Intent-based architectures invert the transaction model. Instead of users specifying low-level steps, they declare a desired outcome, like a token swap at the best rate. The solver network (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap, 1inch Fusion) competes to fulfill it, abstracting away complexity.
wallet-wars-smart-accounts-vs-embedded-wallets
Blog
Why User Intent Interpretation is the Next Billion-Dollar Battle
The wallet UX war is over. The new front line is the battle to interpret and execute user intents. This is a technical deep dive into the solver network arms race, pitting smart accounts against embedded wallets for control of the transaction flow.
introduction
THE FRONTEND IS THE NEW BACKEND
Introduction
The next infrastructure war will be fought not over consensus or execution, but over the abstraction layer that interprets and fulfills user intent.
The value accrual shifts from L1 block space to the intent settlement layer. Today's winners are order flow aggregators like Across and Socket, which route user intent across chains, capturing fees that bypass traditional DEXs and bridges.
The battle is for the user session, not the single transaction. Protocols that own the intent expression—through wallets, dApp interfaces, or SDKs—control the most valuable asset: predictable, bundled demand. This is why Coinbase Wallet and Rabby invest in intent engines.
thesis-statement
THE ABSTRACTION FRONTIER
The Core Thesis
The next major value capture in crypto will shift from raw infrastructure to systems that interpret and execute complex user intents.
Intent-based architectures invert the transaction model. Users declare a desired outcome, not a specific transaction path. This moves complexity from the user to a network of specialized solvers and fillers, as pioneered by CowSwap and UniswapX.
The battle is for the solver network. The protocol that aggregates the most efficient solvers for cross-chain swaps, limit orders, and gas optimization will capture the execution fee premium. This is the new moat.
Evidence: UniswapX, which outsources routing, already processes over $10B in volume. This demonstrates clear demand for intent abstraction over manual, multi-step DeFi interactions.
market-context
THE FRONTEND IS THE NEW BACKEND
The Current Battlefield
The competition to own the user's declared intent is shifting value from execution layers to the interfaces that interpret them.
Intent abstraction is the wedge. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap no longer ask users for specific transactions; they ask for outcomes. This moves the complexity of routing, batching, and MEV extraction from the user to a solver network, capturing the value of coordination.
The wallet is the new battleground. Smart accounts from Safe and intent-centric interfaces like Rainbow are becoming the primary layer for user interaction. They don't just sign; they interpret, compose, and guarantee outcomes, making the wallet SDK more critical than the underlying chain's VM.
Standardization creates moats. Projects like ERC-4337 for account abstraction and EIP-6963 for wallet discovery are not just specs; they are distribution channels. The entity controlling the dominant intent standard controls the flow of all subsequent transactions, akin to MetaMask's dominance over EIP-1193.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume in its first year by abstracting cross-chain swaps into a single intent, demonstrating users pay a premium for simplicity.
key-trends
THE NEW UX FRONTIER
Key Trends Defining the Intent Wars
The race to abstract blockchain complexity by interpreting user goals, not just executing transactions, is reshaping infrastructure and capturing billions in value.
01
The Problem: The MEV Tax
Users lose ~$1B+ annually to front-running and sandwich attacks. Every on-chain swap is a public auction for extractable value, creating a hostile UX.
- Cost: Hidden slippage and failed transactions.
- Inefficiency: Value leaks from users to searchers and validators.
$1B+
Annual Extract
~15%
Avg. Slippage
02
The Solution: Intents as Declarative Commands
Instead of specifying low-level calldata, users declare an outcome: "Swap X for Y at best price." This shifts execution risk and optimization to a competitive solver network like in UniswapX or CowSwap.
- Efficiency: Solvers compete, users get better prices.
- Simplicity: No more gas estimation or slippage tuning.
10x
More Liquidity
-90%
Failed Txs
03
The Architecture: Solver Networks & Shared Orderflows
Intent-based systems create a new layer: decentralized networks of solvers (e.g., Across, Anoma) that compete to fulfill user intents. This commoditizes block space and turns liquidity into a service.
- Competition: Price discovery moves from AMM pools to solver auctions.
- Composability: Intents can chain cross-chain actions atomically.
