Most of what users do on-chain is a sequence of transactions they assemble themselves: approve, swap, bridge, wait, swap again. Intents turn that around. The user signs the outcome they want, with limits — "at least this much USDC on Base, within ten minutes" — and specialised parties called solvers work out how to deliver it.
What an intent contains
- What the user gives: the asset, amount and chain they are spending from.
- What the user must receive: the asset, minimum amount, destination chain and recipient.
- Deadlines: how long the intent is valid and by when it must be filled.
- Any conditions the protocol supports, such as an action to perform with the funds on arrival.
What a solver does
A solver watches for intents, checks whether it can deliver one profitably within the limits, and then does so — often by paying the user from its own funds on the destination chain straight away. It is repaid from the user's deposit on the origin chain once the fill has been verified, which can take longer. Solvers compete on price and speed, and the protocol decides how they are chosen: first to fill, an auction, or another rule.
Why this is faster for users
Because the solver fronts the funds, the user does not wait for a message to cross between chains. The slow part — proving the fill happened and settling with the solver — still happens, but the solver carries that wait instead of the user. That is why intent-based transfers usually feel quicker than a classic bridge.
Where intent systems can go wrong
- No fill: the price moved, liquidity was thin, or the route is unpopular. The deposit must be refundable after the deadline.
- Settlement risk: a solver relies on the protocol's verification and repayment. A flaw there costs solvers, and eventually users.
- Solver concentration: if a handful of solvers fill most orders, outages and pricing depend on them.
- Partial outcomes: the funds arrived but the follow-up action failed. Your product needs a clear state for that.
What to check before you integrate one
- Which chains and assets it covers, and how many independent solvers fill on your routes.
- How fills are verified and solvers repaid, and what happens if that verification fails.
- Refund behaviour when an intent expires unfilled.
- Whether it follows a shared standard such as ERC-7683, so more solvers can fill your orders.
- Audit history and incident record.
Questions people ask
Are intents only for cross-chain transfers?
- No. Intents are also used for swaps on one chain. Cross-chain is where they remove the most friction, because the user avoids waiting on a bridge.
Who are the solvers?
- Usually professional market makers and trading firms running automated systems, though protocols differ in who can take part.
Can a solver steal funds?
- In a sound design, no: the user's deposit is released to a solver only after the fill is verified. That is why the verification and settlement design is the first thing to review.
Can Vayro integrate intents into our app?
- Yes. It is part of our chain abstraction work, including handling unfilled and partial outcomes in the product.