‘Intents’ in Blockchain: A Beginner’s Guide to Crypto’s Big New Hype
Understanding Intents in Blockchain: The Hype and the Hazards
In the evolving landscape of blockchain technology, a new concept is taking center stage: “intents.” This emerging trend is subtly reshaping our interaction with blockchain platforms, offering a mix of potential benefits and inherent risks.
At the heart of this technological shift lies the concept of intents in the blockchain realm. An intent is essentially a user’s specific objective within the blockchain ecosystem. These “intent-centric” systems, though varied in their design, share a common operational thread. Users, ranging from traders to protocols, articulate their intents to a service, which then delegates the task to a “solver” — this could be a person, an AI, or another protocol — tasked with fulfilling the user’s goal.
The surge in the importance of intents aligns with the rapid expansion of blockchain networks. From Bitcoin and Ethereum to a multitude of layer-1 and layer-2 networks, and now the emerging layer-3 networks, the blockchain universe is becoming increasingly complex. This complexity is further compounded by the proliferation of “bridges” and other interoperability solutions that knit these networks together.
Arjun Bhuptani from Connext, an interoperability protocol, sheds light on this phenomenon: “As the blockchain landscape matures, “the number of possibilities that you can do on blockchains has compounded. You have an infinite possible way of doing a transaction at a given time.”
However, these platforms are not without their pitfalls. Concerns are mounting over the emergence of monopolistic tendencies within these new services. The notion of relying on external solvers for blockchain-related tasks, while convenient, could lead to the concentration of power in a few dominant entities.
Understanding Intents in Blockchain
Blockchains can be likened to vast, global computers. Traditionally, users would provide detailed, step-by-step instructions for their transactions. However, intent-centric models are revolutionizing this approach. Users now state their end-goals, like swapping tokens at the best possible rate, without dictating the specific steps, thereby entrusting the protocols to manage the intricacies.
Imagine the difference between giving a taxi driver detailed directions and simply stating your destination. Traditional blockchain services resemble the former, where every twist and turn must be specified, often resulting in a tedious and costly process. Intent-centric systems, in contrast, require only the final destination, placing trust in the system to navigate the best route.
Blockchain platforms such as Anoma, Flashbots, and CoW Swap are at the forefront of offering intent-centric services. Users can communicate a broad objective, like trading tokens at an optimal price, which is then executed by a third-party solver for a fee.
The Mechanics of Intents
While the terminology varies across platforms, the essence of ‘intents’ remains consistent. Most intent-centric systems begin with an “intent-discovery” phase, where users broadcast their objectives. Bhuptani describes these as akin to “mempools” in blockchain parlance — holding areas for transactions awaiting processing.
The complexity of intents is limitless, from simple asset swaps to intricate cross-chain transactions. Following this, a marketplace of solvers emerges, where these automated actors bid to fulfill the intents, motivated by the potential for earning fees.
Despite the novelty of intents, the concept isn’t entirely new. It’s a sophisticated rebranding of existing processes, like swapping ETH for BTC on Coinbase or using an aggregator like 1inch for optimal token sales. What sets apart the 2023 version of intents is the integration of user-friendly, decentralized principles adaptable to diverse use-cases, all while maintaining the ethos of crypto’s decentralized nature.
Intent-centric systems are already operational in various applications. For example, Bhuptani’s Connext uses intents to facilitate transactions across different blockchains. Anoma offers an “intent-centric infrastructure” designed for broad applicability, while Flashbots’ upcoming SUAVE blockchain is built around “preferences,” a variant of intents, aimed at aligning user priorities with MEV considerations.
Even MetaMask’s parent company, Consensys, is quietly testing “transaction routing” feature that could turn the biggest Ethereum wallet into an “intent-centric” protocol — meaning users will be able to lean on third parties to find the best path for their transactions.
The Risks of Centralization and Monopoly
While intent-centric models offer user experience enhancements, they also harbor potential downsides, much like the taxi analogy. Trusting a driver, or in this case, a solver, requires faith in their honesty and efficiency. However, this trust can lead to potential monopolies, where convenience empowers dominant players at the users’ expense.
Paradigm, a leading blockchain investor and researcher, cautions against this trend. Their research indicates that widespread adoption of intents might accelerate a shift towards alternative mempools, risking centralization and the entrenchment of middlemen.
The promise of intent-centic systems is a more user-friendly, time, and cost-efficient blockchain ecosystem. However, achieving this ideal necessitates a cautious and balanced approach to prevent the rise of new monopolies and to maintain the decentralized spirit of blockchain technology.
Wan‘t to sponsor my posts or 25k user newsletter. Let’s connect:
