The transaction is a leaky abstraction. It forces users to specify low-level how (gas, slippage, routes) instead of high-level what (desired outcome). This creates a poor UX and centralizes expertise.
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog
Why Intent-Based Architectures Are Inevitable
Transaction-based blockchains are buckling under the weight of MEV and complexity. This analysis argues that specifying desired outcomes (intents) rather than execution steps is the only viable path forward for user-centric DeFi.
introduction
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
The Transaction is a Bug
The explicit transaction is a flawed abstraction that forces users to solve complex execution problems.
Intent-based architectures invert the model. Users declare an outcome (e.g., 'get 1000 USDC on Arbitrum'), and a solver network (like UniswapX or CowSwap) competes to fulfill it. This abstracts execution complexity.
This shift is inevitable for scaling. The current model cannot scale to billions of users. Intents commoditize execution, turning it into a competitive market. Protocols like Across and LayerZero V2 are already adopting this pattern.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B volume in 6 months by abstracting MEV and cross-chain swaps into intents, proving user demand for this simpler abstraction.
key-trends
WHY INTENT-BASED ARCHITECTURES ARE INEVITABLE
The Three Forces Driving the Intent Revolution
The shift from transaction-based to intent-based systems is not a feature upgrade; it's a fundamental realignment of blockchain's value proposition, driven by three converging market forces.
01
The Problem: User Abstraction is Broken
Users are forced to be their own quant, managing gas, slippage, and MEV across dozens of chains and dApps. This creates a ~$1B+ annual MEV tax and locks out the next billion users.\n- Key Benefit 1: Declarative, chain-agnostic commands (e.g., "swap this for that") replace manual execution.\n- Key Benefit 2: UniswapX and CowSwap prove users will pay for abstraction, routing orders off-chain to solvers.
~$1B+
MEV Tax
90%
Complexity Removed
02
The Solution: Modular Specialization
Intent architectures unbundle the monolithic user experience into specialized layers: solvers, fillers, and validators. This creates a competitive marketplace for execution, not just liquidity.\n- Key Benefit 1: Across and LayerZero demonstrate specialized solvers can achieve ~10-30% better prices than user-specified routes.\n- Key Benefit 2: Solver networks like Anoma and SUAVE turn execution into a commodity, driving costs toward zero.
10-30%
Better Price
1000+
Solver Network
03
The Catalyst: AI as the Ultimate User
AI agents cannot navigate today's fragmented, low-level transaction prompts. Intent-based systems provide the natural-language API that autonomous economic agents require to operate at scale.\n- Key Benefit 1: Enables billions of micro-transactions orchestrated by AI, impossible with manual wallet signing.\n- Key Benefit 2: Turns blockchains into a global compute backend for agentic economies, moving beyond human-paced interaction.
AI-Native
API
1000x
Scale Potential
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
From How to What: The Intent Execution Stack
Intent-based architectures abstract execution complexity, shifting user focus from 'how' to 'what'.
Intent abstraction is inevitable because users do not care about the mechanics of cross-chain swaps or liquidity routing. They specify a desired outcome, and a solver network like those in UniswapX or CowSwap competes to fulfill it. This inverts the traditional transaction model.
The execution stack separates logic. The application layer declares the 'what', while specialized intent-centric protocols handle the 'how'. This creates a competitive execution marketplace where solvers like Across and Socket optimize for cost and speed, not protocol loyalty.
This shift commoditizes infrastructure. Just as AWS abstracted servers, intent solvers abstract blockchains. The value accrues to the coordination layer and user experience, not the underlying settlement chains. Protocols become interchangeable execution backends.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume by Q1 2024, proving demand for intent-based, MEV-protected swaps. Its architecture delegates routing to a permissionless network of fillers, demonstrating the solver market model at scale.
WHY INTENTS ARE INEVITABLE
Transaction vs. Intent: A First-Principles Comparison
A feature and performance matrix comparing the dominant execution paradigms, highlighting the architectural shift from imperative transactions to declarative intents.
| Core Feature / Metric | Imperative Transaction (Status Quo) | Declarative Intent (Emerging) | Hybrid Solver Network (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) |
|---|---|---|---|
Execution Responsibility | User specifies exact steps | User specifies desired outcome | Solver competes to fulfill outcome |
Atomic Composability | |||
MEV Capture | By searchers/validators | By user/solver | Auctioned to solvers |
Optimal Route Discovery | |||
Typical Fee Premium | 10-100+ bps | 0-5 bps | 0-5 bps (solver pays gas) |
Cross-Chain Complexity | Manual bridging via LayerZero, Wormhole | Native via Across, Socket | Native via Across, Socket |
Failure State | Revert (gas lost) | Expire (no gas cost) | Expire (no gas cost) |
User Cognitive Load | High (manage gas, slippage) | Low (set constraints) | Low (set constraints) |
protocol-spotlight
FROM ABSTRACTION TO EXECUTION
The Vanguard: Who's Building the Intent Future
Intent-based architectures shift the paradigm from specifying 'how' to declaring 'what', unlocking new efficiency frontiers. These are the projects making it real.
