User intent is the new transaction. Instead of manually routing trades across Uniswap, Curve, and 1inch, users submit desired outcomes. This shifts the complexity of optimal execution from the user to a competitive network of specialized agents.
venture-capital-trends-in-web3
Blog
The Future of Trading: How Solver Networks Will Redefine DeFi
Intent-based architectures, powered by decentralized solver networks, are abstracting trading complexity and systematically capturing value from traditional MEV searchers. This is the infrastructure shift that will define the next cycle.
introduction
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Introduction
Solver networks are abstracting execution from users, transforming DeFi from a collection of protocols into a unified, competitive marketplace for liquidity.
DeFi becomes a commodity backend. Protocols like Aave and Compound become raw liquidity pools. The solver network layer, exemplified by CowSwap and UniswapX, competes to source this liquidity at the best effective price, rendering direct protocol interaction obsolete for most users.
The MEV landscape inverts. Traditional searcher-extracted MEV becomes solver-subsidized price improvement. Competition between solvers, who bundle and route intents, converts arbitrage and frontrunning profits into better prices for the end user, fundamentally realigning economic incentives.
key-trends
THE SOLVER PARADIGM SHIFT
Executive Summary
The current DeFi trading stack is a fragmented mess of liquidity, creating a multi-billion dollar opportunity for specialized execution engines.
01
The Problem: The Liquidity Fragmentation Tax
User trades are routed through a single DEX or a basic aggregator, leaving billions in MEV and price improvement on the table across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, and Solana.
- ~$3B+ in annual MEV extracted from DEX users
- Slippage costs of 30-100+ bps on large orders
- Failed transactions waste gas and opportunity
$3B+
Annual MEV
30-100+ bps
Slippage Cost
02
The Solution: The Solver Network
A competitive network of specialized bots (solvers) that bid for the right to fulfill user intents, as pioneered by CowSwap, UniswapX, and 1inch Fusion.
- Auction-based execution for optimal price
- Cross-chain & cross-venue liquidity access
- MEV capture is returned to the user as price improvement
>90%
Fill Rate
10-50%
Avg. Improvement
03
The Endgame: Intents as the New Transaction
Users broadcast what they want (e.g., "sell 100 ETH for best USDC price"), not how to do it. This abstracts away chain complexity and enables new primitives.
- Gasless, failed-transaction-free user experience
- Composable cross-chain actions via Across, LayerZero, Chainlink CCIP
- Native integration with wallets and dApps becomes the standard
0
User Gas
100%
Success Rate
04
The Infrastructure Play: Building the Solver Stack
The real value accrues to the neutral infrastructure that powers the network: order flow auctions, intent standardization, and solver tooling.
- RFQ systems & shared mempools (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE)
- Intent DSLs for expressive order types
- Solver SDKs to lower competition barriers
$10B+
Market Potential
<500ms
Auction Latency
05
The Risk: Centralization & Censorship Vectors
Solver networks concentrate power. Dominant solvers or exclusive order flow deals can recreate the very issues DeFi aims to solve.
- Proposer-Builder-Separation (PBS) models are critical
- Permissionless solver entry must be enforced
- Decentralized fraud proofs for execution verification
1-3
Dominant Solvers
High
Regulatory Scrutiny
06
The Metric: Price Improvement Per Trade
Forget TVL. The ultimate KPI for a solver network is the consistent, measurable value returned to the end-user on every swap.
- On-chain verifiable proof of better execution
- Net negative effective fees after MEV rebates
- Drives a flywheel of order flow and liquidity
Net Negative
Effective Fees
Flywheel
Network Effect
market-context
THE INCENTIVE MISALIGNMENT
The MEV Treadmill: A Broken Primitive
Current block-building models create a zero-sum game where user value is extracted by searchers and validators, not captured by protocols.
The extractive MEV economy is a tax on every transaction. Searchers like Flashbots and Jito Labs compete to front-run and sandwich trades, capturing value that should accrue to LPs or users. This creates a perverse incentive treadmill where protocols must outbid MEV bots for their own liquidity.
