Intent-based architectures invert control. Users declare desired outcomes (e.g., 'swap X for Y at best rate') instead of constructing transactions. This shifts execution risk and optimization to specialized solvers like those in UniswapX or CowSwap.
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog
User Intents Create a More Efficient, Opaque MEV Market
Intent-based architectures promise a better UX by letting users declare outcomes, not transactions. This creates a more efficient but less transparent MEV market, centralizing power in solver networks like those behind UniswapX and CowSwap.
introduction
THE SHIFT
Introduction
User intents are abstracting execution complexity, creating a more efficient but opaque MEV supply chain.
Efficiency creates centralization pressure. Solvers compete on execution quality, but the solver market consolidates around those with the best MEV extraction and liquidity access. This creates a new, opaque layer of professionalized extractors.
The MEV supply chain professionalizes. Intents move MEV from public mempools to private order flow auctions. Protocols like Across and Anoma formalize this, turning retail flow into a wholesale commodity for sophisticated actors.
thesis-statement
THE MECHANISM
The Core Trade-Off: Efficiency vs. Opacity
Intent-based architectures optimize for user outcomes but centralize information flow, creating a more efficient yet opaque MEV market.
Intent-based architectures centralize information. By submitting a desired outcome instead of a transaction, users delegate routing logic to a specialized network of solvers. This creates a private order flow market where solvers compete to fulfill the intent, hiding execution details from the public mempool.
This creates a more efficient MEV market. Solvers internalize complex cross-domain arbitrage and routing, capturing value that would otherwise leak to generalized searchers. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate this by aggregating liquidity and batching orders to minimize price impact and fees.
Opacity is the necessary cost. The solver's competitive advantage depends on private access to the intent's parameters and their proprietary routing strategies. This shifts MEV from a public, adversarial extraction game to a private, efficiency-focused service, but obscures market data.
Evidence: The success of Across Protocol and Socket shows the model works. Their solvers use private liquidity and cross-chain messaging from LayerZero and CCIP to fulfill intents, but their exact routing paths and profit margins are not transparent on-chain.
key-trends
FROM ORDERS TO OUTCOMES
Key Trends: The Intent Landscape
Intent-based architectures shift the paradigm from specifying transaction how to declaring user what, creating a more efficient but opaque MEV supply chain.
01
The Problem: Expressing Intents is Hard
Users must manually navigate fragmented liquidity, sign multiple transactions, and pre-pay gas, exposing them to front-running and failed trades. This creates ~$1B+ in annual MEV leakage and a poor UX.
- Manual Execution Risk: Users bear the cost of failed swaps and slippage.
- Liquidity Fragmentation: Requires aggregating across DEXs like Uniswap, Curve, and 1inch.
- Capital Inefficiency: Gas must be held natively on the source chain.
$1B+
Annual MEV Leakage
10+
Avg. Steps
02
The Solution: Solver Networks (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap)
Users sign a signed message declaring their desired outcome (e.g., 'Swap 1 ETH for best possible USDC price'). A competitive network of solvers (MEV searchers) fulfills it off-chain, competing on price.
- Gasless UX: Solvers bundle and pay gas, abstracting chain complexity.
- Price Competition: Solvers internalize MEV, often returning ~20-50 bps better prices to users.
- Cross-Chain Native: Protocols like Across and LayerZero enable intent fulfillment across domains.
20-50 bps
Price Improvement
0
User Gas
03
The Consequence: Opaque MEV Supply Chains
Intent execution moves MEV extraction from public mempools to private solver networks. This creates a more efficient but less transparent market.
- Efficiency Gain: Solvers use sophisticated routing (e.g., JIT liquidity, CEX arb) for optimal fulfillment.
- Opacity Risk: MEV distribution becomes hidden, centralizing around sophisticated players like Flashbots SUAVE.
- Regulatory Gray Area: Solvers act as de facto intermediaries, potentially triggering broker-dealer classification.
>90%
Off-Chain MEV
Centralized
Solver Power
04
The Architecture: Intents as a New Abstraction Layer
Intent-centric design separates declaration from execution, enabling new primitives. This is the core thesis behind Anoma and Essential.
- Declarative State: User specifies constraints (e.g., 'pay at most X, receive at least Y').
- Solver Auction: A decentralized solver market competes to fulfill the intent bundle.
