Current transaction models are broken. Users must manually manage gas, slippage, and multi-step routing across chains and DEXs, a process that is opaque and error-prone.
e-commerce-and-crypto-payments-future
Blog
Why Intent-Based Architectures Are the Future of User-Centric Payments
Transaction-based UX is broken. Intent-based architectures shift execution risk to competitive solver networks, guaranteeing users their desired outcome. This analysis explores the mechanics, key protocols, and why this shift is inevitable for mainstream adoption.
introduction
THE USER EXPERIENCE FAILURE
Introduction
Traditional transaction models burden users with operational complexity, creating a fundamental barrier to adoption.
Intent-based architectures invert this paradigm. Users declare a desired outcome (e.g., 'swap X for Y on Arbitrum'), and a decentralized network of solvers competes to fulfill it optimally, abstracting all complexity.
This is not a marginal improvement. It shifts the burden of execution from the user to the network, mirroring the evolution from command-line interfaces to search engines.
Evidence: Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate this shift, outsourcing routing and MEV protection to solvers, resulting in better prices and guaranteed execution.
key-trends
FROM TRANSACTION MACHINES TO OUTCOME ENGINES
Executive Summary
Current blockchain UX fails at payments: users manage gas, slippage, and liquidity across chains. Intent-based architectures flip this model, letting users declare what they want, not how to do it.
01
The Problem: The Transaction Tax
Every payment is a manual engineering puzzle. Users must: \n- Manually source liquidity across DEXs and bridges.\n- Pre-fund gas in the correct native token on the destination chain.\n- Constantly monitor for failed transactions and slippage, paying for their own mistakes.
~40%
Failed Txns
5+ Steps
Per Swap
02
The Solution: Declarative, Not Imperative
Users state an outcome: 'Swap 1 ETH for USDC on Arbitrum at best rate.' A solver network (like UniswapX or CowSwap) competes to fulfill it. This abstracts away: \n- Gas management (solvers pay it).\n- Cross-chain routing (via intents on Across or LayerZero).\n- Liquidity fragmentation (solvers aggregate it).
10x
Faster UX
-70%
Slippage
03
The Pivot: From Wallet to Agent
Wallets become intent-signing interfaces, not transaction constructors. The real infrastructure shifts to specialized intent solvers and shared sequencers (like Anoma, SUAVE) that match and batch user intents off-chain. This creates a competitive marketplace for execution, driving down costs.
$10B+
Solver Market
~500ms
Match Latency
04
The Endgame: Programmable Money Flows
Intents are composable primitives. A single signed intent can trigger a cascade of conditional actions: 'Pay invoice in USDC, auto-swap revenue to ETH, and bridge to L2 for staking.' This enables autonomous business logic without smart contract complexity, making crypto payments viable for real commerce.
1 Signature
Multi-Chain Flow
Zero-Gas
For User
thesis-statement
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
The Core Argument: From Transactions to Outcomes
Intent-based architectures invert the user's role from specifying low-level execution steps to declaring a desired end state.
Users declare outcomes, not steps. A transaction specifies a precise sequence of actions; an intent declares a goal, like 'get 1 ETH on Arbitrum for the best net price'. This shifts complexity from the user's wallet to a network of specialized solvers.
Solvers compete on execution. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate this model: users sign intents, and off-chain solvers compete in auctions to find optimal routes across DEXs, bridges like Across or LayerZero, and aggregators.
The wallet becomes declarative. Instead of managing gas, slippage, and bridging steps, the user interface captures intent. The solver network handles the messy, multi-chain execution, abstracting away the underlying infrastructure.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume in its first six months by letting solvers internalize MEV and optimize for user price, proving the economic viability of intent-based settlement.
market-context
THE COGNITIVE TAX
The Broken State of Transaction-Based UX
Traditional transaction models force users to become network operators, creating a UX dead-end that intent-based architectures solve.
Users are not network operators. Transaction-based models like Ethereum's force users to specify low-level execution details—gas, slippage, routing—which is a category error. This creates a massive cognitive tax and exposes them to MEV.
Intent-based architectures invert the paradigm. Users declare a desired outcome (e.g., 'swap X for Y on any chain'), and a solver network competes to fulfill it optimally. This abstracts complexity, shifting the burden from the user to the protocol.