<1s
Solver Latency
1000+
Solver Pool
04
The Battleground: Cross-Chain Intents
The ultimate test is seamless cross-chain UX. Projects like LayerZero's Omnichain Fungible Tokens and Chainlink's CCIP are building intent-aware messaging layers, while Across uses a single-transaction bridge model.
- Unification: A single signature for multi-chain operations.
- Security: Verification shifts to intent infrastructure, not just bridges.
5 Chains
Single Intent
$10B+
Bridge TVL
05
The Risk: Centralization of Interpretation
The entity that interprets and routes the intent holds immense power. Without credible neutrality and decentralization, we risk recreating the custodial exchange model with extra steps.
- Trust: Users must trust solver sets and intent "oracles".
- Censorship: Centralized interpreters can filter or reorder intents.
1-of-N
Trust Model
Critical
Slasher Risk
06
The Endgame: Autonomous Agents & Programmable Intents
Intents evolve from one-off commands to persistent, conditional programs. Think "DCA every week" or "rebalance if TVL > X". This requires agent frameworks and secure off-chain computation, pushing towards an Ethereum-centric world computer vision.
- Automation: User becomes a set-and-forget portfolio manager.
- Complexity: Intent expression language becomes a new developer platform.
24/7
Execution
New Dev Stack
Platform Shift
USER INTENT INFRASTRUCTURE
Architectural Showdown: Smart Accounts vs. Embedded Wallets
Compares the core architectural capabilities for interpreting and executing user intent, the defining infrastructure layer for the next wave of adoption.
| Intent-Centric Feature | Smart Accounts (ERC-4337 / AA) | Embedded Wallets (MPC / Web2) | Intent-Based Relayers (UniswapX, Across) |
|---|---|---|---|
Native Intent Abstraction | |||
Gas Sponsorship (Paymaster) Model | User or dApp pays | dApp subsidizes (vendor lock-in) | Solver pays (cost bundled) |
Transaction Batching (UserOp) | Unlimited actions in 1 signature | Single action per session | Complex cross-chain routes |
Signature Scheme | Social recovery, 2FA (Smart) | MPC server-side shards | Off-chain signed order |
On-Chain Identity Footprint | Persistent contract account | Ephemeral key pairs | None (intent is the object) |
Time-to-Finality for User | < 30 sec (Ethereum L1) | < 2 sec (simulated) | ~5 min (auction period) |
Protocol Revenue Model | Bundler & Paymaster fees | SaaS subscription, tx fees | Solver MEV & fee surplus |
Primary Use Case | Sovereign wallet replacement | Frictionless dApp onboarding | Optimal cross-chain swaps |
deep-dive
THE EXECUTION LAYER
The Solver Network Arms Race
The competition to interpret and fulfill user intents is shifting value from public mempools to private solver networks.
Intent abstraction commoditizes execution. Users express desired outcomes, not transactions. Solvers compete privately to find the optimal path across DEXs like Uniswap, bridges like Across, and aggregators. The winning solver submits the final transaction, making the public mempool irrelevant for high-value swaps.
Solver performance dictates protocol dominance. A solver's edge is its access to liquidity, MEV strategies, and cross-chain state. Protocols like CowSwap and UniswapX are building exclusive solver networks because the solver with the best data and execution algorithms captures the fee. This creates a data moat that public RPC providers cannot access.
The race is for cross-chain intent supremacy. The ultimate solver network interprets intents like 'bridge this asset with the best rate in 5 minutes' across Arbitrum, Base, and Solana. It must simulate outcomes on every chain, a task requiring proprietary infrastructure that firms like Flashbots are building. The network that solves this first owns the routing layer for all DeFi.
Evidence: UniswapX, which outsources routing to a solver network, now processes over $2B in monthly volume. Its growth demonstrates that users prioritize guaranteed outcomes over manually constructing complex multi-hop transactions across individual DEXs.
protocol-spotlight
THE ABSTRACTION WARS
Protocol Spotlight: The Intent Pioneers
The next major infrastructure battle is moving from transaction execution to user intent interpretation, abstracting away blockchain complexity to capture the end-user.
01
The Problem: The User is Not a Router
Users don't want to manually split liquidity across 10 DEXs, manage gas across 5 L2s, and sign 15 transactions. They just want the best price for their trade.
- Cognitive Overhead: Current UX requires expert-level knowledge of MEV, slippage, and chain selection.
