The Future of Interoperability: Intents and Shared Sequencing

Intent-based interoperability replaces transaction execution with user outcome specification. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate this by outsourcing route discovery and execution to a network of solvers, abstracting away the underlying chain.

Shared sequencers are the critical infrastructure enabling this future. Projects like Espresso Systems and Astria provide a neutral ordering layer that decouples execution from settlement, creating a predictable environment for cross-domain MEV and atomic composability.

The old bridge model fails because it treats interoperability as a messaging problem. New architectures treat it as a coordination problem, where the sequencer acts as a global source of truth for transaction ordering across rollups.

Evidence: The success of intent-based bridges like Across, which uses a solver network to fulfill user requests, proves demand for abstraction. Its ~$9B in volume demonstrates user preference for guaranteed outcomes over manual execution.

Interoperability is shifting from execution to intent. Current bridges like Across and Stargate are asset-specific plumbing. The next paradigm, led by UniswapX and CowSwap, is intent-based architectures where users declare outcomes, not transactions.

Shared sequencing enables this intent economy. A neutral, cross-chain sequencer layer, like Espresso or Astria, provides the settlement guarantee for intent solvers. This separates the declaration of intent from its execution path.

This creates a modular interoperability stack. Intents are the application layer, shared sequencers are the settlement layer, and specialized solvers (e.g., SUAVE) are the execution layer. This is more efficient than today's monolithic bridge designs.

Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume in its first year by abstracting cross-chain swaps into intents. Shared sequencer testnets now process intent bundles for multiple rollups simultaneously.

The canonical bridge trap created a single point of failure. Bridges like Arbitrum's and Optimism's native bridges hold billions in centralized upgrade keys, making them prime targets for governance attacks and social engineering.

Third-party bridge complexity introduced new attack vectors. Protocols like Multichain and Wormhole suffered from validator compromises and signature verification flaws, proving that more moving parts increase risk.

The liquidity fragmentation problem forced users to choose between security and cost. Using Stargate for speed or Across for optimism meant trusting different security models for every hop.

Evidence: Over $3 billion was stolen from cross-chain bridges between 2021 and 2023, with the top 10 exploits accounting for 85% of the total losses.

The intent paradigm redefines user interaction. Instead of signing complex transactions, users declare desired outcomes. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap pioneered this by outsourcing execution to a solver network. This separates the 'what' from the 'how', enabling atomic cross-chain swaps without manual bridging.

Shared sequencers are the execution layer for intents. Networks like Astria and Espresso provide a neutral, decentralized block-building market. They allow rollups to outsource sequencing, creating a shared liquidity and ordering layer that enables native cross-rollup composability.

This architecture inverts the interoperability stack. Traditional bridges like LayerZero and Axelar are application-layer solutions. The intent + shared sequencer model makes atomic composability an L2 infrastructure primitive, reducing latency and fragmentation for protocols like Aave and Compound.

Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume by abstracting routing. Espresso's testnet demonstrates sub-second finality for cross-rollup transactions, proving the latency reduction of shared sequencing over optimistic bridges.

Intent-based routing introduces new trust vectors. Users delegate routing logic to solver networks like UniswapX or CowSwap, which must be economically secure against MEV extraction and censorship.

Shared sequencers create a single point of failure. Networks like Espresso or Astria centralize block production for multiple rollups, creating a liveness risk that can halt entire ecosystems.

Cross-domain atomicity remains unsolved. A failure in Across Protocol or LayerZero's verification network during a cross-chain intent settlement can leave funds in an unrecoverable state.

Evidence: The Wormhole hack exploited a centralized guardian set, a failure mode analogous to a compromised shared sequencer or intent solver network.

Intents become the primary abstraction. Users declare outcomes (e.g., 'swap X for Y at best rate') instead of signing complex multi-chain transactions. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap already abstract execution, but 2025's intent-based bridges (Across, Socket) will generalize this across all chains.

Shared sequencers enable atomic composability. Dedicated sequencing layers like Espresso and Astria will order transactions for multiple rollups. This creates a unified liquidity layer where cross-chain trades settle atomically, eliminating the fragmented MEV and failed-tx problems of today's bridging.

The interoperability stack splits into two layers. A settlement layer (e.g., rollups posting to Ethereum) handles finality. An intent fulfillment layer (e.g., SUAVE, Anoma) competes on execution quality. This separation commoditizes bridging, turning it into a low-margin utility.

Evidence: The rise of intents is measurable. UniswapX already processes billions in volume via its intent-based system, while shared sequencer testnets like Espresso's are being integrated by major L2s like Arbitrum and Polygon.