The evidence is in adoption. UniswapX and CoW Swap demonstrate that intent-based trading captures significant volume by aggregating liquidity and minimizing MEV. This proves the demand for declarative, not imperative, interactions.
The future is declarative. The shift from transaction-based to intent-based systems mirrors the evolution from assembly code to high-level languages. Protocols like Across and Anoma are building the infrastructure for this user-centric future.
THE USER EXPERIENCE DIVIDE
Transaction vs. Intent: A Feature Matrix
A first-principles comparison of the dominant execution paradigms, highlighting why intent-based architectures like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across are redefining user-centric payments.
| Feature / Metric | Direct Transaction (e.g., Uniswap V3) | Intent-Based Settlement (e.g., Uniswap X, CowSwap) | Why Intent Wins |
|---|---|---|---|
User Responsibility | Specify exact execution path (router, DEX, chain) | Declare desired outcome (e.g., 'Get best price for 1 ETH') | Shifts burden from user to solver network |
Optimal Execution Guarantee | Solver competition and MEV extraction reverse-auction ensures best price | ||
Cross-Chain Atomicity | Native support via protocols like Across and LayerZero; user sees single 'intent' | ||
Gas Fee Optimization | User pays for failed tx & suboptimal routing | Solver pays gas; cost baked into fill. User sees net outcome. | Eliminates gas waste and wallet drain from failed transactions |
MEV Exposure | User is target for front-running, sandwich attacks | User benefits from MEV via improved pricing | Transforms a systemic risk into a user yield source |
Settlement Latency | < 30 sec (on same chain) | ~1-3 min (for solver competition & cross-chain) | Trades speed for superior price, cross-chain finality, and fee abstraction |
Required User Knowledge | High (networks, slippage, gas, L2s) | Low (sign intent, get result) | Abstracts blockchain complexity, enabling mainstream adoption |
Fee Structure | LP fee + network gas | Solver fee (often 0% for simple swaps) | Decouples payment for liquidity from payment for execution service |
protocol-spotlight
WHY INTENTS WIN
Architectural Deep Dive: UniswapX, Across, and the Solver Stack
The shift from transaction-based to intent-based architectures is redefining on-chain UX, moving complexity from the user to a competitive solver network.
01
The Problem: Transactional UX is a Dead End
Users are forced to act as their own quant: managing gas, slippage, and routing across fragmented liquidity pools like Uniswap V3. This leads to failed transactions, MEV extraction, and suboptimal pricing.
- ~$1B+ in MEV extracted annually from DEX users.
- >30% of DEX trades experience negative slippage.
- UX complexity is the primary barrier to mainstream adoption.
$1B+
MEV Extracted
>30%
Bad Slippage
02
The Solution: Declarative Intents & Solver Competition
Users submit a desired outcome (e.g., 'Get me the best price for 1000 USDC in ETH'). A decentralized network of solvers (like in UniswapX, CowSwap) competes to fulfill it, abstracting away execution complexity.
- Competition drives efficiency: Solvers use private mempools, CEX liquidity, and bridges like Across.
- Guaranteed outcomes: Users get a fill-or-kill promise, not a transaction that can revert.
- MEV becomes a rebate: Extracted value is returned to the user as better pricing.
~500ms
Solver Latency
+20 bps
Avg. Price Improvement
03
UniswapX: Aggregating All Liquidity
UniswapX is not an AMM; it's an intent-based protocol that outsources execution. It turns the entire DeFi/CeFi landscape into a liquidity source for the user.
- Permissionless Solver Network: Anyone can compete to fill orders, creating a market for execution.
- Cross-Chain Native: Uses intents and bridges like Across for seamless asset movement.
- Gasless for Users: Solvers pay gas, users sign off-chain orders (ERC-1271).
$10B+
Volume
0 Gas
For Swapper
04
Across: The Intent-Based Bridge
Across rethinks bridging not as a liquidity pool but as a relay race. Users express an intent to move assets; relayers fulfill it instantly from a single pool, with arbitrageurs replenishing liquidity later.
- Capital Efficiency: ~10x more efficient than locked liquidity models (e.g., most canonical bridges).