- Universal Settlement: A shared settlement layer (e.g., a rollup) finalizes the outcome, creating a unified liquidity layer.
New Layer
Abstraction
Unified
Liquidity
MARKET STRUCTURE
Transaction vs. Intent: A First-Principles Comparison
How the fundamental mechanics of user-submitted transactions versus user-declared intents reshape MEV extraction, execution efficiency, and user experience.
| Core Mechanism | Traditional Transaction (EVM) | Private Order Flow (e.g., Flashbots) | Intent-Based System (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) |
|---|---|---|---|
User Action | Signs a specific, executable calldata bundle | Signs a specific, executable calldata bundle | Signs a declarative outcome (e.g., 'I want X token for Y token') |
Execution Responsibility | User/Wallet | Searcher (via MEV-Boost relay) | Solver Network (e.g., CowSwap solvers, UniswapX fillers) |
MEV Visibility | Public in mempool pre-execution | Opaque via private relay channels | Opaque; competition occurs in solver backend |
Price Discovery | On-chain AMM/Pool at execution time | On-chain AMM/Pool at execution time | Off-chain across DEXs, CEXs, OTC via solver competition |
Gas Fee Model | User pays for execution (base + priority fee) | User pays for execution + searcher profit (via bundle bid) | User often pays a fee to solver; gas is solver's problem |
Failed Transaction Cost | User loses gas on revert | User loses gas on revert | Typically zero cost for user; solver bears simulation cost |
Typical Latency to Finality | < 12 seconds (1 Ethereum block) | < 12 seconds (1 Ethereum block) | Variable; can be < 1 sec (CowSwap) or minutes (UniswapX cross-chain) |
Cross-Chain Execution Complexity | High (user must manage bridges, gas on dest chain) | High (same as Transaction, but private) | Abstracted (solver handles bridging, e.g., via Across, LayerZero) |
deep-dive
THE MARKET STRUCTURE
The Solver's Dilemma: Centralized Efficiency
Intent-based architectures shift MEV competition from public mempools to a centralized, opaque solver market.
Intent competition centralizes MEV. Solvers like those in UniswapX and CowSwap compete privately for user orders, replacing public, permissionless block builders. This creates a winner-take-most market where capital and data access determine dominance.
Opaque auctions hide value extraction. Users see a final quote, not the spread capture or cross-domain arbitrage the solver executed. This shifts MEV from a transparent, on-chain phenomenon to a private, off-chain business.
Solver capital is the moat. Winning an intent auction requires the ability to source liquidity across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base instantly. This favors well-funded, centralized entities over decentralized searcher networks.
Evidence: Over 80% of UniswapX volume is filled by the top three solver entities, demonstrating rapid market consolidation absent public order flow.
protocol-spotlight
FROM ORDERS TO OUTCOMES
Protocol Spotlight: Intent Architectures in Practice
Intent-based architectures shift the paradigm from specifying transactions to declaring desired outcomes, creating a more efficient but opaque MEV supply chain.
01
The Problem: The MEV Tax on Every Swap
Users signing raw transactions expose their intent, inviting front-running and sandwich attacks. This extracts ~$1B+ annually from DeFi users, creating a direct tax on execution.
- Opaque Pricing: Slippage tolerance is a blunt, inefficient tool.
- Wasted Gas: Failed transactions due to front-running still cost users.
- Centralization Pressure: Searchers and builders consolidate to capture value.
$1B+
Annual Extract
~100ms
Attack Window
02
The Solution: UniswapX as an Intent Orchestrator
UniswapX acts as a declarative system where users sign intents (e.g., 'Swap X ETH for at least Y USDC') and off-chain Fillers compete to fulfill them.
- MEV Capture Reversal: Fillers internalize MEV (e.g., back-running, arbitrage) to offer better prices.
- Gasless Experience: Users don't pay for gas; Fillers bundle execution.
- Cross-Chain Native: Intents are chain-agnostic, enabling native cross-chain swaps via protocols like Across.
0
User Gas
~20%
Better Prices
03
The New Opaque Market: Solvers & SUAVE
Intents create a hidden market. Solvers (e.g., for CowSwap) compete in a sealed-bid auction to fulfill batches, while SUAVE aims to be a decentralized block builder and marketplace for preference expression.
- Efficiency via Competition: Solvers optimize across liquidity sources (AMMs, OTC, private pools).
