Intent-based architectures invert the security model. Users declare a desired outcome, like swapping ETH for USDC on Arbitrum, instead of signing a vulnerable transaction. This shifts the risk of execution from the user to a competitive network of specialized solvers.
the-state-of-web3-education-and-onboarding
Blog
Why Intent Solvers Like Across Are Redefining User Safety
Traditional bridges force users to manage complex risk. Intent-based architectures, pioneered by Across and others, invert this model by outsourcing execution to competitive solvers who guarantee optimal outcomes, fundamentally shifting risk away from the end-user.
introduction
THE SHIFT
Introduction
Intent-based architectures are replacing transaction-based models to fundamentally improve user safety and experience.
Traditional bridges like Stargate require users to sign permissions for unlimited token allowances and complex contract calls. Intent-based systems like Across and UniswapX remove this attack surface by never receiving direct asset custody.
The safety is systemic. Solvers compete on execution quality, not just cost, creating a market for optimal routing and MEV protection. This is the core innovation behind protocols like CoW Swap and Across, moving security from user error to economic design.
key-trends
WHY INTENT SOLVERS ARE REDEFINING USER SAFETY
The Old World is Broken: Three Flaws of Direct Execution
Traditional blockchain transactions force users to become experts in gas wars, slippage, and bridge exploits. Intent-based architectures like Across flip this model.
01
The Problem: Frontrunning & MEV Extraction
Direct execution on public mempools is an open auction, exposing every trade. Users leak value to sophisticated bots through sandwich attacks and arbitrage.
- ~$1.5B+ extracted from users in 2023 alone via MEV.
- Slippage tolerance is a crude, often exploited safety net.
- The user is the product, not the client.
$1.5B+
Annual MEV
>90%
Of Users Exposed
02
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity & Bridge Risk
Users must manually find and assess dozens of canonical bridges and liquidity pools, each with its own security model and failure risk.
- $2.5B+ lost to bridge hacks since 2022.
- Manual routing leads to suboptimal rates and failed transactions.
- Security responsibility is outsourced to the user.
$2.5B+
Bridge Exploits
50+
Active Bridges
03
The Solution: Across & The Solver Network
Across uses an intent-based model where users declare what they want, not how to do it. A decentralized network of solvers competes to fulfill it optimally.
- Zero user exposure to MEV or bridge-specific risk.
- Solvers absorb execution complexity, competing on speed and cost.
- Unified security via the Across UMA Optimistic Oracle for verification.
$10B+
Secured Volume
~2 mins
Avg. Fill Time
thesis-statement
THE RISK TRANSFER
The Core Thesis: Intent Architectures Invert the Risk Model
Intent-based systems shift execution risk from the user to a competitive network of solvers, fundamentally redefining security.
Intent-based architectures invert risk. Traditional transactions force users to bear all execution risk—slippage, MEV, failed gas estimation. An intent declares a desired outcome, delegating the risk of how to achieve it to specialized solvers like those on UniswapX or Across.
Solvers compete to absorb risk. This creates a marketplace where entities like PropellerHeads or Bebop bid to fulfill user intents at the best price. The user's risk is now the solver's failure, not their own technical misstep. This aligns incentives for optimal execution.
The security model flips from trust to verification. Users no longer need to trust a single bridge like Stargate or LayerZero with their funds. They verify the final outcome delivered by a solver, which is economically compelled to succeed or face penalties and lost future revenue.
Evidence: Across Protocol's design. Across uses a competitive solver network for cross-chain intents, where solvers post bonds and are slashed for incorrect execution. This has processed billions in volume by making failure a solver's problem, not the user's.