Solver networks like UniswapX invert this model. By moving execution off-chain into a competitive auction, they turn MEV from a tax into a rebate. Solvers (e.g., PropellerHeads, OKX) now compete to give users the best net price, internalizing value capture for the user and the protocol.
The proof is in the flow. UniswapX now routes over 40% of Uniswap's volume. Its success demonstrates that intent-based architecture is not a feature but a necessity for sustainable DeFi. The future belongs to protocols that own their execution stack, not rent it from extractive validators.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPARISON
Paradigm Shift: Transaction vs. Intent
Contrasting the user-centric intent abstraction layer with traditional transaction-based execution.
| Core Feature | Transaction Model (Status Quo) | Intent-Centric Model (Future) | Key Protocols |
|---|---|---|---|
User Action | Specify exact execution path (e.g., swap X for Y on Uniswap V3) | Declare desired end-state (e.g., get best price for X within 10s) | UniswapX, CowSwap, 1inch Fusion |
Execution Complexity | User-managed (slippage, gas, MEV) | Offloaded to specialized solvers | Across, Anoma, SUAVE |
Price Discovery | On-chain, per-pool liquidity | Cross-venue, off-chain competition | CowSwap (batch auctions), UniswapX (RFQ) |
MEV Risk Profile | User is target (front-running, sandwiching) | User is beneficiary (extracted value is refunded) | Flashbots SUAVE, CowSwap |
Gas Fee Burden | User pays for failed tx & execution | Solver pays; user pays only for successful outcome | UniswapX, Across |
Settlement Finality | ~12 seconds (Ethereum L1) | < 1 second (pre-committed by solver) | LayerZero (omnichain), Across (optimistic) |
Cross-Chain Logic | Manual bridging & multiple transactions | Single signed intent; solver handles bridging | LayerZero, Chainlink CCIP, Across |
Liquidity Access | Siloed to specified DEX/chain | Aggregated across all DEXs and chains via solvers | 1inch Fusion, Socket, Li.Fi |
deep-dive
THE VALUE PIPELINE
The Solver Network Stack: How Value Flows
Solver networks create a competitive market for execution, routing value from users to solvers to blockchains.
Value originates with user intent. A user submits a desired outcome, like swapping 100 ETH for the most USDC, without specifying the path. This intent, broadcast to a network like UniswapX or CowSwap, becomes a financial primitive solvers compete to fulfill.
Solvers bid for the right to execute. The winning solver, often a sophisticated MEV searcher or market maker, must source liquidity across DEXs like Uniswap V3, Curve, and bridges like Across or LayerZero. Their profit is the spread between the user's limit price and their execution cost.
Execution splits into on-chain and off-chain. The solver's off-chain computation finds the optimal route. The on-chain settlement is a single, atomic transaction that finalizes the trade, pays the solver, and returns funds to the user. This abstracts gas complexity.
The network captures value via fees. Protocols like CowSwap take a small fee from the solver's profit. This fee funds protocol development and, in some models, is shared with users via retroactive airdrops or token buybacks, aligning network incentives.
protocol-spotlight
SOLVER NETWORKS
Architectural Implementations: A Builder's Guide
Solver networks like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across are shifting the DeFi paradigm from passive liquidity pools to competitive, intent-driven execution.
01
The Problem: The AMM Liquidity Trap
Traditional AMMs lock capital in static pools, creating fragmented liquidity and high slippage for large trades. This is a capital efficiency problem, not a trading problem.
- Capital Inefficiency: Billions in TVL sit idle, earning minimal fees.
- Price Impact: Large trades suffer from >1% slippage routinely.
- MEV Vulnerability: Front-running and sandwich attacks extract ~$1B+ annually from users.
>1%
Avg. Slippage
$1B+
Annual MEV
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Architectures
Users submit declarative intents (e.g., "Swap X for Y at price ≥ Z"), offloading execution complexity to a competitive network of solvers. This separates liquidity sourcing from order matching.
- Unbundled Liquidity: Solvers tap CEXs, private market makers, and on-chain pools via LayerZero and Across.
- Competitive Execution: Solvers compete on price, paying users via fee rebates.
