Smart contracts are a user-hostile abstraction. They force users to specify low-level how (e.g., exact swap path, gas parameters) instead of declarative what (e.g., 'get me the best price'). This creates failed transactions, MEV extraction, and a poor UX that limits adoption.
venture-capital-trends-in-web3
Blog
Why Intent-Based Architectures Are Eating Traditional Smart Contracts
The shift from execution to declaration is the most significant UX upgrade since wallets. By outsourcing complexity to a competitive solver network, intent-based systems like UniswapX offer superior fill rates, MEV protection, and gasless transactions, making them the default for high-value on-chain activity.
introduction
THE SHIFT
Introduction
Intent-based architectures are abstracting away execution complexity, making traditional smart contract interactions obsolete.
Intent-based systems invert the transaction model. Users submit signed declarations of desired outcomes to specialized solvers, like those in UniswapX or CowSwap. These solvers compete in a permissionless auction to find optimal execution, abstracting away gas, slippage, and cross-chain complexity.
This shift commoditizes execution layers. The value accrues to the intent settlement layer and the solver networks, not the underlying L1/L2. Protocols like Across and LayerZero are already evolving into generalized intent fulfillment infrastructures, proving the model's viability at scale.
thesis-statement
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
The Core Argument: From Imperative to Declarative
Intent-based architectures abstract away execution complexity, shifting the burden from users to a network of specialized solvers.
Smart contracts are imperative programs. They require users to specify the exact sequence of low-level transactions, exposing them to MEV, failed gas, and liquidity fragmentation across chains like Arbitrum and Optimism.
Intents are declarative constraints. Users submit a signed statement of their desired outcome (e.g., 'swap X for Y at best price'), delegating the 'how' to a competitive solver network, as pioneered by CowSwap and UniswapX.
This inverts the security model. Instead of trusting code, users trust economic incentives; solvers compete to fulfill the intent profitably, with systems like SUAVE and Anoma cryptographically proving optimal execution.
Evidence: UniswapX, which uses this pattern, now processes over $10B in volume, capturing trades by outsourcing routing complexity that a user could never manually specify.
key-trends
ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Key Trends: Why Intents Are Winning
Intent-based architectures are abstracting away execution complexity, making dApps more user-centric and efficient than traditional smart contract models.
01
The Problem: MEV is a User Tax
Traditional transactions broadcast raw execution details, creating a public auction for front-running and sandwich attacks. This extracts ~$1B+ annually from users.
- Solution: Intents declare only the desired outcome, hiding execution path.
- Result: Solvers compete to fulfill the intent, turning extractive MEV into user savings.
$1B+
Annual Extract
-90%
MEV Leakage
02
The Solution: UniswapX & CowSwap
These protocols pioneered the intent model for swaps. Users sign an intent, and a network of solvers (market makers, arbitrage bots) competes for the order.
- Key Benefit: Gasless signing and better prices via off-chain competition.
- Key Benefit: Atomic composability across liquidity sources without user managing it.
~$10B+
Volume Processed
Gasless
User Experience
03
The Shift: From Executor to Declarator
Smart contracts force users to be executors, specifying the exact 'how'. Intents let users be declarators, specifying only the 'what'.
- Result: Massive UX simplification (no slippage tolerance, gas wars).
- Result: Optimal execution emerges from solver competition, not user guesswork.
10x
Simplicity Gain
~500ms
Fill Latency
04
The Infrastructure: Across & LayerZero
Cross-chain intents require a generalized messaging and verification layer. These protocols enable intent fulfillment across domains.
- Key Benefit: Unified liquidity across chains without manual bridging.
- Key Benefit: Security via decentralized verification networks, not trusted relayers.
20+
Chains Supported
$2B+
Secured Value
05
The Future: Programmable Intents
The next evolution is Anoma, SUAVE, where intents are not just for swaps but any state change, with privacy and complex conditions.
- Key Benefit: Multi-party coordination (e.g., "swap X for Y only if NFT price > Z").
- Key Benefit: Full-stack privacy via zero-knowledge proofs, hiding intent metadata.