- Speed: ~1-3 min settlement vs. 20+ mins for optimistic bridges.
- Unified Pool Model: One liquidity pool services all chains, reducing fragmentation.
~10x
More Efficient
<3 min
Settlement
05
The New Stack: Solver, Filler, Settlement
Intent architectures decompose the transaction stack. This specialization unlocks new optimization frontiers.
- Solver Layer (e.g., PropellerHeads): Finds optimal route across DEXs, CEXs, bridges.
- Filler Network (e.g., UniswapX Fillers): Commits capital to execute the route.
- Settlement Layer (EVM, Arbitrum, etc.): Final on-chain state resolution.
- Enables cross-domain MEV capture as a service.
3-Layer
Architecture
Cross-Domain
MEV
06
The Endgame: User-Owned Order Flow
Intents invert the power dynamic. Instead of users being products for block builders and MEV searchers, their order flow becomes an auctionable asset they can monetize.
- Solver Auctions: Solvers bid for the right to fulfill your intent, paying you for the privilege.
- Portable Reputation: User history becomes a verifiable credential for better execution.
- The Future: This model extends beyond swaps to lending, derivatives, and identity—intents as the universal crypto UX primitive.
Auctioned
Order Flow
Universal
UX Primitive
deep-dive
THE RISK SHIFT
The Mechanics of Risk Transfer and Guarantees
Intent-based architectures fundamentally reallocate execution risk from users to a competitive network of solvers.
Risk transfers from user to solver. In a transaction-based model, the user bears the risk of MEV, slippage, and failed execution. In an intent-based model like UniswapX or CowSwap, the user submits a declarative outcome, and competing solvers assume the risk of achieving it profitably.
Guarantees are economic, not cryptographic. Settlement does not rely on cryptographic validity proofs alone. Guarantees are enforced by bonding, slashing, and reputation systems that make solver misbehavior financially irrational, a model pioneered by protocols like Across.
This creates a solver liability market. Solvers become the risk-bearing capital layer, competing on their ability to source liquidity and manage execution complexity. This is a more efficient capital specialization than requiring every user to be their own hedge fund.
Evidence: After its launch, UniswapX facilitated over $7B in volume, with users receiving ~$100M in MEV savings that were previously extracted by searchers—value now captured by the user or competed away by solvers.
risk-analysis
WHY INTENT-BASED ARCHITECTURES ARE THE FUTURE OF USER-CENTRIC PAYMENTS
The Bear Case: Centralization, Collusion, and New Attack Vectors
Current payment rails are plagued by trusted intermediaries and fragmented liquidity; intent-based systems shift the paradigm from execution to declaration.
01
The Problem: The MEV Cartel
Traditional transaction ordering is a winner-take-all game for block producers, leading to front-running and value extraction from users. This centralized control point creates systemic risk and degrades UX.\n- ~$1B+ in MEV extracted annually\n- Opaque auction dynamics favor sophisticated players\n- Creates a natural oligopoly of searchers and builders
Oligopoly
Market Structure
$1B+
Annual Extract
02
The Solution: UniswapX & CowSwap
These protocols abstract execution to a network of competitive solvers. Users submit intents (e.g., 'swap X for Y at price ≥ Z'), and solvers compete to fulfill them optimally. This flips the power dynamic.\n- Permissionless solver networks break builder monopolies\n- Gasless signing improves UX and reduces friction\n- Surplus capture returned to the user via better prices
Gasless
User Experience
Best Price
Guarantee
03
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity Silos
Assets are trapped across dozens of chains and L2s. Bridging is a multi-step, high-trust process with custodial risks and poor exchange rates. This is the antithesis of a seamless payment network.\n- $20B+ locked in bridge contracts\n- High latency (10 mins to 7 days) for security\n- Trusted validator sets create centralization vectors
$20B+
TVL at Risk
10min-7days
Settlement Latency
04
The Solution: Across & LayerZero
Intent-based bridges like Across use a unified auction for cross-chain liquidity. Relayers compete to fulfill transfer intents instantly from a pooled liquidity layer, with optimistic verification for security.\n- ~15 second finality for most transfers\n- Capital efficiency via shared liquidity pools\n- Reduced trust via decentralized attestation networks
~15s
Fast Finality
Unified
Liquidity Layer
05
The Problem: Wallet UX is Still Transactional
Wallets force users to specify how (chain, gas, slippage) instead of what (desired outcome). This leads to failed transactions, overpaying, and constant chain switching. It's a mechanic problem, not a design one.\n- >30% of DEX trades fail or are suboptimal\n- Constant chain/RPC management required\n- Slippage tolerance is a user-hostile parameter
>30%
Failed/Slow Trades
High Cognitive
User Load
06
The Future: The Intent-Centric Stack
The endgame is a declarative wallet standard where users approve outcomes, not transactions. This requires a new stack: intent expression languages (ERC-7579), solver networks, and settlement layers.\n- ERC-7579 standardizes account abstraction for intents\n- Solver competition drives efficiency to theoretical limits\n- User becomes the center of the network's economic activity
ERC-7579
Emerging Standard
User-Centric
New Paradigm
future-outlook
THE USER-CENTRIC SHIFT
The Path to Dominance: Aggregation, Abstraction, and the End of Wallets
Intent-based architectures replace wallet-centric execution with a declarative model, abstracting complexity to make crypto payments as simple as a web2 checkout.
