Intent-Based
Intent-based design flips transactions upside down: instead of specifying *how* (exact contract calls, routes, slippage), you declare *what you want* ("swa
Intent-based design flips transactions upside down: instead of specifying *how* (exact contract calls, routes, slippage), you declare *what you want* (“swap 1 ETH for ≥3,000 USDC”) and competing solvers fill it. UniswapX and across-protocol intents pioneered the pattern.
How it works
Your signed intent enters a competitive marketplace; solvers race to execute it best, keeping the spread as profit. Dutch auctions typically drive the price toward optimal; MEV that once taxed you now partly returns as price improvement — solvers bidding against each other share value back to win your flow.
Why it matters for decentralization
Intents move power from infrastructure (who orders blocks) to marketplaces (who fills orders) — decentralization migrates from validators to solver competition. A market with three dominant solvers is the new mining pool: watch filler diversity, not just chain metrics.
Risks & trade-offs
Solver oligopoly and censorship; opaque execution (verify outcomes, not paths); exclusive order flow deals recreating gatekeepers; and complexity that resists casual auditing.
FAQ
Intents vs limit orders? Limit orders specify price on one venue; intents specify outcomes across all venues, filled by whoever does it best.
Do intents fix MEV? They redirect it — searchers compete to give *you* better prices instead of sandwiching you. Better equilibrium, same players.
What can go wrong? Solver failure mid-fill, exclusive-flow centralization, and users approving intents they don’t understand. Outcome guarantees beat mechanism trust — read the guarantee.
Related terms
DEX aggregator ·
MEV · DeFi