Why Intent-Solver System Works? - Part 1

A major shift in Web3 interoperability is around the corner.

We are witnessing a massive change in how value is transferred between chains.

The shift has already begun, but this is only the beginning.

I have used and studied both interop models as a user and a researcher/developer—adequately enough to write a two-part article on them.

The new intent-solver-based system is far better, faster, cheaper, and perhaps more secure.

This article presents my arguments for why intent-based interoperability systems could surpass traditional bridging models. And then, I will explain these systems and their significance as simply as possible.

But first, let me throw in some solid numbers to strengthen my argument:

1. Here is a snapshot of the total value filled/bridged by intent-solver systems in the last 90 days - a whopping 4.1 billion USD.
   

2. Across Protocol, one of the top intent-solver-based interop systems currently, has the following transfer count.👇

• Time comparison of a typical bridge transfer between Across ( intent-solver system) vs other traditional bridges. Take a good look at the chart and see who is winning.

Now, let's dive in and understand Why Intent-Solver Systems for Interop work better.

Brief Glance at the Past

Feel free to skip this section if you are an interop nerd and know it all.

We will explore the traditional interop model quickly to see what’s wrong with it.

A typical blockchain bridge enables asset and data transfers across disparate blockchains.

They have 2 main models:

1. Lock-and-Mint Model:
   1. In this model, a user’s assets are first “locked” in a smart contract on the source blockchain.
   2. A corresponding “wrapped” token, representing the locked asset, is then “minted” on the destination chain.
   3. If the user wishes to redeem their original asset, the wrapped token is “burned,” and the initial token is released back to them on the original blockchain.
2. Liquidity Pool Model:
   1. Here, the bridge maintains pools of assets on both blockchains, provided by liquidity providers who earn fees from transfers.
   2. Users who want to transfer an asset trade it in one chain’s pool and receive an equivalent amount from the pool on the destination chain.
   3. This model eliminates the need for wrapping and minting but relies heavily on liquidity.

Additionally, a traditional interop system typically relies on the following components:

• Smart Contracts act as the gateway for interop on any chain and help automatically handle complex logic, such as minting, burning, locking, or releasing user funds.
• Validators or relayers verify and transmit messages across chains, ensuring that the transaction is recognized and completed on both sides. They provide critical consensus to prevent double-spending or fraudulent transactions, although by introducing trust assumptions.
• Oracles play a vital role by collecting and validating off-chain data and ensuring that state changes (like locked assets) are reliably reported across chains.

So, what’s wrong with Traditional Interoperability Systems?

Traditional interoperability protocols (bridges) face several technical challenges, each impacting their security, reliability, scalability, or overall UX.

Below are just a few of those issues: