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
DeFi Cheetah
@deficheetah
Would like to know how solvers incur congestion fees due to the lack of inventory, even before they secure the exclusive rights to the orderflow by winning the auction. Don’t they merely simulate the execution such that congestion fees don’t price in?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Tarun Chitra
@pinged
In a fully permissionless intent system (so nothing that is live right now) where they are slashed if they don't deliver on the intent within some time period, they have to procure _some_ inventory to avoid getting slashed. The real problem is that if they all do this simultaneously they get worse prices
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Tarun Chitra
@pinged
In theory, if you had some way of not having to slash them to enforce the intents' covenants, then you could grant "fully exclusive" ownership of the order flow and not have congestion elsewhere; but that's virtually impossible (how do I prove to you that I can acquire off-chain inventory at a particular price?)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
DeFi Cheetah
@deficheetah
I see, so they execute simultaneously “just in case” 😂😂😂 But that sounds not very efficient if that’s the case lol
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
mindtree
@mindtrizzl.eth
I wonder if there could be something like a user-specified slashing rate per-intent, where if the solver fails to execute but returns funds they are slashed according to how long it took them? Perhaps that way there's less contention, as the solver might risk accepting an intent without first procuring inventory? 🤔
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