- Fragmented Liquidity: Manual routing leaves significant value on the table across venues like Uniswap, Curve, and Balancer.
- Security Burden: Each signature is a new attack vector for phishing and malicious contracts.
15+
Avg. Steps
~$200M
Annual MEV Loss
02
The Solution: Declarative Transactions
Users state a goal ("Swap X for Y at best price"), and a solver network competes to fulfill it. This shifts complexity from the user to the network.
- Auction-Based Efficiency: Solvers like those in CowSwap and UniswapX compete, turning MEV into user savings.
- Atomic Guarantees: The user gets the result or the transaction fails, eliminating partial fills and slippage surprises.
- Cross-Chain Native: Protocols like Across and LayerZero's OFT standard are building intent-based messaging layers for seamless cross-chain actions.
-90%
Slippage
~500ms
Solver Latency
03
The Battleground: Solver Network Sovereignty
The value accrual shifts from the execution layer (L1 gas) to the solver layer. Whoever aggregates the most efficient solver network wins.
- Economic Security: A robust network of searchers and fillers requires $10B+ in capital commitment for cross-chain guarantees.
- Verification vs. Execution: The protocol (e.g., Anoma, SUAVE) only needs to verify the result was correct, not execute it, enabling massive parallelism.
- Wallet Integration: The front-end is the new moat. Wallets like Rainbow and Rabby become intent gateways.
10x
Throughput Potential
$10B+
Staked Capital
04
The Endgame: Intents as a Commodity
Standardized intent schemas will emerge, making the fulfillment layer a competitive commodity. The winner owns the user relationship.
- Standardized Schemas: Common formats for swaps, bridges, and limit orders will emerge, akin to ERC-20.
- Aggregation of Aggregators: Meta-solvers will route intents to the most efficient fulfillment network (e.g., 1inch Fusion model).
- Vertical Integration: The dominant players will control the wallet, solver network, and settlement layer, capturing fees at each point.
-50%
Avg. Cost
>80%
User Retention
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRAP
The Centralization Counter-Argument
Intent-based architectures risk consolidating power into a handful of sophisticated solvers, creating a new form of centralized infrastructure.
Intent solvers become the new validators. The entity that interprets and fulfills user intent controls transaction flow and MEV. This centralizes the execution layer of intent-based systems like UniswapX or CowSwap, creating a bottleneck.
Solver cartels are inevitable. Economic incentives favor large, capital-efficient solvers, mirroring the consolidation seen in L1 mining or L2 sequencer markets. This leads to market dominance by a few players like Across or specialized MEV searchers.
The protocol is the new API. Decentralization shifts from validating state transitions to governing the intent specification standard. Control over this standard, not the blockchain, becomes the primary source of rent extraction and censorship risk.
risk-analysis
THE DARK FOREST OF INTENT
Risk Analysis: What Could Go Wrong?
The race to abstract complexity creates new, systemic attack vectors and centralization risks that could undermine the entire thesis.
01
The MEV Cartel's New Playground
Intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap centralize order flow into a few specialized solvers. This creates a new, more efficient MEV cartel.\n- Solver Collusion: A handful of dominant solvers can extract >99% of user surplus.\n- Opaque Pricing: Users trade front-running risk for 'black box' execution with no visibility into final price vs. theoretical best.
>99%
Surplus Extractable
~5
Dominant Solvers
02
The Oracle Manipulation Endgame
Intents rely on off-chain solvers referencing on-chain oracles (e.g., Chainlink, Pyth). This creates a single point of failure.\n- Solver-Oracle Collusion: A malicious solver can delay execution until oracle price is favorable, a new form of time-bandit attack.\n- Systemic Risk: A major oracle failure or latency spike could cause $100M+ in mispriced intent settlements across protocols like Across and LayerZero.
$100M+
Risk Exposure
1-2s
Critical Latency Window
03
The Centralized Sequencing Bottleneck
Fast, atomic cross-chain intent execution requires a centralized sequencer, reintroducing the very trust assumptions crypto aims to eliminate.\n- Censorship Vector: A sequencer can selectively ignore or reorder intents for profit.\n- Liveness Risk: If the primary sequencer (e.g., in an Optimistic or ZK-Rollup intent layer) fails, the entire network halts.