SOLVER VS. RELAYER
Risk Transfer in Action: Traditional vs. Intent-Based Bridging
This table compares the fundamental risk model and user experience between traditional, liquidity-based bridges and modern intent-based architectures like Across.
| Risk & Performance Dimension | Traditional Bridge (e.g., Stargate, Celer) | Intent-Based Bridge (e.g., Across, UniswapX) | Hybrid Model (e.g., LayerZero OFT) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Risk Holder | User (Capital at risk in bridge pool) | Solver (Capital at risk in competition) | Protocol (Relayer network with bonded stake) |
Settlement Finality Time | 2-20 minutes (source chain confirmation + attestation) | < 1 minute (optimistic verification) | 2-20 minutes (depends on message delivery) |
Capital Efficiency | Low (locked liquidity per chain pair) | High (aggregates liquidity from DEXs, CEXs, market makers) | Medium (locked liquidity, but shared across applications) |
Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) Exposure | High (transaction order in destination mempool) | Low (solver competition for best execution) | Medium (relayer can extract value on destination) |
User Guarantee | None (success depends on relayers & liquidity) | Signed fulfillment promise from solver | None (success depends on executor) |
Typical Fee for $1k USDC Transfer | 0.3% - 0.5% + gas | 0.1% - 0.3% (includes gas) | 0.2% - 0.4% + gas |
Requires User Gas on Destination Chain | Yes | No (gas paid by solver in source token) | Yes |
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Solver's Dilemma: Aligning Incentives for Safety
Intent-based architectures shift security risk from users to solvers, creating a new incentive landscape that protocols like Across must solve.
Intent execution outsources risk. Traditional bridges like Stargate require users to sign transactions, exposing them to direct smart contract vulnerabilities. In intent models, the user signs an intent, and a solver like Across's executor network fulfills it, absorbing the execution risk.
Solvers require skin in the game. To prevent malicious or incompetent execution, protocols enforce economic security. Across uses a bonded solver model where operators stake capital, which is slashed for failures, directly aligning their financial incentive with user safety.
Safety becomes a competitive moat. In a market of solvers, reliability is the primary differentiator. A solver with a proven track record and robust risk management, like those in the Across network, attracts more order flow and earns higher fees, creating a virtuous cycle.
Evidence: Across Protocol has processed over $10B in volume with zero loss of user funds from solver failure, demonstrating that its bonded, permissioned solver set effectively internalizes and mitigates execution risk.
risk-analysis
THE SOLVER'S DILEMMA
The Bear Case: Where Intent-Based Models Can Fail
Intent-based architectures like Across and UniswapX shift risk from users to a competitive solver network, creating new systemic vulnerabilities.
01
The MEV-Censorship Nexus
Solvers compete for user intents, but the most profitable execution often involves extracting MEV. This creates a perverse incentive to censor or reorder transactions for profit, undermining the user's stated intent.\n- Centralization Risk: High-performance solvers with exclusive order flow access become de facto centralized sequencers.\n- Intent Distortion: The 'best' execution for the solver is not always the best for the user, creating a principal-agent problem.
>60%
OF MEV PROFIT
1-2
DOMINANT SOLVERS
02
The Liquidity Fragmentation Trap
Intent models promise access to all liquidity, but solvers are only as good as their integrated liquidity sources. This fragments liquidity across competing solver networks.\n- Siloed Pools: A solver without a direct connection to a niche DEX or bridge cannot fulfill certain intents, forcing suboptimal routing.\n- Oracle Dependence: Solvers rely on external price oracles; stale data leads to failed fills or losses, which may be socialized across users.
10-20
LIQUIDITY SOURCES
~500ms
ORACLE LATENCY
03
The Solver Insolvency Black Swan
Solvers often pre-fund bridges or provide gas on destination chains, taking on significant capital risk. A market crash or exploit can wipe out a solver's capital, causing a cascade of failed intents.\n- Unsecured Debt: Unlike on-chain AMMs, a solver's failure leaves users with no direct chain recourse for unfilled intents.\n- Systemic Contagion: A major solver like Across or a CowSwap solver failing could freeze billions in intent-based liquidity, reverting users to slower, manual processes.
$100M+
SOLVER CAPITAL AT RISK
Minutes
TO RECOVERY
04
The Verification Complexity Spiral
Users sign a high-level intent, not a specific transaction. Verifying that the solver's execution was truly optimal is computationally and cryptographically infeasible for the average user.\n- Opaque Execution: Solvers can hide fees in exchange rates or slippage, making true cost comparison impossible post-fact.\n- Audit Overhead: Protocols must audit the entire solver stack—off-chain logic, oracle feeds, and bridge security—a surface area far larger than a smart contract audit.
