Intent‑Centric Web3: From “How” to “What” Tell the system what you want—no need to worry about which chain, bridge, or DEX. This idea is the basis for the so-called intent-centric architecture. In this approach, solvers compete to achieve your goal while the blockchain enforces your constraints. More clarity, less friction, better execution. 🔹 Introduction The world of modern technology keeps getting more complex and asks everyday people to understand more about how things are built and how they work. In Web3, this is especially true. It can be challenging for a user to understand what is going on as technologies, blockchains, and tokens proliferate, but doing so frequently seems essential to completing tasks. In Web3, it's not easy to do simple things like “swap token X for token Y” or move a token from one network to another right now, let alone do more complicated things in DeFi. You often need a detailed understanding of the required steps. Even experienced users can find this challenging. That’s why the intent-centric idea was created. It is a system design where users express their intention (the “intent”)—the outcome they want—and the system handles the concrete steps under the hood. This approach goes beyond Web3 and can be relevant to any tech product, system, or infrastructure. 🔹 How it works The overall intent-centric architecture can be simple. There are users, final applications that execute actions, and solvers who help fulfill users’ intentions. In practice, there is also an intent collection and distribution layer (an “intent pool” or relay) that fairly delivers intents to competing solvers. • User. Formulates a goal (the intent). This is the concrete result they want to get. Then they submit it to the system. • Intent collection and distribution system. Accepts and validates intents, queues them, and distributes them competitively to solvers according to common rules. • Solvers (executors). Assess the intent, plan the optimal route, timing, and price, then execute. There can be multiple solvers competing to fulfill the intent. • Final applications/networks (place of execution). Receive the transaction bundle from a solver. This is where the user’s intent is actually carried out on-chain. The flow is simple: the user formulates a goal → the system accepts and distributes the intent → solvers compete and choose an execution plan → the application executes and records the result → the user receives the outcome. So, there are three main actors in this system: users, solvers, and applications, with an additional relay layer that moves intents between them. The user doesn’t need to know technical details: solvers take on the hard problems and decide how and where to fulfill the intent. The job of final applications is simply to execute. 🔹 Advantages of this system • Simplified UX for the user: focus on the goal, not the technical steps. • Economic efficiency: solvers compete to execute and select the most efficient route. • Flexibility: the user’s experience stays the same, while solvers and apps can change behind the scenes without disruption. • Decentralization and no single point of failure: multiple participants improve reliability and reduce dependence on any single party. 🔹 Drawbacks and risks • Architectural complexity: by default, an intent-centric architecture is more complex than a traditional one; it requires more time to design, build, and maintain. • Lack of a single execution standard: solvers decide how intents are executed, and their decision-making may be opaque to users. • Principal-agent problem on the solver side: solvers typically see more than users and could exploit that information to their advantage. • Centralization risk: although intent-centric aims for decentralization and solver competition, a dominant player could capture order flow and control execution, amplifying other risks. • Difficulty formalizing intents: it can be challenging to balance simple UX with effective execution, and the reduction in user cognitive load may not always be significant. 🔹 Closing thoughts In short, an intent-centric architecture is a practical way to make user interaction simpler. It can be a key ingredient in improving user experience and driving broader Web3 adoption. Intent-centric design brings a new kind of experience to blockchain by making complex operations simple and automated. However, it involves more participants and a more complex infrastructure. Whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks will take time to show, but this approach is likely to find its place in blockchain’s evolution and may extend beyond Web3.