Intent-based architectures are the inevitable evolution of crypto UX. Users currently sign raw transactions, a model that exposes them to MEV, gas complexity, and execution failure. This creates a technical burden that blocks mainstream adoption.
wallet-wars-smart-accounts-vs-embedded-wallets
Blog
The Future of Wallet UX: Intent, Not Transactions
The wallet wars will be won by those who abstract chains, gas, and slippage. This analysis breaks down the shift from signing transactions to declaring intent, examining protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and ERC-4337.
introduction
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Introduction
The next generation of user experience will shift from managing transaction mechanics to declaring desired outcomes.
Declarative user intent replaces transaction assembly. Instead of specifying a swap path on Uniswap, a user declares 'I want 1 ETH for the best price.' Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap then compete to fulfill this outcome, abstracting away bridges, liquidity sources, and fee optimization.
The wallet becomes a coordinator, not a signer. Wallets like Rabby and Safe are evolving into intent-solving engines that route user declarations through a network of specialized solvers. This solver network handles the complexity, turning the user's state change into an atomic, optimized transaction bundle.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume in its first six months by abstracting execution. This demonstrates the market demand for intent-based systems that prioritize user outcomes over technical minutiae.
thesis-statement
THE SHIFT
Thesis Statement
The next generation of wallet UX will be defined by intents, abstracting away the complexity of transactions and gas management.
Intent-based architecture replaces transaction execution with user goal declaration. Instead of signing a complex multi-step swap, a user signs a single intent to 'sell 1 ETH for USDC on the best venue', which is then fulfilled by a decentralized network of solvers like those powering UniswapX and CowSwap.
This is not aggregation; it's a fundamental paradigm shift. Transaction-based wallets like MetaMask ask 'how', while intent-based systems like Essential and Anoma ask 'what'. The wallet becomes a declarative interface, offloading execution optimization to specialized infrastructure.
The evidence is in adoption. UniswapX, which uses intents for cross-chain swaps, now processes over $2B monthly volume. This demonstrates user preference for guaranteed outcomes and MEV protection over manual, low-level transaction construction.
key-trends
THE FUTURE OF WALLET UX: INTENT, NOT TRANSACTIONS
Key Trends: The Intent Landscape
The next UX paradigm shift moves users from signing low-level transactions to declaring high-level outcomes, abstracting away blockchain complexity.
01
The Problem: Transaction Hell
Users are forced to act as their own protocol routers and risk managers, a job they are terrible at. This creates massive UX friction and suboptimal outcomes.
- Manual Execution: Users must find the best path across DEXs, bridges, and chains.
- Failed Transactions: ~15-20% of DeFi transactions fail, wasting gas and time.
- MEV Extraction: Naive transactions are easy prey for searchers, costing users billions annually.
~20%
Tx Fail Rate
$1B+
Annual MEV
02
The Solution: Declarative Intents
Users state what they want (e.g., 'Swap X for Y at best price'), not how to do it. A network of solvers competes to fulfill the intent optimally.
- Abstracted Complexity: Solvers handle routing, liquidity, and execution across protocols like Uniswap, Curve, and layerzero.
- Better Outcomes: Competition among solvers (e.g., CowSwap, UniswapX) drives prices toward the Pareto frontier.
- Guaranteed Execution: Users get their outcome or pay nothing, eliminating failed transaction waste.
10-30%
Better Price
0%
Failed Tx Cost
03
The Architecture: Solver Networks & SUAVE
Intent fulfillment requires a new infrastructure layer for solving, bundling, and execution. This is the battleground for the next wave of infra.
- Specialized Solvers: Entities like Across and 1inch evolve into intent-aware solvers, competing on speed and efficiency.
- Execution Coordination: Platforms need a mechanism to route intents, select winners, and guarantee settlement.
- SUAVE's Role: As a potential decentralized block builder and mempool, it could become the neutral marketplace for intent auction and execution.
~500ms
Auction Latency
1000+
Potential Solvers
04
The Trade-off: Centralization vs. Optimality
Intent systems inherently centralize trust in solvers or relayers for speed and efficiency. The core design challenge is minimizing this trust.
- Solver Trust: Users must trust the solver network not to censor or front-run their intent.
- Verifiability: Systems must allow users or watchdogs to verify that the executed solution was optimal.
- Hybrid Models: Expect dominant models to use decentralized solver sets with cryptoeconomic slashing, not fully permissionless networks.
1-5
Dominant Solvers
~$10M+
Solver Bond
05
The Killer App: Cross-Chain Intents
The most painful UX today is cross-chain swaps. Intent-based architectures like Across and layerzero's OFT are primed to dominate this space.