10x
AUDIT SURFACE AREA
Zero
USER VERIFICATION
future-outlook
USER SAFETY REDEFINED
Future Outlook: The Intent-Centric Stack
Intent solvers like Across are shifting security risk from users to competitive, specialized networks.
Intent abstraction eliminates user risk. Users specify a desired outcome (e.g., 'swap 1 ETH for USDC on Arbitrum'), not a transaction path. The solver network competes to fulfill this intent, absorbing execution risk from failed MEV, slippage, and bridge exploits.
Solver competition creates a security market. Unlike a monolithic bridge like Stargate, a solver network like Across or a DEX aggregator like CowSwap creates a marketplace where solvers stake capital to guarantee fulfillment. Failed execution slashes their stake, aligning incentives directly with user safety.
This redefines bridge security guarantees. Traditional security models focus on validator sets and fraud proofs. The intent-centric model guarantees results through economic security and solver redundancy. The safest path emerges from competition, not a single protocol's design.
Evidence: Across Protocol's $200M+ in solver-staked capital directly backs user intents. This economic layer, not just cryptographic proofs, is the new benchmark for cross-chain safety, forcing incumbents like LayerZero to adapt their security models.
takeaways
INTENT-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
The shift from transaction-based to intent-based architectures fundamentally changes the security and capital efficiency calculus for cross-chain applications.
01
The Problem: MEV as a Systemic Risk
Traditional bridging exposes users to sandwich attacks and front-running, with value leakage estimated at $1B+ annually. Users sign transactions with predetermined execution paths, creating predictable profit for searchers.
- UniswapX and CowSwap pioneered intent-based trading to combat this.
- Intent solvers like Across and UniswapX shift risk from the user to the solver network.
- Builders must now architect for solver competition, not just validator honesty.
$1B+
Annual MEV Leakage
>99%
Attack Surface Reduced
02
The Solution: Risk-Isolating Solver Networks
Intent architectures separate declaration from execution. Users sign what they want, not how to get it. Solvers compete to fulfill the intent, internalizing execution risk.
- Across uses a bonded network of relayers and UMA's optimistic oracle for attestations.
- This creates a capital-at-risk model where solvers are financially liable for failures.
- For builders, this means integrating a security layer that is adversarial by design, not trusted.
Bonded
Solver Security
~2s
Optimistic Window
03
The New Primitive: Programmable Intents
Intents are not just for swaps. They are composable declarations that can embed complex conditions (e.g., "bridge 1 ETH if destination gas < 20 gwei").
- This enables cross-chain limit orders and gas-optimized routing impossible with tx-based bridges.
- Protocols like LayerZero's OFT and Circle's CCTP are primitive intent systems.
- The future stack requires intent standardisation (EIP-...) and solver marketplaces.
Composable
Condition Logic
Multi-Chain
Native State
04
The Capital Efficiency Mandate
Intent solvers unlock capital re-use across chains. A solver's liquidity isn't locked in a bridge contract but can be deployed across multiple intent auctions simultaneously.
- Compare to LayerZero or Wormhole canonical bridges, which require locked, chain-specific liquidity.
- This leads to higher capital velocity and lower implicit costs for users.
- For investors, the metric shifts from TVL to Capital Turnover Rate.
10x+
Capital Velocity
-70%
Idle Liquidity
05
Across vs. The Field: A Security-First Architecture
Across prioritizes safety over latency with its optimistic validation and dispute period, contrasting with LayerZero's ultra-low latency or Chainlink CCIP's multi-network consensus.
- Its security derives from economic guarantees (UMA's oracle & bonded relayers) not cryptographic ones.
- This makes it optimal for high-value transfers where finality assurance trumps speed.
- The takeaway: not all intents are equal; match the solver's security model to the asset class.
Optimistic
Security Model
$2B+
Volume Secured
06
The Builder's Stack: Integrating Intent Infrastructure
Adopting intents requires a new middleware layer. Builders must choose between using a managed solver network (Across, UniswapX) or building a custom one.
- Key components: Intent DSL, Solver SDK, Fulfillment Oracle, and Dispute Resolution.
- The stack abstracts chain-specific logic, letting developers focus on user experience.
- The winner will be the platform that makes intent-based design as simple as today's Web3 libraries.
New SDKs
Required
UX-First
Design Paradigm
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