative specifier |
Searcher's Role | Competitive block-space auctioneer | Competitive solver for fulfillment | Competitive solver for fulfillment |
Typical MEV Extraction Point | Block Builder / Proposer (via ordering) | Solver / Fulfiller (via optimization) | Solver (via optimization & cross-domain liquidity) |
Price Improvement Potential | Limited by user-set parameters | Theoretically unbounded via solver competition | High, via private on-chain/off-chain competition |
Cross-Domain Atomicity | Requires complex, risky bridging | Native (core primitive via solvers) | Native (core primitive via intents) |
Frontrunning Resistance | Low (public mempool exposure) | High (private order flow to solvers) | High (private order flow to solvers) |
Key Infrastructure Examples | Flashbots MEV-Boost, bloXroute | Anoma, CowSwap, Across, UniswapX | UniswapX, 1inch Fusion |
deep-dive
THE SHIFT FROM SEARCHERS TO SOLVERS
The New Power Brokers: Anatomy of a Solver Network
Intent-based architectures replace transaction ordering with a competitive market for fulfilling user goals, shifting MEV power from searchers to solver networks.
Intent-based architectures invert the MEV stack. Users submit desired outcomes, not signed transactions. This creates a competitive solver market where specialized networks like UniswapX and CowSwap compete on price and speed to fulfill these intents.
Solver networks internalize MEV extraction. Unlike public mempools, solvers like those on 1inch Fusion or Across use private order flow and off-chain computation to find optimal execution paths. This privatizes the search process, capturing value that once leaked to generalized searchers.
The new power dynamic favors aggregation. Winning solvers must aggregate liquidity across venues like Uniswap, Curve, and bridges like Stargate. This requires sophisticated routing algorithms and capital efficiency, creating high barriers to entry and network effects for incumbents.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume in its first six months, demonstrating user demand for intent-based, gasless swaps where solvers, not users, bear execution risk and compete for flow.
protocol-spotlight
THE END OF USER-SUBMITTED TRANSACTIONS
Protocol Spotlight: Intent Architectures in Practice
Intent-based architectures flip the user experience paradigm from specifying 'how' to execute to declaring the desired outcome, fundamentally altering the MEV supply chain.
01
The Problem: The MEV Tax on Every Swap
Users signing raw transactions on AMMs like Uniswap V3 are sitting ducks for generalized frontrunners. This creates a direct tax on user funds extracted via sandwich attacks and poor routing.
- ~$1B+ in MEV extracted annually from DEXs.
- Users pay for latency races they cannot win.
- Complexity of optimal routing is outsourced to bots, not protocols.
~$1B+
Annual Extract
5-50 bps
User Tax
02
The Solution: UniswapX as an Intent Orchestrator
UniswapX doesn't execute swaps; it broadcasts a signed intent for "best price across all liquidity sources." A network of off-chain solvers (Fillers) competes to fulfill it.
- Auction-based execution turns MEV into user savings.
- Gasless signing abstracts away network volatility.
- Cross-chain intents natively supported via Across Protocol.
Gasless
For User
~20%
Price Improvement
03
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity & Slippage
Manually splitting orders across dozens of DEXs and private pools is impossible for users, leading to suboptimal fills. This fragmentation is a primary source of informational arbitrage for searchers.
- Liquidity is siloed across Uniswap, Curve, Balancer, etc.
- Users bear the cost of search complexity as slippage.
10+
Major DEXs
High
Search Cost
04
The Solution: CowSwap & CoW Protocol's Batch Auctions
CowSwap aggregates intents into periodic batches, enabling coincidence of wants (CoW) and uniform clearing prices. This eliminates on-chain slippage and frontrunning within the batch.
- Batch auctions turn MEV competition into price discovery.
- Surplus maximization from ~$200M+ in solver competition.
- Native intents via ERC-1271 smart contract signatures.
$200M+
Surplus Saved
0 Slippage
In Batch
05
The Problem: Opaque Cross-Chain Execution
Bridging assets via canonical bridges or liquidity networks like Stargate forces users into a fixed execution path, often with hidden costs and latency risks. This creates cross-chain MEV opportunities for latency arbitrageurs.
- Users are locked into a bridge's specific liquidity and routing.
- No price competition for the cross-chain swap itself.
