Intent-Driven User Experience

Execution‑driven workflows surface protocol internals directly to the user. Even a simple asset swap requires choosing an execution network, granting token allowances, setting an appropriate gas price, and tracking confirmation status. Each step drags low‑level details: nonces, mempool contention, and re‑org risk into what should be a straightforward economic decision.

In an intent‑driven model the user signs a single message that describes the desired state transition and its bounds (minimum received, maximum fee, expiry). Every subsequent decision is delegated to the solver network. A solver assembles an execution plan, finances gas, selects bridging or proof middleware, and submits one on‑chain transaction that atomically satisfies the invariant. The user sees only the final outcome; the underlying complexity remains invisible.

The same abstraction reduces maximum‑extractable value (MEV). Order‑flow originators can route intents to neutral or aligned actors in the transaction supply chain. A solver that fails to internalize adverse order flow is displaced by a competitor offering a superior net quote. Continuous competition compresses rents that would otherwise accrue to mempool participants, while the protocol remains agnostic to the mitigation technique: private order flow, threshold encryption, or market‑based competition.

Khalani standardizes the single‑step intent as the canonical intent-driven interaction primitive. Spot swaps, collateral deposits, and debt repayments - all operations that complete with one atomic transaction - fit this model. Later chapters generalize the concept to more advanced intents, but the single‑step form illustrates the essential contract between user, solver, and the settlement layer.