You are reading an excerpt from our free but shortened abridged report! While still packed with incredible research and data, for just $40/month you can upgrade to our FULL library of 60+ reports (including this one) and complete industry-leading analysis on the top crypto assets.
Becoming a Premium member means enjoying all the perks of a Basic membership PLUS:
- Full-length CORE Reports: More technical, in-depth research, actionable insights, and potential market alpha for serious crypto users
- Early access to future CORE ratings: Being early is sometimes just as important as being right!
- Premium Member CORE+ Reports: Coverage on the top issues pertaining to crypto users like bridge security, layer two solutions, DeFi plays, and more
- CORE report Audio playback: Don’t want to read? No problem! Listen on the go.
Introduction to Blockchain Bridging Challenges
The promise of blockchain technology lies in its ability to create decentralized networks, yet the seamless transfer of assets between different chains remains a significant challenge. At the heart of blockchain interoperability is the question of how to efficiently transfer assets from one chain to another. A straightforward solution might seem to involve "sending a message" between chains. However, despite significant research and development efforts, this approach encounters substantial hurdles. Achieving cheap, fast, and secure message-passing remains elusive primarily due to finality risk, which necessitates time for message confirmation before execution can occur. This delay introduces complexities and vulnerabilities, which have yet to be fully resolved in existing systems.
What Are Intents?
In the Ethereum ecosystem, users traditionally interact by creating and signing transactions. These transactions are detailed messages containing all necessary information for the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) to execute a state transition. This process, however, involves managing smart contracts, nonces, and gas fees, which often results in a complicated user experience. The need for technical knowledge and precise execution can overwhelm users, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of access to crucial information for making optimal decisions.
Intents offer a solution to these complexities that can be utilized by DEXes, bridges, and more (image below). An intent is essentially a set of user-signed declarative constraints that express the desired outcome without specifying the exact steps to achieve it. Instead of detailing each transaction step, users convey their broader goals to the protocol. For example, executing a trade traditionally requires constructing a detailed transaction. With intents, this process becomes more streamlined and user-friendly.
Intents-Based Interoperability
Intents-based interoperability offers an innovative alternative by introducing a third party, known as a relayer (or filler or solver), to facilitate swift asset delivery and transaction execution. An intent allows a user to specify a desired outcome rather than a specific execution path. The term was popularized by Uniswap and their future v4 DEX.
These bridges are engineered to facilitate fast and cost-effective execution of cross-chain orders. They incorporate third-party agents who deliver the required assets to users on the destination chain and front the necessary capital to provide these assets. This design not only accelerates transaction times but also reduces the risks associated with traditional message-passing systems.
The concept of intents transforms the way we think about cross-chain transactions. Instead of focusing on the mechanics of how an asset moves from one chain to another, intents allow users to define their desired end state. This shift in perspective not only simplifies the user experience but also opens up new possibilities for optimizing transaction execution.
Early adopters like Across and Connext were instrumental in the development of intent-based design. The terminology was adopted across the industry, leading to the emergence of "intent-based bridges." This shift represents a significant evolution in how the blockchain community approaches cross-chain interoperability, moving from a rigid message-passing paradigm to a more flexible and user-centric model.
How Intents Work in a Bridge Transaction
The technology underpinning intents functions as a communication protocol that conveys messages from traders to solvers/relayers. Solvers source liquidity from various channels, including decentralized and centralized exchanges, over-the-counter trades, and futures markets. This wide array of sources ensures deep liquidity and minimizes slippage for users. Solvers maintain a delta-neutral position during transactions by hedging their trades, thereby balancing their books and reducing fees for users.
When a user expresses an intent, Solvers search both on-chain and off-chain environments to find the best match for the user's request. The Solver offering the most competitive deal secures the transaction. This approach not only saves users time and effort but also enhances the trading experience by providing better prices and reduced slippage.
On a more technical level, intents aim to address the challenges associated with older bridging designs through a series of steps: the user specifies a destination address on Ethereum and locks the tokens to be bridged into an L2 escrow smart contract. A market maker monitors changes in the escrow smart contract's state and initiates the transfer function of the PaymentRegistry Contract on Ethereum. The PaymentRegistry Contract disburses the tokens to the user’s specified address, and a storage proof is generated, evidencing the transfer. The L2 escrow contract verifies the storage proof and pays the market maker with the tokens initially locked by the user. This design can also be adapted for bridging tokens between different L2 solutions and can incorporate multi-proof storage proofs.
Relayer Incentives and Potential Risks
Relayers, acting as intermediaries, are incentivized to provide the fastest and most cost-effective solutions, creating a competitive environment that benefits users. While the intents architecture enables rapid order fulfillment, it raises the question of how to repay the relayer. User funds are held in escrow by the protocol and are released to the relayer only after the protocol verifies that the user’s intent has been fulfilled. This model's innovation lies in its ability to delay the verification process until after the user has been serviced, allowing for a more measured and cost-effective verification process.
Analysis done in Q1 2024 provided several critical insights into the early intent-based bridge ecosystem: a limited number of agents dominate the order flow, with the leading agent often operating under the protocol's team. There is a noticeable lack of competition among agents for each order, with many auctions featuring only one bidder, leading to no bidding contest. This centralization at the agent level introduces risks related to liveness, censorship resistance, and suboptimal order flow execution.
This centralization of order flow fulfillment by a few agents introduces several risks.
- Market manipulation: dominant agents might manipulate the market by setting unfavorable rates, delaying transactions, or exploiting their control over the order flow.
- Liveness: risks arise when a single agent or a small group of agents dominate the order flow, with no redundancy if they encounter technical issues, leading to potential service disruptions.
- Regulatory: a system controlled by a few agents is more susceptible to regulatory action, which could disrupt operations and negatively impact users. Additionally, dominant agents could potentially censor transactions, either voluntarily or under external pressure, by blocking or prioritizing transactions based on their criteria.
