Why Disputes Over Pre-Authorizations Will Become Obsolete

Disputes are a UX bug. Users currently pre-authorize dApps like Uniswap or Aave for infinite spend, creating a persistent security risk and a source of user anxiety that hinders adoption.

Intents invert the security model. Instead of granting broad permissions, users declare a desired outcome (e.g., 'swap 1 ETH for best price'). Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap then compete to fulfill it within the user's constraints.

The filler assumes the risk. In an intent-based flow, the executing party (a solver or filler) provides the assets first. The user's funds only move upon successful, verified fulfillment, making pre-authorization obsolete.

Evidence: Across Protocol's slow fill model and UniswapX's Dutch auction design already demonstrate this principle, shifting execution risk from the user to the network of competing fillers.

Pre-authorization is a liability. It is a security model that outsources risk to users, creating a predictable vector for disputes over failed transactions and stale quotes.

Atomic execution eliminates the dispute. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate that settling a user's intent in a single, verifiable state transition removes the need for pre-approval and its associated conflict.

The infrastructure is converging. Cross-chain messaging layers like LayerZero and Axelar enable atomic compositions across domains, making the pre-authorization paradigm a legacy constraint.

Evidence: The 0.5% fee on failed transactions in traditional DeFi is a direct tax on the pre-authorization model, which intent-based systems render moot.

Pre-authorized transactions create hidden costs. Every card swipe or subscription charge requires a merchant to pre-approve a maximum amount, locking capital and creating a multi-billion-dollar liability buffer that is invisible on-chain.

Manual dispute resolution is the bottleneck. Systems like Stripe and PayPal rely on opaque, human-in-the-loop processes to adjudicate chargebacks, a model that is fundamentally incompatible with atomic, trustless blockchain execution.

Intent-based architectures make disputes obsolete. Protocols like UniswapX and Across use solver networks and cryptoeconomic security to guarantee outcome fulfillment, removing the need for post-hoc authorization challenges.

Evidence: The global card-not-present fraud loss was $35.5B in 2023, a direct cost of the pre-auth dispute model that on-chain intent settlement reduces to zero.

Authorization as State Proof: A modern pre-authorization is not a signed promise but a cryptographic proof of state. Systems like ERC-4337 Account Abstraction and Solana's Versioned Transactions encode the post-execution state directly into the authorization's validity conditions. The transaction is the proof of its own correctness.

Deterministic Outcome Guarantee: Unlike optimistic systems requiring a fraud proof window, un-disputable authorizations rely on deterministic execution. The signer's intent is validated against a shared state root (e.g., using a ZK light client like Succinct), making invalid outcomes computationally impossible to sign for in the first place.

Counter-Intuitive Shift: The dispute moves from post-hoc outcome to pre-signing intent verification. This mirrors the shift from optimistic rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism) to ZK-rollups (zkSync, StarkNet), where validity is proven, not assumed. The signer's client becomes the primary security boundary.

Evidence: Ethereum's Pectra upgrade introduces EIP-7702, enabling sponsored batch transactions where the entire batch's validity is proven before submission, eliminating the dispute vector for individual actions within it.

Intent disputes are a UX problem. Users currently sign ambiguous, all-or-nothing approvals because wallets like MetaMask lack the granularity to encode complex conditions. This creates post-signing ambiguity. The solution is standardized intent formats like ERC-7677 and ERC-4337, which turn fuzzy promises into executable, on-chain constraints.

Verification shifts to the protocol layer. With a standard like ERC-7677, the user's signed intent is a verifiable, self-contained object. The fulfillment path (e.g., via UniswapX or Across) must prove it satisfies these constraints to claim payment, moving the dispute from a human argument to a cryptographic proof.

The resolver network enforces correctness. Specialized intent solvers (like those in CowSwap or Anoma) compete to find optimal fulfillment. Their economic incentive is to execute correctly; a faulty execution fails the on-chain verification, costing them gas with no reward. The market punishes errors in real-time.

Evidence: The MEV supply chain. Today, searchers and builders on Flashbots protect user transactions to preserve reputation and future revenue. Intent solvers operate under the same reputation-based economics; a resolver that consistently triggers disputes loses its stake and is excluded from future auctions.

Intent-based architectures bypass pre-auths. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate that users express desired outcomes, not permissions. Solvers compete to fulfill these intents atomically, removing the risk window where a malicious actor could drain a pre-authorized allowance.

Smart accounts enforce user sovereignty. Standards like ERC-4337 and ERC-7579 shift security to the account level. Policies for transaction validity are programmed into the wallet, not delegated via external approvals. The user's intent becomes the authorization.

The economic model changes. Pre-auth disputes are a cost center for protocols and a UX failure. The gas overhead and security liability of managing allowances disappears when systems like Across and LayerZero natively integrate intent settlement layers.

Evidence: Arbitrum's Stylus and zkSync's native account abstraction are building this future into L2s. Pre-authorization is a legacy EVM pattern that modular, intent-centric stacks render unnecessary.