The dilemma of user experience in current blockchain designs

For a basic cross-chain action, UX (User Experience) is:

• Identify tokens' chain

• find apps w/ best price & liquidity,

• pick best bridge aggregator

• connect wallets

• grant permissions

Seeing an issue?

Intent-centric approach addresses this cross-chain UX issue.

5 min reading time

What are Intents?

They are the user’s desired outcome in a system.

• Users don't dictate every step from start to finish, as with transaction-based systems.

• Only declare & authorize their desired outcomes.

• They don't care how these outcomes are achieved.

The core vision of this vibe is to break free from the current blockchain's transaction-centric designs which causes all these UX issues.

Claiming we can only achieve adoption and be accessible to everyday users by fully abstracting transactions and blockchain from users.

Why?

In today's designs, users have to navigate a labyrinth of twists, dead ends and ambiguities. Despite numerous aggregators and routing frameworks, they're all domain-limited.

They serve only users in their scope.

Yet, these paths demand profound understanding.

Think of market makers.

They see different market prices.

They know market depths.

Many don't have this expertise.

Yet, we expect them to.

We built blockchain this way.

Users are expected to be experts.

They are intended to be experts.

But many aren't.

Many can't.

Aren’t we solving these already with CoW Swap, 1inch Fusion, OpenSea/Blur?

True, many people have interacted with intents-based systems unknowingly.

Users express desires; "I want to sell X for at least Y price" on these platforms.

These desires are programmed directives.

[1]

But the problem with these apps like CowSwap is:

• Users sign intentions.

• Aggregators collect them.

• Solvers compete to find optimal solutions in their domain.

• To do that CowSwap had to develop its own infra and language.

• Therefore the system is very specific to CowSwap.

• Its intents aren't easily combined with other apps.

• And without composability, actions become separated and non-atomic.

The core concept, particularly of Anoma, is:

• Standardize generalized intent-centric processes.

• Ensure atomicity and privacy.

• Avoid building new systems from scratch.

• Foster app integration.

Anoma, is it a chain or what?

It's more an architecture than a blockchain, reimagining VMs.

Consider Ethereum, acting as a "world computer", processing instructions sequentially. Users send commands and Ethereum follows. Anoma aims for an "intent executing machine".

Instead of linear commands, Anoma merges multiple intentions into a single transaction, ensuring all conditions are met.

This brings complexities though.

E.g. when you have multiple intents, it's not always clear how they should be matched and executed to satisfy everyone.

It’s a dynamic problem as there might be multiple ways to satisfy these intents.

The key issue? Deciding the best route to the outcome and defining the core state transition unit.

So maybe it is still a vibe, but refreshes the way we see the current blockchain space.

Still this new way of seeing might enable us to handle the cross-bridging UX problem to manage all these balances and execute them atomically across different chains and ecosystems as a sophisticated user.

What might the UX resemble?

Consider Google Flights' intent-based approach. It mirrors Anoma's UX proposition.

Instead of sifting through airlines, dates, and prices, simply specify a budget flight to Istanbul in July.

It aggregates all possible flights existing anywhere.

With cross-domain intent atomicity:

Imagine booking a car and hotel together with flights. The system grasps and fulfills this combined need.

Sometimes, you'd want specific guarantees.

E.g., ensuring the resulting BMW car and 4-star hotel and that all is executed atomically.

Account Abstraction(AA), social key recovery & UX-centric wallets fix these?

AA offers gasless transactions(tx), spending limits & multi-sigs, but misses cross-domain issues. Essentially, AA focuses on specific intents in one domain.

Yet, it complements the broader concept of Intents.

Who does the job for the users?

This approach introduces off-chain solvers to match intents.

Solvers are like bounty hunters paid for specific intents.

Users delegate complexity to skilled agents.

Paradigm's concerns & required research areas:

• Mishandled intent execution might challenge decentralization.

• One dominant block builder could censor & mismanage.

• Often unclear how intents are executed.

• Ethereum's mempool limits affect secure user connections.

• Structuring open & permissionless market for solving & gossiping.

• The ideal UI linking users to blockchains, like Google to the internet, is uncertain.

• Some views and critiques target this off-chain, intent-centric method also.

So can "Intents" be the answer to everything?

Unlikely. But potentially it may have an impact on how the builders in the space change their priorities when building.

Probably we need more "people" builders & not only engineers, some of whom don't even use their products.

To Intent or Not to Intent

Whether overhyped or the future, the intent mindset prompts us to reconsider our foundational blockchain assumptions.

We are likely to enter era of new marketplaces and web2-like UX in the blockchain space.

As Polkadot introduces a Blockspace market for builders, we might see a decentralized Intents market for solvers.

There are also potential use cases beyond DeFi:

> geospatial data

> query ambiguity/communication

> dynamic pymts

> energy/micro grids

> synthetic media

> defense

> health & fitness

> additive manufacturing

> multidimensional orgs

[2]

• For a broader view: Understand Anoma, Suave and Intents in detail through this 3-part series. See the end game of cross-domain UX atomicity with Chimera Chains. [3]
• For a deeper dive: Explore the mechanics of intents if you're keen to delve further. [4]
• MegaBlocks and Atomic IBC Cosmos comes up with Atomic IBC solution for the same issue, but specific to consumer chains secured by Cosmos Hub. [5]
• Polkadot's "Ubiquitous Computer" end-game addresses many of these as potential non-problems. [6]

A snapshot of the current Intent-centric landscape: [7]