- Privacy-Preserving: User intent is hidden from the public mempool.
- Architectural Shift: Moves complexity off-chain to a network of specialized actors.
Sealed-Bid
Auction Type
Multi-Source
Liquidity
04
The Trade-off: Centralization & Composability Risk
Efficiency comes at a cost. The intent fulfillment layer risks becoming a centralized choke point, and smart contracts cannot directly 'call' a user's intent.
- Solver/Oracle Trust: Users rely on solver honesty for execution.
- Breaking Composability: DApps can't atomically interact with a pending intent like they can with a transaction.
- Regulatory Surface: Intent aggregators may face exchange regulatory scrutiny.
High
Trust Assumption
Broken
Atomic Comp.
counter-argument
THE EFFICIENCY TRAP
Counter-Argument: Isn't This Just Progress?
Intent-based architectures optimize execution but centralize and obscure the MEV supply chain.
Intent abstraction centralizes power. Solvers like UniswapX and CowSwap aggregators become mandatory, privileged intermediaries. This creates a new solvers cartel with exclusive access to user flow, replicating the extractive roles of traditional block builders.
Opaque competition hides extraction. The auction for fulfillment between solvers like Across and Anoma's SUAVE occurs off-chain. Users see a better price but cannot audit the spread captured by the winning solver, making MEV invisible.
Efficiency enables new rent-seeking. Faster, cheaper cross-chain swaps via LayerZero or Circle's CCTP are the product. The cost is a black-box financial layer where economic security depends on solver honesty, not cryptographic verification.
Evidence: UniswapX volume share. Over 60% of Uniswap's swap volume now routes through its intent-based system, demonstrating adoption but cementing its solvers as the new, unavoidable infrastructure gatekeepers.
risk-analysis
THE DARK FOREST DENSIFIES
Risk Analysis: The Bear Case for Intents
Intents abstract complexity but centralize power and risk into a new, opaque layer of specialized intermediaries.
01
The Solver Cartel Problem
The economic design of intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap naturally leads to solver oligopolies. High fixed costs for data and execution create winner-take-most dynamics, where a few dominant solvers can collude to extract value.
- Centralized Pricing Power: A few entities control the routing and pricing of a majority of user flow.
- Opaque Fee Extraction: Slippage and fee savings are abstracted away, making it harder for users to audit value capture.
- Barrier to Entry: New solvers face prohibitive costs in liquidity and data, stifling competition.
>70%
Market Share
Opaque
Fee Markets
02
Intent-Based MEV is Just Stealthier MEV
Intents don't eliminate MEV; they transform it into a private, off-chain auction controlled by solvers. This creates a more efficient but less transparent extraction market.
- Information Asymmetry: Solvers have a complete view of user intent flow, enabling sophisticated cross-intent arbitrage.
- Regulatory Gray Zone: Off-chain auction mechanics and order flow payments resemble traditional finance's opaque internalization practices.
- Lack of Public Audit Trail: The best execution proof is cryptographic, not on-chain, reducing public verifiability compared to AMM swaps.
Off-Chain
Auction
Stealth Tax
Extraction
03
Systemic Solver Failure Risk
The entire intent settlement layer depends on solvers posting bonds and being economically rational. A major solver failure or malicious act could cascade.
- Liquidity Fragility: A top solver going offline could cripple cross-chain intent systems like Across or LayerZero's DVN network.
- Bond Insufficiency: A $10M bond is trivial against the value of a malicious cross-chain bundle, creating insolvency risk.
- Oracle Manipulation: Solvers reliant on price oracles become single points of failure for intent execution integrity.
Single Point
Of Failure
Cascade Risk
High
04
The Privacy Paradox
Intents promise privacy by hiding transaction details from the public mempool, but they concentrate sensitive data with a few solver entities.
- Data Monopolies: Solvers aggregate priceless intent data—trading strategies, wallet linkages, capital flow—creating massive honeypots.
- Regulatory Target: This concentrated, identifiable data is more easily subpoenaed than fragmented on-chain activity.
- Trust Assumption Shift: Users trade public blockchain scrutiny for trust in solver confidentiality policies, a less battle-tested model.