100%
Liveness Dependency
~500ms
Censorship Window
04
Regulatory Capture of the Abstraction Layer
By acting as a unified gateway, intent protocols become natural regulatory choke points, more so than individual dApps or L1s.\n- KYC-for-Intents: Platforms could be forced to screen user intent declarations before execution.\n- Sanctions Enforcement: A solver network is easier to pressure than a decentralized P2P network, threatening protocols like Anoma.
Single Point
Of Control
Tier-1 Jurisdiction
Legal Risk
05
The Liquidity Fragmentation Trap
Solver competition fragments liquidity across private pools and off-chain inventories, reducing public market depth and increasing systemic fragility.\n- Hidden Order Books: $10B+ in liquidity moves to private solver networks, invisible to the public.\n- Crisis Illiquidity: In a market crash, solvers withdraw, leaving users with unfulfillable intents and no fallback.
$10B+
TVL at Risk
>50%
Hidden Liquidity
06
Intent Ambiguity & Contractual Disputes
Natural language or vague intents create unenforceable smart contracts. "Get me the best price" is not a verifiable on-chain condition.\n- Solver Discretion: Leads to endless disputes over whether execution was 'good enough'.\n- Adversarial Interpretations: Malicious users can claim solver failure for profitable outcomes, requiring costly arbitration layers.
0
On-Chain Verifiability
High
Dispute Cost
future-outlook
THE INTENT WARS
Future Outlook: The Next 18 Months
The next major infrastructure battle will shift from raw execution to user intent interpretation, unlocking billions in trapped value.
Intent abstraction becomes the primary UX layer. Wallets and dApps will compete on their ability to translate user goals into optimized, cross-chain transactions, moving beyond simple token swaps to complex, conditional workflows.
The MEV supply chain inverts. Projects like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate that solving for user intent (price, speed, cost) upstream captures value from searchers and builders, redistributing it to users and protocols.
Generalized solvers create a new market. Specialized networks, inspired by Across and 1inch Fusion, will emerge to compete on solving complex intents, forming a competitive solver marketplace that commoditizes execution.
Evidence: The 80% fill rate for intents on CowSwap and the $7B+ volume for UniswapX prove users prioritize outcome guarantees over manual execution control.
takeaways
WHY INTENT IS THE NEW FRONTIER
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
The race to abstract blockchain complexity by interpreting user goals, not just executing commands, is reshaping infrastructure and capturing value.
01
The Problem: The MEV Tax on Every Transaction
Users blindly sign transactions, leaving ~$1B+ in annual MEV to searchers and validators. This is a direct, opaque tax on usability.
- Cost: Users overpay for swaps and bridges.
- Inefficiency: Simple actions require complex, manual routing.
- Security: Signing raw txs exposes users to sandwich attacks.
$1B+
Annual MEV
>5%
Slippage Tax
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction (UniswapX, CowSwap)
Users submit desired outcomes (e.g., 'Get the best price for 1 ETH'). A solver network competes to fulfill it, abstracting gas, routing, and MEV.
- Better Execution: Solvers use private mempools for optimal price.
- Gasless UX: Users sign intents, not gas-paying transactions.
- Value Capture: The protocol, not extractors, earns fees from competition.
~$10B+
Processed Volume
Gasless
User Experience
03
The Battleground: Cross-Chain Intents (Across, LayerZero)
Bridging is the ultimate intent use case. Users want assets moved, not manual liquidity provisioning.
- Architecture Shift: From locked liquidity (e.g., canonical bridges) to atomic solver networks.
- Capital Efficiency: Solvers leverage existing on-chain liquidity via fast market makers.
- Winner-Takes-Most: The network with the best solver competition and liquidity wins.
~500ms
Latency Target
-90%
Capital Locked
04
The Investment Thesis: Owning the Solver Network
Value accrues to the coordination layer, not the execution layer. This inverts the traditional L1/L2 model.
- Protocol Fees: Intent-centric protocols (e.g., UniswapX) capture fees from solver competition.
- Sticky Liquidity: The best solver network attracts the most liquidity, creating a moat.
- Vertical Integration: Winners will bundle intents across DeFi, identity, and access control.
New Fee Model
Value Accrual
Network Moats
Defensibility
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