- Single Signature: User signs one intent to bridge and swap, the solver network handles the multi-chain execution.
- Cost Aggregation: Gas costs on source and destination chains are bundled into a single fee, paid in the input asset.
- Atomic Guarantee: The entire cross-chain operation either succeeds or reverts, eliminating stranded assets.
80%
UX Improvement
5 Chains
Single Intent
06
The Endgame: Wallet as a Service (WaaS)
The ultimate abstraction: the wallet disappears. Users interact with dApps via social logins or passkeys, with intents signed by decentralized signer networks.
- No Seed Phrases: Account abstraction (ERC-4337) enables social recovery and session keys.
- Dapp-Specific Intents: 'Connect Wallet' is replaced by 'Approve Intent' for a specific, limited action.
- Aggregated Liquidity: The WaaS layer becomes the ultimate aggregator, routing user flow to the most efficient solver network.
0
Seed Phrases
100M+
Potential Users
THE USER EXPERIENCE FRONTIER
Transaction vs. Intent: A Feature Matrix
A direct comparison of the technical and user-centric properties of traditional transaction execution versus intent-based architectures.
| Feature / Metric | Transaction (State-Based) | Intent (Goal-Based) | Hybrid (e.g., UniswapX) |
|---|---|---|---|
User Specifies | Exact state change path & parameters | Desired end-state outcome | Desired outcome with optional constraints |
Execution Complexity | User-managed (gas, slippage, MEV) | Solver-managed via off-chain auction | Solver-managed with on-chain settlement |
Typical Latency | 12-30 sec (Ethereum L1) | < 1 sec (intent signing) | Varies (off-chain RFQ + on-chain fill) |
MEV Exposure | High (front-running, sandwiching) | Extracted & returned to user (MEV capture) | Mitigated via private order flow |
Gas Fee Burden | User pays (often overpays) | Bundled into solver's bid; user may get rebate | User pays for settlement; solver covers routing |
Cross-Chain Capability | Requires manual bridging & liquidity | Native (via solvers like Across, LayerZero) | Native for specific asset pairs |
Wallet UX Abstraction | Low (sign many txns) | High (sign one intent for complex multi-step actions) | Medium (sign approval + settlement) |
Failure Mode | Revert (user loses gas) | Partial fill or no fill (no gas cost) | Partial fill possible; user pays settlement gas on success |
deep-dive
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Deep Dive: The Anatomy of an Intent
An intent is a declarative user objective that shifts computational and risk burdens from the user to a network of specialized solvers.
Declarative vs. Imperative Logic defines the core shift. A transaction is an imperative command: 'swap 1 ETH for USDC on Uniswap V3 on Arbitrum.' An intent is a declarative goal: 'get the best price for 1 ETH as USDC.' The user specifies the what, not the how.
Solver Networks execute the complex pathfinding. Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract liquidity aggregation, cross-chain routing via Across or LayerZero, and MEV protection. The user's wallet broadcasts the intent, and competing solvers bid to fulfill it.
Risk Transference is the trade-off. The user cedes fine-grained control over execution details—exact swap venue, gas price, bridging path—to the solver. In return, the solver guarantees the outcome and absorbs execution risk and gas costs.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $7B in volume in its first year by using filler networks to execute intents, demonstrating demand for abstraction over direct contract interaction.
protocol-spotlight
THE WALLET UX REVOLUTION
Protocol Spotlight: Who's Building Intent
The next generation of wallets is shifting the mental model from signing raw transactions to declaring desired outcomes, abstracting away complexity for users and unlocking new network-level efficiencies.