01
Anoma: The Foundational Layer
Anoma provides the intent-centric architecture substrate. It's not an app, but a protocol for sovereign, private coordination where users broadcast intents, not transactions.\n- Privacy by default via zk-SNARKs for intent matching.\n- Multi-chain settlement as a first-class citizen, enabling cross-domain intent expression.
~0
State Leakage
1-of-N
Settlement Layer
02
UniswapX: The Aggregator Killer
UniswapX operationalizes intents for permissionless order flow. Users sign intents for token swaps, which are filled off-chain by a network of fillers competing for MEV.\n- Gasless signing eliminates upfront transaction costs for users.\n- Optimal routing via filler competition, often beating on-chain AMM prices by 10-30 bps.
Gasless
User Experience
$10B+
Volume
03
Essential & Suave: The MEV Reversal
These protocols flip the MEV supply chain by giving users and builders control. Essential provides an intent-centric rollup stack. Suave (by Flashbots) is a decentralized pre-confirmation and execution network.\n- Express complex DeFi strategies as a single, atomic intent.\n- Capture MEV for users by routing intents to the most competitive block builders.
User-Owned
MEV Flow
Atomic
Complex Execution
04
Across & LayerZero: The Cross-Chain Intent Bridge
These are evolving into generalized intent fulfillment layers. Users express a cross-chain intent (e.g., "Swap USDC on Arbitrum for ETH on Base"), and a decentralized network of solvers competes to fulfill it optimally.\n- Unified liquidity vs. fragmented canonical bridges.\n- Cost efficiency via solver competition, reducing costs by 20-60% vs. native bridges.
~60s
Completion Time
$2B+
Secured TVL
05
The Problem: Solver Centralization Risk
Intent architectures create a new centralization vector: the solver network. If a handful of solvers dominate, they become the new rent-extracting intermediaries.\n- Economic capture: Top solvers can extract >90% of order flow.\n- Censorship: A centralized solver set can blacklist addresses or intents.
>90%
Flow Capture Risk
High
Censorship Risk
06
The Solution: Credible Decentralization
The endgame requires permissionless, verifiable solver networks. This is achieved through cryptographic proofs and economic mechanisms.\n- ZK-proofs of fulfillment to allow anyone to verify solver correctness.\n- Staked, slashed solvers to align incentives and enable permissionless entry.
Verifiable
Execution
Permissionless
Solver Set
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
The Centralization Trap: The Biggest Risk to Intents
Intent-based architectures are inevitable because they are the only scalable solution to the user experience bottleneck created by fragmented liquidity and complex execution.
Intent abstraction is inevitable. Users demand simple outcomes, not complex transactions. The current model of signing precise, low-level transactions fails at scale across hundreds of chains and dApps.
The centralization risk is structural. Solving for user experience requires a solver network to handle execution complexity. This creates a natural pressure to consolidate into a few dominant, efficient solvers like those powering UniswapX or CowSwap.
Decentralization is a cost center. In a competitive solver market, the most efficient execution wins. This efficiency is achieved through private orderflow, proprietary MEV strategies, and capital scale, which are antithetical to pure decentralization.
Evidence: The dominant intent-based DEX aggregator, CowSwap, routes over 70% of its volume through a single professional solver. This is the template, not an anomaly.
takeaways
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The current transaction-based model is hitting fundamental UX and efficiency limits. Intent-based design is the next logical abstraction layer.
01
The UX Bottleneck is Terminal
Users don't want to manage gas, slippage, and failed transactions. They just want an outcome. The current model demands too much expertise.
- Key Benefit: Orders-of-magnitude simpler user flows.
- Key Benefit: Enables gasless and MEV-protected experiences pioneered by UniswapX and CowSwap.
~90%
Fewer Clicks
0 GWEI
User Gas
02
Solvers Create a Competitive Execution Layer
Intents decouple declaration from execution. A new market of solvers (like in Across and CowSwap) competes to fulfill your intent at the best price.
- Key Benefit: Drives execution costs toward theoretical minimums.
- Key Benefit: Turns MEV from a user tax into a competitive rebate via order flow auctions.
10-30%
Better Prices
$1B+
Extracted Value
03
The Modular Future is Intent-Native
As chains and L2s proliferate, managing liquidity and routing across Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos is impossible manually. Intents are the universal language for cross-chain actions.
- Key Benefit: Abstracted chain and asset complexity for developers.
- Key Benefit: Enables LayerZero, Axelar, and Chainlink CCIP to compete on fulfillment, not just messaging.
50+
Chains Abstracted
~500ms
Routing Logic
04
The Infrastructure Land Grab Has Started
The stack is crystallizing: Anoma for the foundational theory, SUAVE for the mempool/auction layer, Essential for the SDK. Building on transaction-based infra is now a legacy risk.
- Key Benefit: First-mover advantage in defining the standard.
- Key Benefit: Capture the intent flow that will underpin the next $100B+ in DeFi volume.
2024-2025
Adoption Window
10x
Valuation Multiplier
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