Intent-based trading — where users specify what they want to swap and let automated solvers figure out the best route — is moving beyond experimental stages. On July 8, NEAR's Confidential Intents reached general availability, and five days later, Aurora Intents launched a Swap API with confidential routing. The two launches mark a shift from testnet demos to production tools for medium-to-large swaps, basket trades, and cross-liquidity routes.
How intent-based trading works
Instead of manually picking a DEX or setting a limit order, a user submits an intent: swap token A for token B, with a minimum amount they're willing to accept and a deadline. Solvers — often bots or market makers — compete to fulfill that intent, routing across DEXs, aggregators, off-chain RFQ systems, or even matching it against another user's order in a batch auction. CoW Protocol pioneered this model with its batch auctions and 'coincidence of wants' matching, where two users' intents cancel each other out without needing an external liquidity pool. UniswapX offers a similar solver-based design on EVM chains.
The key difference with the new offerings is privacy. Confidential execution hides the route details before the trade settles, reducing MEV leakage — the value extracted by bots that front-run or sandwich visible transactions. NEAR's Confidential Intents, now generally available for builders and on Aurora Intents, include a one-click swap API and confidential mode. Aurora Intents' Swap API went live with confidential routing on July 13.
NEAR's numbers and adoption
NEAR reported that its intents system has settled over $1.5 billion across NEAR Intents. Daily confidential TVL has topped $30 million. In the first weeks after launch, roughly 42% of intents on near.com used Confidential Mode. The company says the feature is aimed at users who want to avoid exposing their trading strategy to the mempool.
CoW Protocol's reward reform and solver concentration
CoW Protocol's CIP-74, a reward reform analyzed in a July 2026 preprint, reallocated trading value toward smaller orders. The study found that solver concentration increased — the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) rose from 0.176 to 0.241 — but execution quality stayed within about 7 basis points of the pre-reform baseline. No detectable change in price improvement or slippage was observed. The trade-off: smaller orders got more attention from solvers, but the solver set became less diverse.
Risks and costs to consider
Intent-based trading isn't risk-free. Approval misuse, solver centralization, failed auctions or latency, and opaque fee splits are all documented concerns. Users grant approval for solvers to spend tokens, and if a solver is compromised, funds could be at risk. Failed auctions happen when no solver picks up an intent before the deadline, leaving the user stuck. Fee structures can be unclear — some rails charge a protocol fee on top of gas, while others rebate surplus if the solver beats the user's minimum.
For medium-to-large swaps, baskets, or cross-liquidity routes, the model can offer better pricing than manual routing. But for tiny trades, the gas overhead may not be worth it.
Both NEAR and Aurora are now live with confidential execution, but adoption will depend on how quickly builders integrate the one-click swap API and whether users trust solvers with their intents. The CoW Protocol analysis suggests that tweaking reward structures can shift solver behavior, but concentration remains a watchpoint. Regulators and auditors are likely to keep an eye on approval models and fee transparency as the sector grows.