01
The Problem: Wallet UX is a Security Minefield
Users sign opaque transactions, exposing them to MEV, failed trades, and malicious contracts. The cognitive load of gas estimation and slippage tolerance is a massive adoption barrier.\n- ~$1B+ lost annually to MEV and scams\n- >30% of DEX trades fail or are front-run\n- User signs a transaction, not an intent
$1B+
Annual MEV Loss
30%+
Failed Trades
02
The Solution: UniswapX & CowSwap's Order Flow Auctions
These protocols let users submit signed intents (e.g., "swap X for Y") which are fulfilled by a competitive network of solvers. This abstracts gas, guarantees execution, and returns MEV to the user.\n- Intent-based routing via solvers like Across and 1inch\n- Gasless transactions and MEV protection\n- ~20-50% better prices via filler competition
Gasless
User Experience
20-50%
Price Improvement
03
The Infrastructure: Anoma & Essential's Intent-Centric Architectures
These are not applications but foundational layers. They provide a generalized intent settlement layer, separating declaration from execution to enable complex, multi-chain intents.\n- Anoma: Privacy-focused, multi-chain intent gossip network\n- Essential: Solver network for EVM chains using ERC-4337 account abstraction\n- Enables cross-chain swaps and limit orders natively
Multi-Chain
Architecture
Generalized
Intent Scope
04
The Aggregator: Across Protocol's Verified Fillers
Across operates a canonical intent bridge where users post intents and a permissioned set of fillers compete to fulfill them, with security backed by a $200M+ optimistic fraud-proof system.\n- ~15s average bridge time via intents\n- Single tx for cross-chain swaps (vs. 3+ with traditional bridges like LayerZero)\n- Capital efficiency for fillers drives better rates
15s
Avg. Bridge Time
$200M+
Security Bond
05
The Wallet Evolution: Rabby & Pillar as Intent Clients
Next-gen wallets like Rabby and Pillar are becoming intent clients. They simulate outcomes pre-signature, recommend optimal solvers, and bundle actions into single intents.\n- Pre-transaction simulation prevents failures\n- Solver reputation systems for routing\n- Bundled intents: swap, bridge, and stake in one signature
0 Failed
Simulated Txs
Bundled
User Actions
06
The Trade-off: Centralization of Solver Networks
Intent architectures create a new trust vector: the solver. While competitive, these networks are often permissioned or oligopolistic, posing a centralization risk versus pure peer-to-peer settlement.\n- Solver cartels could form, reducing competition\n- Requires robust economic security and slashing mechanisms\n- The Anoma model aims for permissionless solvers as a counterpoint
New Trust
Solver Layer
Oligopoly Risk
Centralization
counter-argument
THE RISK
Counter-Argument: The Centralization Trap
Intent-based architectures risk recreating the centralized intermediaries they aim to replace.
Solver market centralization is the primary risk. High-performance solvers require deep liquidity, MEV strategies, and capital, creating winner-take-most dynamics. This centralizes power in entities like CoW DAO solvers or proprietary market makers.
User sovereignty degrades with abstraction. Signing an intent delegates transaction construction to a third party. This trades transparency for convenience, creating opaque execution paths similar to traditional finance.
Regulatory attack surface expands for centralized solvers. Entities like UniswapX's fillers or Across relayers become clear legal targets, unlike permissionless smart contracts, inviting traditional financial regulation into the stack.
Evidence: The top three solvers on CoW Swap consistently capture over 60% of order flow, demonstrating rapid centralization despite a permissionless design.
risk-analysis
THE INTENT PARADIGM'S PITFALLS
Risk Analysis: What Could Go Wrong?
Intent-based UX promises a quantum leap in simplicity, but shifts critical risks from users to a new class of intermediaries.
01
The Solver Cartel Problem
Intent execution relies on competitive solvers (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap, 1inch Fusion) to find optimal paths. A lack of competition leads to rent extraction and censorship.
- Centralization Risk: A few dominant solvers could form an implicit cartel, extracting >90% of MEV that should go to users.
- Execution Censorship: Solvers could blacklist certain addresses or dApps, becoming the new gatekeepers.
>90%
MEV Capture
Oligopoly
Market Structure
02
The Oracle Manipulation Attack
Intents often depend on off-chain data (e.g., price feeds, liquidity status) to be fulfilled. This reintroduces a critical oracle dependency.
- Solver Incentive Misalignment: A malicious or compromised solver could use a manipulated oracle to fulfill intents at predatory rates.
- Systemic Failure: A flaw in a major intent infrastructure provider like Across or Socket could invalidate thousands of pending intents.
Single Point
Of Failure
$B+
TVL at Risk
03
The Privacy-Utility Tradeoff
Revealing your intent to a public mempool (or a private solver network) is a massive privacy leak that can be front-run.
- Information Asymmetry: Solvers see the full intent, giving them an informational advantage to extract value.
- MEV Amplification: Protocols like SUAVE aim to solve this, but may centralize block building power, creating a new risk vector.
100%
Intent Exposure
New MEV
Vector Created
04
The Irrevocable Authorization Trap
Intent signatures often grant broad, time-bound permissions to solvers. A buggy or malicious fulfillment can drain an account.
- Over-Permissive Signatures: Users sign messages approving "any token up to amount X," not a specific transaction.
- Recourse Complexity: Disputing a bad fulfillment requires complex fraud proofs or legal action, unlike a simple transaction revert.
Broad
Signing Scope
High
Recourse Cost
05
The Liquidity Fragmentation Death Spiral
If intent solvers consistently outbid normal transactions for block space, they could price out basic users and dApps.
- L1/L2 Congestion: Solver bundles could dominate blocks, increasing base layer fees for everyone else.
- Ecosystem Harm: This could make simple DeFi interactions economically non-viable, undermining the very activity solvers need.