ZK-native
Architecture
Any State
Application Scope
06
The Economic Flywheel
Intent-based systems create a self-reinforcing economic loop that traditional models cannot match.
- More users attract more solvers, driving better execution prices.
- Better prices attract more users, increasing fee revenue for solvers.
50%+
Cost Reduction
Flywheel
Network Effect
ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Performance Gap: Intents vs. Traditional AMMs
Quantifying the operational and economic advantages of intent-based systems (UniswapX, CowSwap) over on-chain automated market makers (Uniswap V3, Curve).
| Key Metric / Capability | Traditional AMM (e.g., Uniswap V3) | Intent-Based System (e.g., UniswapX) | Hybrid Solver Network (e.g., CowSwap) |
|---|---|---|---|
Settlement Latency | ~12 seconds (1 Ethereum block) | < 1 second (off-chain) | ~1-5 minutes (batch auction) |
Max Extractable Value (MEV) Risk | High (Front-running, sandwiching) | None (User signs intent, no public tx) | Negative (MEV is captured & redistributed) |
Gas Cost Paid by User | $10 - $50+ (on-chain execution) | $0 (subsidized by filler) | $0 - $5 (shared batch cost) |
Cross-Chain Swap Native Support | ❌ (Requires 3rd-party bridge) | ✅ (Via fillers like Across, LayerZero) | ✅ (Via integrated solvers) |
Price Improvement via Liquidity Aggregation | ❌ (Single pool liquidity) | ✅ (Searches all DEXs & private liquidity) | ✅ (Competitive solver auction) |
Optimal Route Discovery | ❌ (User-defined path) | ✅ (Filler-optimized for best price) | ✅ (Solver-optimized for batch) |
Typical Fee for $10k ETH-USDC Swap | 0.3% ($30) + gas | 0.1% - 0.2% ($10-$20) + $0 gas | 0.05% - 0.15% ($5-$15) + low gas |
Requires Native Gas Token | ✅ (ETH, MATIC, etc.) | ❌ (Gas-abstracted, pay in output token) | ❌ (Gas-abstracted) |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Deep Dive: The Solver Economy and MEV Transformation
Intent-based systems replace rigid transaction execution with a competitive market of solvers, fundamentally altering value capture and user experience.
Intent-based architectures abstract execution complexity from users. Instead of specifying precise transaction steps, users declare a desired outcome (e.g., 'swap X for Y at best rate'). This shifts the burden of pathfinding and optimization to a network of specialized actors called solvers.
The solver economy commoditizes block space. Solvers compete in off-chain auctions to fulfill user intents, bundling and optimizing orders to extract MEV (Maximal Extractable Value). This competition turns toxic MEV into a rebate for users, as seen in CowSwap and UniswapX.
Traditional smart contracts are rigid order-takers. They execute exactly the logic written, blind to cross-domain opportunities. An intent-based system like Across Protocol treats the entire multi-chain landscape as a single liquidity pool for solvers to navigate.
Evidence: Solver revenue is the new metric. In Q1 2024, solvers on CowSwap generated over $20M in surplus for users, directly monetizing MEV that would otherwise be captured by searchers on traditional DEXs.
counter-argument
THE TRUST TRAP
Counter-Argument: Centralization and Trust Assumptions
Intent-based architectures shift the trust burden from code to a new class of centralized intermediaries.
Intent solvers become centralized bottlenecks. The competitive nature of solving for optimal execution concentrates power in a few sophisticated players like CowSwap solvers or UniswapX fillers, creating a new point of failure.
Trust is not eliminated, it is abstracted. Users trust the solver network's honesty and liveness, a model reminiscent of LayerZero's Oracle/Relayer design, not the permissionless validator set of an L1.
The mempool is a vulnerability. Private order flow and MEV extraction are core to solver economics, requiring users to trust the intent distribution network (e.g., Anoma, SUAVE) to not censor or front-run.