Data Honeypot
Centralized
High Stakes
Trust Assumption
future-outlook
THE INTENT-CENTRIC SHIFT
Future Outlook: The Path to Credible Neutrality
Intent-based architectures will centralize MEV extraction into specialized, opaque systems, forcing a redefinition of credible neutrality.
Intent execution centralizes MEV. Users delegate transaction construction to specialized solvers like UniswapX or CowSwap, which compete in sealed-bid auctions. This moves complexity and MEV capture from public mempools to private networks, creating a new layer of financial infrastructure.
Credible neutrality becomes a solver property. The network's neutrality no longer depends on validator sequencing but on solver competition and censorship resistance. Protocols like Across and Anoma define neutrality by the inability of any single solver to monopolize the flow of intents.
Opaque markets outperform transparent ones. Private order flow aggregation, as seen in traditional finance, minimizes front-running and reduces extracted value for end-users. This efficiency gain makes the opaque intent market the dominant settlement layer, relegating public blockchains to finality engines.
Evidence: UniswapX, which routes orders via solver networks, now processes over $10B in volume, demonstrating market preference for intent-based execution over direct on-chain swaps despite the added abstraction layer.
takeaways
USER INTENT PARADIGM
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
The shift from transaction execution to intent fulfillment is restructuring the MEV supply chain, creating new winners and systemic risks.
01
The Problem: Opaque Searcher Competition
Traditional MEV is a wasteful, zero-sum race. Searchers blindly spam transactions, driving up gas fees for everyone to capture value users never intended to give up.
- Billions in wasted gas from failed arbitrage and frontrunning bundles.
- User experience is adversarial; success depends on outbidding bots.
- Value extraction is opaque, with no guarantee of optimal execution for the user.
$1B+
Wasted Gas/Year
~100ms
Latency Arms Race
02
The Solution: Declarative Intents & Solvers
Users submit a desired outcome (e.g., 'Swap X for Y at best rate'), not a transaction. A competitive network of solvers (like in UniswapX or CowSwap) fulfills it off-chain, competing on price.
- Efficiency gain: Solvers internalize MEV, converting waste into better prices for users.
- User sovereignty: Execution risk shifts from user to solver; users get a guaranteed result.
- New business model: Solvers profit from bundle optimization, not from exploiting user txns.
10-50 bps
Price Improvement
Gasless
User Experience
03
The New Infrastructure: Intent Orchestration Layer
Fulfilling complex cross-chain intents requires a new stack. Projects like Across, Socket, and LayerZero are evolving into intent-aware messaging layers that connect solvers, liquidity, and settlement.
- Critical role: These layers become the marketplace for solvers, not just bridges.
- Liquidity aggregation: Solvers tap into unified liquidity pools across chains.
- Verification shift: Security moves from transaction validity to intent fulfillment correctness.
$10B+
Aggregated Liquidity
Multi-Chain
Solver Scope
04
The Risk: Centralization of Solver Power
The intent model creates powerful, centralized intermediaries. The solver with the best off-chain data (order flow, liquidity) and capital wins most auctions, potentially leading to a new form of MEV cartel.
- Winner-take-most dynamics could emerge, similar to CEXs.
- Opaque execution: Users must trust the solver's black-box optimization.
- Regulatory surface: Solvers acting as de facto brokers may attract scrutiny.
~3-5
Dominant Solvers
High
Trust Assumption
05
The Opportunity: Programmable Intents & Auctions
Intents are composable primitives. Builders can create specialized intent markets (e.g., 'hedge this perp position', 'rebalance this portfolio') and auction mechanisms beyond simple price.
- New verticals: DeFi, gaming, and social intents with custom logic.
- MEV redistribution: Auction revenue can be shared with users or protocols via MEV capture.
- Protocol design shift: Protocols will expose intent-based endpoints, not just function calls.
New Primitive
Design Space
Value Share
Business Model
06
The Investment Thesis: Back the Plumbing, Not the Faucet
The durable value accrues to the intent infrastructure, not necessarily the individual solver applications. Invest in layers that standardize, secure, and aggregate the solver market.
- Protocols > Apps: Value accrues to the settlement/coordination layer (e.g., UniswapX's Dutch Order protocol).
- Data is key: Infrastructure with exclusive order flow or cross-chain state access has a moat.
- Long-term: The end-state is a decentralized solver network, but we must pass through a centralized intermediary phase first.
Infrastructure
Durable Moats
Order Flow
Key Asset
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