Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tarun Chitra
@pinged
Going to give a *sneak peak* about this paper w/ @ksk and others to FC before Twitter! There's been a surge of interest in intent-based systems like @uniswapX or CoW Swap — their claim has been to help improve the acquisition of off-chain price data on-chain But do they work?
9 replies
22 recasts
88 reactions
Markus_0
@markus-0
This is cool and makes total sense! In practice(cowswap) inventory procurement probably happens post-auction-win. So no congestion Winners are responsible for submitting solutions on-chain. They can force the solution to post end-of-block giving their off-chain procurement time to settle. Timing games are fun
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Markus_0
@markus-0
Furthmore - approved solvers (anyone who posts a bond) can use arbitrary smart contract interactions in solutions So solvers using off-chain procurement could fill with a smart contract that uses fallback liquidity (like an AMM) if the off-chain interaction didn’t settle in time. This removes slashing risk
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
DeFi Cheetah
@deficheetah
2 questions: 1. “Winners… can force the solution to post end-of-block giving their off-chain procurement time to settle.“ can you elaborate more on this?? 2. For arbitrary SC, does that mean solvers could fulfil intent by making on-chain liquidity as the last resort in case of time out?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Markus_0
@markus-0
1. Yeah I oversimplified this Solvers get to choose *how* their solution makes it to chain So if they need a binance withdrawal to hit pre-solution - 1. If they’re a builder they can place the solution later in the block than the withdrawal (assuming the withdrawal makes that block) …
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Markus_0
@markus-0
2. They can send a PBS bundle and rely on the builder knowing the solution will revert without the withdrawal and building the block correctly (solution late index) 3. If the solution has minimal reliance on state (few AMM interactions) they can send a PBS bundle after the withdrawal hits (solution lands n+1 or n+2)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Markus_0
@markus-0
4. Since the above could be considered unfair they could purposely maximize latency to miss the next slot giving the withdrawal more time to process (while keeping software standard) For your second question - yes
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
