IntentGuard

DeFi transaction outcome enforcement layer.
The first module of the Firewall Layer for Ethereum.

[IntentGuard @IntentGuard]

@A_Leutenegger Btw, we just released some of our enforcement contracts!

https://t.co/6KbQ9E2w3V

[IntentGuard @IntentGuard]

Exactly. A blockchain transaction authorizes code execution, but it does not guarantee execution quality.

The missing layer is enforcement: making sure the final state change matches the user’s intended outcome and nothing else.

This is the execution control layer we are building.

[IntentGuard @IntentGuard]

the problem with bridge UX, and DeFi UX in general, is not only broken interfaces.

users are forced to set wider slippage than they actually want, because tighter constraints make the transaction more likely to revert.

so users leave room for market changes. and too often, execution lands near the lower bound.

that is bad UX.

IntentGuard is building toward a user-centric future for DeFi: users define the outcome they want, and the market works to satisfy it, not the other way around.

[IntentGuard @IntentGuard]

@Pybast That’s our hunch! We’ll share the findings in the next report.

[IntentGuard @IntentGuard]

Is what you see really what you get in DeFi?

We analyzed large (> $ 50k) Uniswap V3 swaps to measure the gap between the price preview shown before signing and the price users actually received.

TL;DR:

- 78.3% of default-tolerance swaps settled within 1% of the signed slippage floor, and 84.1% within 5%

- Favorable outcomes were economically tiny: max +3 bps, while adverse execution reached ~50 bps in common default-tolerance cases

- Only ~4.2% crossed the slippage floor and reverted. 78.3% settled just inside it.

Read the report, link in the comment.

@ethereumfndn
@Uniswap
#DeFi

[IntentGuard @IntentGuard]

Report: https://t.co/KS7NPeFsZZ