Evidence: Over 95% of UniswapX volume on Ethereum is filled by just three entities, demonstrating rapid centralization in a permissionless market.
protocol-spotlight
WHY INTENT-BASED ARCHITECTURES ARE EATING TRADICAL SMART CONTRACTS
Protocol Spotlight: The Intent Stack in Action
Traditional smart contracts are rigid, expensive, and user-hostile. The intent paradigm flips the model: users declare what they want, and a network of solvers competes to find the how.
01
The Problem: The MEV Tax
Users lose ~$1B+ annually to front-running and sandwich attacks on DEXs. Traditional AMMs broadcast exact transactions, creating a public profit opportunity for bots.
- Solution: Intents express desired outcome (e.g., "swap X for Y at ≥ price Z"), hiding execution path.
- Result: Solvers internalize MEV competition, passing savings back to users as better rates.
-90%+
MEV Extracted
~$1B
Annual User Savings
02
The Solution: UniswapX & CowSwap
These are not just DEX aggregators; they are intent-based marketplaces. Users sign off-chain orders (intents), and a permissionless network of solvers (like CowSwap's solvers or UniswapX's fillers) competes to fulfill them.
- Key Benefit: Gasless signing and fee abstraction.
- Key Benefit: Optimal routing across all liquidity sources (private mempools, on-chain pools, OTC).
$10B+
Processed Volume
~500ms
Solver Latency
03
The Architecture: Decentralized Solvers
The magic is in the solver network. Entities like Across and Anoma treat intent fulfillment as an optimization game.
- Mechanism: Solvers use private order flow and sophisticated algorithms to batch and route intents for maximal efficiency.
- Outcome: Users get better execution than any single blockchain or DEX could provide alone, creating a meta-liquidity layer.
50-80%
Fill Rate Improvement
Multi-Chain
Native Scope
04
The Future: Composable Intents
Intents are becoming programmable primitives. Projects like Essential and Anoma are building generalized intent languages.
- Evolution: Move from single actions (swap) to complex, conditional workflows ("swap if price hits X, then bridge to L2, then deposit in lending market").
- Implication: The user's wallet becomes a command center, not just a key manager, delegating complex cross-chain and cross-protocol operations.
10x
UX Complexity Abstracted
Atomic
Cross-Chain Execution
risk-analysis
THE DARK SIDE OF INTENTS
Risk Analysis: What Could Go Wrong?
Intent-based architectures shift complexity from users to solvers, creating new systemic risks.
01
Solver Cartels & Centralization
The economic model naturally leads to consolidation. Top solvers like UniswapX's Fillers or CowSwap's Solvers control routing, creating a new layer of trusted intermediaries.\n- Risk: MEV extraction and censorship by dominant players.\n- Example: A few solvers controlling >60% of transaction flow.
>60%
Flow Control
Oligopoly
Market Structure
02
The Oracle Problem, Reborn
Solvers must evaluate off-chain conditions (prices, liquidity). This reintroduces oracle dependency, a critical failure point.\n- Risk: Manipulated price feeds cause mass settlement failures.\n- Attack Vector: Solver submits winning bid based on stale data, forcing user to accept a bad deal.
Single Point
Of Failure
~500ms
Latency Risk
03
Liquidity Fragmentation & Settlement Risk
Intents route across multiple chains and DEXs via bridges like LayerZero and Across. Failed partial settlement leaves users in a broken state.\n- Risk: Cross-chain atomicity is not guaranteed.\n- Consequence: User receives 90% of desired tokens on Chain A, 10% stuck on Chain B.
Multi-Chain
Complexity
Partial Fail
Worst Outcome
04
Intent Mempool Poisoning
Public intent mempools are vulnerable to spam and denial-of-service attacks, similar to Ethereum's base layer.\n- Risk: Solvers are flooded with fake intents, delaying real user transactions.\n- Result: Gas wars move from execution to the bidding layer, increasing costs.
Spam
Attack Vector
+300%
Cost Spike
05
Regulatory Ambiguity on 'Best Execution'
Who is liable if a solver provides suboptimal routing? The protocol (Uniswap), the solver network, or the user?\n- Risk: Regulatory action against intent protocols as unregistered broker-dealers.\n- Precedent: Traditional finance's Reg NMS mandates best execution, a standard hard to prove on-chain.