High Latency
Risk
Fixed Route
No Competition
06
The Solution: Across & LayerZero as Intent Infrastructure
Protocols like Across use a unified auction model for cross-chain intents. Relayers (solvers) compete to source liquidity optimally, using fast messaging from LayerZero or CCIP.
- Single intent can be filled from any chain's liquidity.
- Relayer competition drives down costs and improve speed to ~1-2 minutes.
- Architecture shift from locked liquidity to bonded relayers.
~2 min
Avg Fill Time
Unified Auction
Model
counter-argument
THE NEW BATTLEFIELD
The Dark Forest Grows: Critiques and Risks
Intent-based architectures shift the MEV extraction surface from transaction execution to intent expression and routing.
Solver centralization is the new risk. Intent protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap outsource execution to a competitive solver network. This creates a winner-takes-most dynamic where the fastest, best-capitalized solvers dominate, replicating the validator centralization problems of PoS.
Privacy leaks become systemic vulnerabilities. Users must reveal their intent preferences to solvers for routing. This creates a new information asymmetry that sophisticated actors like Jito Labs or Flashbots can exploit for predictive front-running before the auction concludes.
Cross-chain intents amplify complexity. Projects like Across and LayerZero that facilitate intents across domains introduce oracle risk and bridge trust assumptions. A malicious solver can exploit settlement latency differences, creating cross-domain MEV opportunities that are harder to monitor and mitigate.
Evidence: In CowSwap's model, over 90% of solver rewards are captured by the top 3 entities, demonstrating the rapid centralization of this critical infrastructure layer.
takeaways
THE INTENT REVOLUTION
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
Intent-based architectures shift the paradigm from transaction execution to outcome specification, fundamentally altering the MEV supply chain and value capture.
01
The Problem: Opaque, Adversarial MEV
Traditional transaction-based systems expose user orders to a fragmented, extractive supply chain of searchers and block builders. This creates negative-sum competition and poor UX.
- Billions in value extracted annually via frontrunning and sandwich attacks.
- User experience is defined by gas wars and unpredictable slippage.
- Protocol revenue leaks to third-party extractors.
$1B+
Annual Extract
~100ms
Race Window
02
The Solution: Declarative, Auctioned Outcomes
Intents allow users to declare a desired end-state (e.g., 'Swap X for Y at best rate'), shifting competition from transaction ordering to solution finding.
- Solvers (like those on UniswapX or CowSwap) compete to fulfill the intent optimally.
- MEV is transformed from a tax into a public, auctioned resource that can be shared or refunded.
- Enables cross-domain atomicity without user orchestration (e.g., Across, LayerZero).
>90%
Fill Rate
-20%
Avg. Cost
03
The New Stack: Intent-Centric Infrastructure
A new middleware layer emerges, decoupling expression, solving, and settlement. This creates investable primitives.
- Expressers: Wallets & dApps (like Essential, Anoma).
- Solvers: Specialized networks competing on execution quality.
- Settlement Layers: Shared Sequencers and intent-centric rollups for atomic finality.
- Auditors: Ensuring solver compliance and correctness.
New Layer
Stack
Specialized
Solvers
04
The Investment Thesis: Capturing the Flow
Value accrual shifts from L1 block space to the intent coordination layer. The entities that standardize, aggregate, and solve intents capture fees.
- Aggregation is defensible; the solver with the most order flow has the best pricing.
- Standardization (e.g., ERC-7521) creates network effects and composability.
- Vertical integration (Expresser + Solver + Settlement) can capture the full stack margin.
Flow-Based
Moats
Protocol Fee
Accrual
05
The Builder's Playbook: Integrate, Don't Rebuild
Most protocols should integrate intent standards rather than build bespoke solvers. Focus on becoming the best source of demand.
- Adopt intent standards to tap into a shared solver network for better execution.
- Design for composable outcomes (e.g., 'Swap + Stake' in one intent).
- Partner with or incentivize solver networks to prioritize your liquidity and users.
Standards
Adopt
Demand Side
Focus
06
The Risk: Centralization & Trust Assumptions
Intent architectures introduce new trust vectors and potential centralization in the solver layer.
- Solver cartels could form, replicating today's builder dominance.
- Off-chain computation requires robust fraud proofs or cryptographic verification.
- Interoperability between different intent networks is an unsolved scaling challenge.
New Trust
Vector
Solver Risk
Centralization
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