- MEV Resistance: Batch auctions and encrypted mempools, as pioneered by CowSwap, neutralize front-running.
~500ms
Auction Window
-90%
MEV Reduction
03
The Infrastructure: The Solver Stack
Building a solver network requires a specialized tech stack for routing, competition, and settlement. This is the new infrastructure layer.
- Routing Engines: Must evaluate 1000+ liquidity sources across chains in milliseconds.
- Settlement Layers: Require atomic composability via SUAVE or specialized settlement contracts.
- Economic Security: Solvers post bonds, with slashing for failed execution, creating a $10M+ cryptoeconomic security layer.
1000+
Liquidity Sources
$10M+
Security Bond
04
The Endgame: Programmable Liquidity
Solver networks evolve into generalized intent fulfillment platforms. Trading is just the first use case for a system that can execute complex, cross-chain conditional logic.
- Cross-Chain Composability: Execute actions on Ethereum, settle on Arbitrum, fund via Base—all in one intent.
- Conditional Logic: "If ETH > $4000, sell 10% and bridge to Polygon to provide liquidity."
- Market Structure Shift: Liquidity becomes a dynamic service, not a static asset, eroding the $20B+ DEX market cap.
5+
Chains Atomic
$20B+
Market Impact
counter-argument
THE DOWNSIDE
The Bear Case: Centralization, Collusion, and New Risks
Solver networks introduce systemic risks of centralization, MEV cartels, and new attack vectors that could undermine their promise.
Solver centralization is inevitable. The capital requirements and technical sophistication for optimal execution create a natural oligopoly, mirroring the validator centralization seen in early Proof-of-Stake networks. A few dominant players like CowSwap's top solvers will capture the majority of order flow.
MEV cartels will form. Solvers with private order flow and exclusive access to liquidity pools like Uniswap V3 can collude to extract value, creating a new form of miner-extractable value that is harder to detect and regulate than in block production.
New attack vectors emerge. The intent-based architecture introduces a trusted relay layer. A compromised or malicious solver in a network like Across or 1inch Fusion can steal funds, censor transactions, or manipulate prices before settlement on-chain.
Evidence: In CowSwap, the top 3 solvers consistently settle over 60% of volume, demonstrating rapid centralization. This concentration creates a single point of failure for the entire trading system.
risk-analysis
SOLVER NETWORK VULNERABILITIES
Threat Matrix: The New Attack Surfaces
Solver networks like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract complexity from users, but centralize risk in a new, opaque middleware layer.
01
The MEV Cartelization Problem
Solver competition devolves into a few dominant players with superior capital and data access, replicating CEX oligopoly dynamics.\n- Risk: Top 3 solvers capture >60% of order flow, enabling collusion.\n- Attack Vector: Private mempool access and exclusive order flow auctions (OFAs) create information asymmetry.
>60%
Market Share
~100ms
Arb Edge
02
Liquidity Fragmentation & Oracle Manipulation
Solvers source liquidity across dozens of DEXs and bridges like Across and LayerZero, creating fragile dependency chains.\n- Risk: A single manipulated price oracle can poison cross-chain intent execution.\n- Attack Vector: Sophisticated latency arbitrage between solver quote and on-chain settlement.
10+
DEX Dependencies
$500M+
Oracle Risk
03
The Insolvency Time Bomb
Solvers often pre-fund transactions or provide gasless UX, taking on counterparty risk. A major market dislocation could trigger cascading defaults.\n- Risk: Uncollateralized exposure during >12s Ethereum block time.\n- Attack Vector: Flash loan attack to intentionally create unfavorable fills, bankrupting undercapitalized solvers.
12s+
Risk Window
0
User Protection
04
Centralized Failure Points in 'Decentralized' Networks
Solver network infrastructure (RPCs, sequencers, relayer nodes) relies on centralized cloud providers, creating single points of failure.\n- Risk: AWS/Azure regional outage halts >90% of intent matching.\n- Attack Vector: DDOS on a solver's gateway prevents order fulfillment, enabling targeted attacks.