Liability
Gray Area
Reg NMS
Precedent
06
Complexity Obfuscation & User Illusion
Abstraction hides true cost. Users see a guaranteed output, but have no visibility into solver fees, MEV capture, or slippage.\n- Risk: Loss of composability as dApps interact with opaque solver logic instead of clear smart contracts.\n- Trade-off: Usability gains come at the cost of verifiability.
Opaque Fees
Hidden Cost
Lost Comp.
Architecture
future-outlook
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Future Outlook: The Generalized Intent Layer
Intent-based architectures abstract execution complexity, shifting the user's role from a transaction builder to a declarative outcome specifier.
Intent-based architectures abstract execution complexity. Users declare a desired outcome, like 'swap X for Y at the best rate', instead of manually constructing a transaction path across Uniswap, Curve, and 1inch. This moves the burden of optimal execution to a network of specialized solvers.
This shift eats traditional smart contracts. Smart contracts are rigid, single-application state machines. A generalized intent layer is a meta-application that orchestrates actions across any contract. It turns protocols like Aave and Compound into interchangeable liquidity modules for a higher-order system.
The evidence is in adoption. UniswapX processes billions via its intent-based, solver-auctioned system. Across Protocol's intent-centric bridge aggregates liquidity from Connext and Hop. These are early signals of a composability explosion where the best execution emerges dynamically, not from a pre-written contract.
The endgame is a solver network. This creates a competitive market for execution, similar to Flashbots' MEV-Boost. Specialized solvers like PropellerHeads and Anoma will compete on gas efficiency and cross-domain routing, commoditizing the execution layer itself.
takeaways
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
Intent-based architectures are not an incremental upgrade; they represent a fundamental rethinking of user interaction with blockchains, moving from imperative execution to declarative outcomes.
01
The Problem: The UX Tax of Imperative Transactions
Users must act as their own integrator, manually navigating liquidity, slippage, and gas across fragmented chains. This creates a ~$1B+ annual market for MEV extraction and failed transaction fees.
- User Friction: Requires deep technical knowledge of execution paths.
- Capital Inefficiency: Funds locked in pending transactions across multiple steps.
- MEV Vulnerability: Transparent mempools expose intent, inviting front-running.
$1B+
Annual MEV
~15%
Failed Tx Rate
02
The Solution: Declarative Intents & Solver Networks
Users specify what they want (e.g., 'best price for 100 ETH into USDC'), not how to do it. Specialized Solver networks (like in CowSwap, UniswapX) compete to fulfill it optimally.
- Abstracted Complexity: Solvers handle routing, batching, and cross-chain execution via Across or LayerZero.
- Improved Outcomes: Competition among solvers drives better prices, absorbing MEV for user benefit.
- Gasless Experience: Users often sign off-chain messages, paying fees in the output token.
10-30%
Better Price
~0
User Gas Mgmt
03
The New Stack: Intent Infrastructure
This shift creates a new middleware layer between users and blockchains. Build the pipes, not the apps.
- Intent Standardization: Protocols like Anoma's architecture define intent expression and settlement.
- Solver Economics: Design incentive models for decentralized solver networks to prevent centralization.
- Verification Layer: Ensure solvers provably fulfilled the declared intent, requiring new auditing primitives.
New Layer
Market Layer
>50%
DEX Volume by 2026
04
The Investment Thesis: Capturing the Flow Layer
Value accrual shifts from L1/L2 base fees to the infrastructure that routes and fulfills intent. This is the flow layer.
- Protocols Over Apps: Infrastructure like UniswapX and Across that become default settlement layers capture fees on trillions in volume.
- Solver-as-a-Service: High-throughput, capital-efficient solvers become critical, profitable B2B entities.
- Vertical Integration: Winners will control the full stack from intent expression (wallets) to fulfillment (solvers).
Trillions
Addressable Flow
10-100x
Efficiency Gain
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