Intent-based architectures invert the execution model. Users declare a desired outcome (e.g., 'pay $100 in USDC for this NFT'), and a solver network handles routing, liquidity, and gas. This abstracts away the need for users to manage wallets, sign multiple transactions, or understand bridges like Across or Stargate.
Aggregation is the core primitive. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate the power of outsourcing execution to a competitive network. For payments, this means a single signature can trigger a cross-chain swap, bridging, and final settlement, obsoleting the multi-step wallet dance.
The wallet becomes a liability. A traditional EOA or smart contract wallet requires users to be their own transaction router and gas estimator. Intent-based systems like Anoma or SUAVE treat the wallet as a simple identity layer, pushing all execution complexity into the infrastructure.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume in its first year by abstracting MEV and routing. This proves users prioritize declarative outcomes over granular control, a prerequisite for mainstream payment adoption.
takeaways
THE INTENT REVOLUTION
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The current transaction model is broken. Intent-based architectures flip the script, making payments declarative and user-centric.
01
The Problem: The Transaction is a Prison
Users must specify low-level how (gas, slippage, routes) instead of high-level what (best price for 1 ETH). This creates ~$1B+ annual MEV leakage and >50% failed transaction anxiety.
- User Burden: Requires deep protocol knowledge.
- Fragmented Liquidity: Users manually bridge and swap across chains.
- Value Leakage: Searchers extract surplus via front-running and sandwiching.
$1B+
Annual MEV
>50%
Failed Tx Anxiety
02
The Solution: Declare, Don't Direct
Users submit a signed intent (e.g., 'Swap 1 ETH for best USDC price on any chain'). A network of solvers competes to fulfill it optimally.
- Automated Optimization: Solvers like those in UniswapX and CowSwap find optimal routes across DEXs and bridges like Across and LayerZero.
- Cost & Speed: Competition drives fees to marginal cost, with execution in ~500ms.
- MEV Resistance: Batch auctions and privacy pools (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE) return value to users.
~500ms
Execution
-90%
User Effort
03
The Architecture: Solver Networks & Shared Orderflow
This isn't one protocol; it's a new stack. Anoma, Essential, and UniswapX provide the frameworks.
- Core Infrastructure: Intent-centric AMMs, cross-chain solvers, and shared sequencers.
- Monetization: Solvers earn via spread; aggregators monetize orderflow.
- Composability: A single intent can trigger a multi-chain DeFi strategy atomically.
10x
Composability
New Biz Model
Orderflow
04
The Investment Thesis: Capture the Endpoint
The application interfacing directly with the user captures the most value, as seen with MetaMask and Rabby. Intent-based wallets and aggregators are the new frontier.
- User Acquisition: Abstracting complexity drives mainstream adoption.
- Revenue: Fees on $10B+ of intent-driven volume.
- Strategic Moat: Owning the intent expression layer creates a defensible aggregation point for all on-chain activity.
$10B+
Addressable Volume
Endpoint
Value Capture
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