>90%
Cloud Reliance
5 Min
Downtime Impact
05
Regulatory Arbitrage as an Attack Vector
Solvers operating in unregulated jurisdictions could be compelled to censor transactions or extract value, violating protocol neutrality.\n- Risk: A state actor pressures a dominant solver to blacklist addresses, breaking the network's credibly neutral facade.\n- Attack Vector: Legal seizure of solver signing keys or order flow data.
0
Legal Shields
High
Censorship Risk
06
The Verifier's Dilemma
Users cannot feasibly verify that a solver provided the optimal execution path, creating a fundamental trust assumption.\n- Risk: Solvers can consistently skim 5-10 bps via suboptimal routing that is economically invisible.\n- Attack Vector: Opaque fee structures and rebate mechanisms hide true execution cost.
5-10 bps
Hidden Skim
$1B+
Annual Extractable
investment-thesis
THE SOLVER LAYER
Why This Is The Infrastructure Bet
Solver networks are the new execution core, abstracting complexity to enable intent-based, cross-chain DeFi.
Solver networks abstract execution complexity. They separate user intent from transaction mechanics, letting users specify what they want, not how to achieve it. This shifts the competitive battleground from front-end UX to back-end execution efficiency.
This creates a new market for block space. Solvers compete in a permissionless auction to fulfill user intents, optimizing for cost and speed across chains and liquidity sources like Uniswap, Curve, and 1inch. This is the model pioneered by CowSwap and UniswapX.
The infrastructure bet is the solver coordination layer. The winning protocol will standardize intent expression, manage solver reputation, and guarantee settlement. It is the orchestrator for cross-chain MEV, not just another aggregator.
Evidence: UniswapX, which outsources routing to solvers, now processes over 20% of Uniswap's volume. This demonstrates the clear demand for intent-based abstraction, moving value to the solver network layer.
takeaways
THE FUTURE OF TRADING
TL;DR: The Regime Change
The MEV supply chain is being unbundled. Solver networks like UniswapX and CowSwap are decoupling execution from liquidity, creating a new competitive landscape.
01
The Problem: The MEV Cartel
Today's DEX trades are captured by a cartel of searchers and builders, extracting ~$1B+ annually in value from users. This creates toxic order flow, front-running, and unpredictable slippage.
- Value Leakage: Searchers capture the spread, not LPs or users.
- Centralization Risk: ~90% of blocks are built by a handful of entities.
- Poor UX: Users get worse prices than the market can theoretically offer.
$1B+
Annual Extract
90%
Blocks Centralized
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Architectures
Users submit a desired outcome (e.g., 'Get me the most ETH for my USDC'), not a specific transaction. A competitive network of solvers (like UniswapX, CowSwap, Across) races to fulfill it optimally.
- Competition on Results: Solvers compete on price, not gas fees.
- MEV Re-captured: Extracted value flows back to the user as a better price.
- Cross-Chain Native: Intents abstract away chain boundaries, enabling seamless layerzero-style UX.
~500ms
Auction Latency
10-50 bps
Price Improvement
03
The New Primitive: The Solver Network
Solvers are the new market makers. They aggregate liquidity from all venues (DEXs, private pools, CEXs) and use sophisticated algorithms to win auctions. This creates a liquidity layer separate from the settlement layer.
- Capital Efficiency: Solvers don't need to lock capital in pools; they source it on-demand.
- Specialization: Solvers can specialize in long-tail assets, cross-chain arbitrage, or complex multi-leg routes.
- Verifiable Execution: Protocols like CowSwap use batch auctions with on-chain settlement proofs.
100+
Active Solvers
$10B+
Monthly Volume
04
The Endgame: The L1 as a Settlement Hub
With solvers competing off-chain, blockchains devolve into high-security settlement layers. Execution becomes a commodity, and the value accrues to the network that offers the fastest, cheapest finality.
- L1 Competition: Becomes about TPS and finality time, not DEX liquidity.
- App-Chain Proliferation: Specialized chains for settlement (e.g., dYdX Chain) become viable.
- Unified Liquidity: Every chain taps into the same global solver-driven liquidity pool.
<2s
Target Finality
$0.01
Settlement Cost
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