She’s got the tokens. She’s got the tools. But she’s still stuck. This is 2025. It is almost certain that many DeFi users now have more liquidity than most hedge funds had in 2005. Yet, moving from ETH to SOL still takes five screens, three networks, two bridges, and one questionable quote. Every action, no matter how basic, invites new slippage, more fees, or exposure to MEV. The infrastructure exists, but none of it works together. This is DeFi’s biggest problem: there is liquidity, but no coordination. ---- 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭-𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐞𝐅𝐢 𝐋𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝗣𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 Decentralized trading has reached an inflection point. Bridges moved over $17B in May alone, while DEX aggregators clear nearly $500B in volume each year. We all know that there is a working system. However, users still manually execute approvals, routes, and swaps. And each additional step introduces the risks involving gas spikes, poor execution, or vulnerability to frontrunning. In many cases, capital stays idle on its native chain because the process of moving it is not worth the friction. When the chain reaches this point, it needs better coordination. ---- 𝗔 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹-𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗟𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 This is where a goal-oriented execution layer, or GO-EL, comes in. Instead of telling the system which bridge to use or what steps to follow, the user simply states their goal. For example, “swap 10 ETH for at least 29 SOL within 5 minutes.” That’s it. The rest is handled in the background. Solvers, the autonomous agents competing for execution, scan available routes across bridges and DEXs, then construct the most efficient path, and post collateral to guarantee it. The best solver wins, and the intent settles atomically. The user is never involved in the underlying complexity, and if MEV is involved, it gets captured and returned to the user as price improvement. ---- 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗜𝘁 The appetite for intent-based execution is already developing in numbers. @Uniswap cleared over $3T in lifetime trading volume, with V4 alone surpassing $110B by May. @CoWSwap moved more than $83B, delivering over $441M in saved slippage. @1inch handles about $310.8M in daily volume, and even its Fusion product, focused on crosschain intents, processes $1.5M per day. @odosprotocol routes $4.55B every 30 days and captures >$5.9M in annual fees. You should know that every one of these solutions operates within a single chain. Meanwhile, crosschain routers are also catching up. @lifiprotocol routed over $20B across 30M transactions for 5M users. @AcrossProtocol relayed $22B in 15M transfers, many settling in under 1 minute. @axelar powered Squid moved $1.2B in 2024 and still sees around 2,400 transactions per day. These data facts align with deep but siloed liquidity and growing volume, but early coordination. A goal-oriented layer connects both. ---- 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗟𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 A well-constructed GO-EL simplifies beyond routing. It compresses the entire user activities, such as swap, bridge, settle, and verify, into a single, clean instruction. Everything else is abstracted away. Remember my post on DFA on @Aptos? This is a similar framework. Solvers compete to minimize costs, while users benefit from the best pricing, guaranteed completion, and MEV protection. ---- 𝗚𝗼-𝘁𝗼-𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 The most obvious place to launch a GO-EL is where liquidity already flows. @base, @arbitrum, @optimism, and @Mantle_Official see over $1.4B in daily DEX volume. These L2s are highly active, bridge-heavy, and wallet-friendly. Mantle already supports abstracted routing through @BungeeExchange. A GO-EL only needs one line of code to integrate into wallets and interfaces. Instead of asking users to approve five separate steps, the GO-EL runs the logic under the hood and presents only the result. Solver fees are extracted from saved slippage to ensure a seamless and cost-efficient user experience from day one. ---- 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 Of course, coordination introduces new attack surfaces. Bridge security is still a weak point in DeFi. Solvers could form cartels, censor intents, or frontrun each other. These risks can be reduced by requiring solvers to post burnable bonds, prove execution publicly, and operate on verified messaging systems like zk-proofs or optimistic layers. ---- 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗔𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗮? @anoma is the most complete version of this vision in production. However, it is not a router. It is a base-layer intent system. Their testnet allows users to define outcomes across chains and parties, and solvers compete to fulfill them. Developers can visualize these flows using a 3D interface, and behind the scenes, Anoma uses validity predicates and a custom solver framework to make intent execution verifiable and trust-minimized. We have tools like @sprinter_ux and @FlutonIO building in the ecosystem. ---- 𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝗘𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀? Intent-centric coordination is already being built across multiple layers of various ecosystems. We mentioned that UniswapX, CoW Swap, and 1inch Fusion are working with intents. Others are: • @intentessential: A new L2 on Ethereum with intent execution at the core of its stack. Instead of retrofitting bridges and routers, it bakes in solver logic, user abstraction, and trust-minimized settlement from the start. • Flashbots ( ): They came in from the MEV angle. SUAVE is the proposed intent auction system that lets users submit intents and solvers bid for the right to fulfill them across rollups, private pools, and L1s. • Two new Ethereum standards, ERC-7683 and ERC-7521, aim to formalize how intents are written and fulfilled. One governs crosschain formatting, the other ensures that smart contract wallets define time, slippage, and approval constraints. • Architecturally, frameworks like CAKE (Chain Abstraction Key Elements) from @ParticleNtwrk and @EverclearOrg Chain Abstraction Stack lay out the entire full stack. CAKE defines layers from account abstraction to settlement. Everclear focuses on intent interoperability across chains. • @MitosisOrg: Finally, Mitosis is designing a modular intent compiler. This is a system that turns human-readable goals into structured instructions that solvers can act on. It treats intents as the next UX layer for modular DeFi. ---- 𝗪𝗿𝗮𝗽-𝗨𝗽 DeFi has all the parts, from liquidity to security to flexibility, but lacks coordination. What users want is to achieve their goals without iterating execution steps. This is what a goal-oriented execution layer does, and with its development, complexity, fragmentation, and friction are resolved. The next layer of DeFi is here. Learning to adapt is all you need! Thanks for reading!