Understanding Intents in Blockchain: A Comprehensive Guide to Intents

In today’s blockchain world, everything revolves around transactions—seriously, that’s what 90% of the space is built around. Even cutting-edge players like Solana, NEAR, and Polkadot, despite their advanced apps, are still locked into a transaction-centric design. But here’s the exciting twist: the future of blockchains is shifting gears. Forget the old transaction model—next-gen decentralized protocols are moving from blockchain transactions to blockchain intents as the core building block. Imagine this: instead of telling a protocol exactly how to execute a series of steps, you just express what you want in a more natural way. For example, you could tell a protocol, “Do arbitrage for Litecoin and aim to earn me 5%, given that I have 14 LTC,” or even something quirky like, “Swap my BTC for EMT or another exotic altcoin, but only if Rihanna gets back together with Chris Brown.” Yes, with this new architecture, you can abstract away complex processes and let the system handle everything in one smooth action—even if it involves something as absurd as showbiz-dependent trades. This shift from blockchain transactions to blockchain intents is opening up a world where protocols can handle intricate requests with ease, bringing a new level of flexibility and creativity to blockchain interactions. The future is coming. 

What are Intents in Blockchain?

As of 2024, we are still not there, but some solutions, say, DEX aggregators like Portals.fi or Matcha XYZ, are making strides toward an intent-oriented approach by simplifying complex, multi-step processes into a single, user-friendly action. Let’s say you want your crypto to work for you instead of simply sitting in your wallet. But all you currently have is DAI. You’ve heard from a friend that if you stake ETH with Lido protocol, they’ll give you stETH in return, the token you can trade, lend, or use while earning staking rewards. Your plan? Simple, but not easy. First, you’ll need to hunt for the best rate across different DEX aggregators and exchanges. Then, after finding the right one, you swap your DAI for ETH. Finally, you still have to interact with the Lido protocol to convert your ETH into stETH. By the time you finish all these steps, you might start wondering if you signed up for a quick trade or accidentally took on a part-time job.

With intent-centric systems, you can skip all those tedious steps. Instead, you simply sign one intent that says, “Hey, I want to swap my DAI for stETH,” and the system takes care of everything else. 

Behind the scenes, Matcha’s intelligent routing algorithm is like a 4D chess master, figuring out the best paths across multiple decentralized exchanges, sorting out the gas costs, and depositing that sweet stETH directly into your wallet without you needing to lift a finger. Similarly, Portals.fi streamlines actions from various DeFi protocols (like swaps, yield farming, and liquidity pooling), optimizing the best routes and prices behind the scenes. Essentially, you just express what you want (like “swap DAI for stETH”), and the system handles all the intricate details, making the experience feel closer to an intent-based system.

No back-and-forths. No extra approvals. Just a smooth, optimized swap powered by  solvers (which we’ll discuss later so you know what the term means). All wrapped up in a single transaction. 

So, here's the thing: smart-contract intents have been floating around for a while now, but they’ve only recently started making waves in the blockchain world. People have slapped all sorts of names on them—programmable quotes, RFQ systems, coincidences of wants—you name it. Sure, these terms have their little quirks, but intents currently nail two big things: user experience and price discovery. Remember when complex crypto transactions felt like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube blindfolded? Well, intents swoop in to make that process nice and easy, helping you find the right match at the right price, ensuring you’re always getting the best user experience.

Take a look at the current intent-oriented solutions within the ecosystem, and we’ll discuss which solution is responsible for what in the later sections. 

The Architecture of an Intent-Oriented System 

If we want to shift from a transaction-focused approach to an intent-focused one, it’s important to first understand the core difference between these two concepts. Transactions are like following a GPS route—you plan out every single turn: “Take this road, then that one” to reach your destination. Everything is predefined and rigid. Smart-contract intents, however, work more like telling a rideshare driver where you want to go and letting them figure out the best way to get you there. You just say, “Get me from 1 ETH to at least 2,000 USDC,” and the system handles the details of how that happens. It’s less about micromanaging and more about focusing on the desired outcome.

In more professional terms, transactions are explicitly defined, making them imperative—every function needed for executing the transaction in the virtual machine is already set in stone. On the other hand, intents specify the change of a resulting state, but not the specific steps to achieve it, making them declarative. This approach allows for more flexibility and automation, as the system decides the optimal way to fulfill the intent without rigid instructions. And in terms of architecture, this leaves us with two core components: intent capture and intent execution. 

In the intent capture stage, the system first identifies what the user wants to achieve. Front-end interfaces like 1inch and CoW Swap play a key role in this process. They help users specify their intent, guiding them through the options and then passing that information along for execution. However, these front-end interfaces often do more than just capturing intent—they may also handle other tasks related to the execution process.

Once the intent is captured, we move into the intent execution phase. Here, the captured intent is turned into call data and broken down into smaller, executable logic modules. The following components come into play during this phase, each contributing to carrying out the intent in a coordinated manner. But generally speaking, searchers identify the most profitable opportunities, resolvers plan the routes, solvers execute all the transactions along the path, takers focus on the direct interaction with liquidity pools or markets, and fillers are more specialized in breaking down and completing fragmented orders.