Fee Spikes
For L1 Users
UX Regression
For Simplicity
06
The Regulatory Ambiguity Hammer
Intent solvers acting as discretionary intermediaries may trigger securities, money transmitter, or fiduciary regulations.
- Entity Liability: A solver like Anoma or Essential making execution choices could be deemed a regulated financial service.
- Protocol Risk: This legal uncertainty could stifle innovation and push development to unregulated jurisdictions.
High
Legal Surface
Uncertain
Classification
future-outlook
THE USER EXPERIENCE
Future Outlook: The 24-Month Horizon
Wallet interaction will shift from managing transaction mechanics to declaring desired outcomes.
Intent-based architectures dominate. Users will sign statements of desired outcomes, not raw transactions. This moves complexity from the user to a network of specialized solvers, as seen in UniswapX and CowSwap.
Wallets become intent orchestrators. The primary interface will be a declarative language, not a transaction builder. This requires new standards like ERC-4337 for account abstraction and ERC-7677 for intent expression.
Solver networks are the new MEV. Competition to fulfill user intents efficiently creates a new extractable value market. Protocols like Across and Anoma are building the infrastructure for this solver economy.
Evidence: UniswapX processed over $10B in volume in its first year by abstracting routing and gas costs into intents, demonstrating user demand for this model.
takeaways
THE FUTURE OF WALLET UX
Key Takeaways
The next generation of user interaction shifts from managing transaction mechanics to declaring desired outcomes.
01
The Problem: Transaction Abstraction
Users are forced to act as their own settlement layer, manually signing multiple transactions across fragmented liquidity pools and bridges. This creates a ~70% drop-off rate for new users.
- Cognitive Overhead: Requires deep understanding of gas, slippage, and network states.
- Failed States: Transactions revert due to MEV, price changes, or insufficient gas.
- Capital Inefficiency: Funds are locked in pending transactions across chains.
~70%
Drop-off Rate
5+ Steps
Avg. Swap
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Architectures
Users submit a signed declaration of their desired end state (e.g., 'I want 1 ETH on Arbitrum for <$3,000'). A network of solvers (like in CowSwap, UniswapX, Across) competes to fulfill it optimally.
- User Sovereignty: Specifies the 'what', not the 'how'. Solvers handle routing, batching, and MEV protection.
- Optimal Execution: Solvers use private mempools (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE) to find best price across all venues.
- Atomic Guarantees: The user's outcome either succeeds completely or fails, with no partial states.
~500ms
Solver Latency
$10B+
Protected Volume
03
The Enabler: Account Abstraction (ERC-4337)
Smart contract wallets are the execution layer for intents, enabling sponsorship, batching, and key recovery. This breaks the EOA (Externally Owned Account) model's rigidity.
- Session Keys: Grant limited permissions for seamless app interaction (e.g., gaming, trading).
- Gas Sponsorship: DApps or protocols pay fees, removing the need for native gas tokens.
- Social Recovery: Mitigates catastrophic seed phrase loss, the #1 cause of asset theft.
ERC-4337
Standard
-100%
User Gas
04
The Battleground: Solver Networks & MEV
The value accrual shifts from front-running bots to competitive solver networks. Projects like CowSwap, UniswapX, and Across operate orderflow auctions where solvers bid for the right to fulfill intents.
- MEV Redistribution: Extractable value is captured by the network and can be shared with users.
- Cross-Chain Intents: Solvers leverage bridges like LayerZero and Axelar for seamless cross-chain fulfillment.
- Centralization Risk: The solver market may consolidate, creating new trusted intermediaries.
>50%
OF Auctions
$1B+
MEV Redistributed
05
The Endgame: Declarative Finance
The ultimate UX is a single signature for complex, multi-step financial positions. Think 'Provide $10k liquidity to the best yielding ETH-stable pool across Ethereum L2s for 30 days'.
- Composability: Intents become programmable primitives, combined into sophisticated strategies.
- Automated Maintenance: Solvers continuously rebalance positions to maintain declared parameters.
- Institutional Onboarding: Removes operational complexity, enabling treasury management via intents.
1-Click
Complex DeFi
24/7
Auto-Rebalance
06
The Risk: New Trust Assumptions
Intent-based systems trade transaction-level verification for solver-level trust. Users must trust that the solver network is competitive and honest.
- Solver Collusion: A dominant solver set could extract maximum value without passing savings to users.
- Censorship: Solvers could selectively ignore intents based on origin or type.
- Implementation Bugs: Complex intent expression and fulfillment logic introduces new attack surfaces in wallets and solvers.
New Attack
Vectors
Trusted
Solver Set
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