And just one more thing, before we dive in:  it's important to note that as of 2024, the lines between some components are often blurred. In many cases, a single product can handle multiple tasks simultaneously.

Intent Execution Stage

Searchers

Searchers, often bots run by independent operators, are like scouts—they scan the network, identifying profitable opportunities that align with the user’s intent. In an order book DEX, for example, a searcher might identify arbitrage opportunities or liquid markets where the intent can be executed efficiently. Searchers are particularly important when dealing with MEV (maximal extractable value) strategies or opportunities that might not be immediately obvious. Once they identify the best opportunities, they pass this information to solvers or resolvers to finalize execution. Searchers are constantly on the lookout for hidden gains that could enhance the outcome for the user. However, as of 2024, searchers can still be associated with malicious activities, especially when it comes to maximal extractable value (MEV). Flashbots is one of the most prominent platforms in the MEV ecosystem. The software operates within a structured, ethical framework that tries to mitigate the harmful effects of MEV by providing a more efficient and less disruptive path for extracting value. 

Resolvers

Resolvers are often implemented as smart contracts but can also involve off-chain algorithms or services that feed into the decision-making process. Their main role is to determine which solver, pathway, or combination of resources should be used to fulfill the intent most efficiently. Think of resolvers as a mastermind behind the operation, Walter White, so to speak—they evaluate multiple possible paths and pick the most efficient or profitable one. For instance, Balancer’s Smart Pools dynamically rebalance asset allocations according to predefined strategies. The pool’s logic decides the most efficient way to manage the assets in line with the user’s intent. Zerion is a DeFi portfolio management platform that also acts as a resolver when users perform swaps. It aggregates liquidity across several sources and resolves the best routes for executing trades, considering both cost-effectiveness and transaction speed. 

Solvers

Solvers, which can include smart contracts, bots, or algorithms, are essentially any systems capable of executing the overall intent. When you perform a swap on Uniswap, it may seem like a single action, but under the hood, it can involve several steps that the Automated Market Maker (AMM) handles behind the scenes. Price determination across liquidity pools, routing through multiple pools, and liquidity optimization. In DEXes like SushiSwap, Automated Market Makers (AMMs) act as solvers by using mathematical formulas and algorithms to determine asset prices and provide liquidity for trading. Yield optimizers like Yearn Finance, Harvest Finance, and Alpha Homora also function as solvers by helping users maximize returns on decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. These platforms automatically analyze lending and staking opportunities across various protocols and allocate funds to the most profitable options. 

Takers

Takers are the execution agents in this architecture. Think of them like the smart contracts handling automated swaps on Uniswap, but they can also be off-chain actors like arbitrage bots. Their job is to interact directly with on-chain or off-chain systems to fulfill the intent. In simple terms, they “take” liquidity or perform specific actions based on instructions from solvers or resolvers. For example, in a DEX, a taker might fill an order by connecting with liquidity pools or other traders. Essentially, takers carry out the decisions made earlier, ensuring the intent is fully executed.

Fillers

Fillers play a more granular role, especially in scenarios involving partial fulfillment. Let’s say an intent specifies swapping a large amount of tokens; fillers manage these smaller pieces, ensuring each part of the transaction is efficiently filled, whether on one platform or across several. They help in piecing together liquidity from various sources or completing multi-step processes bit by bit. Essentially, fillers ensure that no gaps are left when it comes to executing the full intent, even when it involves complex, multi-path strategies. Often, fillers are part of a hybrid system where both on-chain (smart contracts) and off-chain components work together. 

Where do we go from here?

The shift towards intent-based blockchains represents a significant evolution in blockchain architecture. Unlike traditional transaction-based systems that require users to specify each step in the process, intent-centric models focus on what users want to achieve rather than how to get there. These protocols act like sophisticated assistants, managing the underlying complexities while allowing users to focus solely on their objectives.

Anoma, for instance, is a leading example of intent-centric design. It allows users to express intents, such as swapping one asset for another, without worrying about the specifics of execution. Anoma leverages decentralized solvers that handle the back-end logic, selecting the most efficient path to fulfill the intent. This results in smoother interactions, freeing users from micromanaging every transaction detail.

Essential offers a similar solution but with an emphasis on integrating various DeFi protocols into a unified process. By using its own domain-specific language (DSL), Essential captures user intents and routes them through resolvers, which determine the best way to execute them. Whether the task involves staking, swapping, or lending, Essential streamlines the entire operation into a single, optimized flow, making it both efficient and user-friendly.

Banana HQ brings a creative spin to intent-based interactions by offering users a high level of customization. It allows for the definition of complex conditions, such as executing a trade only if specific market conditions are met. This flexibility extends to various use cases, from decentralized finance to gaming, making the experience more personalized and aligned with individual needs.

The broader shift to intent-driven systems is transforming the blockchain landscape by moving away from rigid transaction models. By focusing on what users want to accomplish and letting the system handle the details, we can create more intuitive, flexible, and powerful protocols, making the future of intents in blockchain a tangible reality. As these systems mature, they are likely to play a crucial role in driving the adoption and accessibility of decentralized technology. When these systems are mature enough, they are likely to play a crucial role in making decentralized technology more accessible and effective, fundamentally changing how we interact with blockchain.