Summary: Intent-centric architectures replace transaction-by-transaction UX with declarative goal completion, letting solvers compete to achieve “best execution” under your constraints. For Enterprise teams, this translates to measurable slippage/MEV reduction, gasless UX, and a procurement-friendly way to ship cross-chain features on a deadline—without loosening SOC2-minded controls.

The Rise of “Intent‑Centric” Architectures

Enterprise (keywords: SOC2, SSO/SAML, RBAC, SLA, procurement, ROI)

Pain

You promised “one‑click, cross‑chain” onboarding this quarter, but your current stack is buckling under:

Fragile gas estimation, mempool reorgs, and MEV turning quotes into broken promises.
Wallet fragmentation (EOA vs. ERC‑4337 smart accounts), rising support tickets, and security reviews stalled on “who exactly signs and pays gas?”
Multiple vendors (routers, bridges, relayers) with overlapping SLAs that procurement cannot reconcile with SOC2 and audit trails.
PMs asking for “gasless swaps,” “paymaster‑sponsored fees,” and “RFQ price improvement” while Legal wants explainable controls, not crypto jargon.

Agitation

Miss the launch window and you bleed acquisition dollars; conversion funnels degrade when users see approvals, failed transactions, and repriced quotes.
MEV and poor routing add invisible tax to every trade; on volatile days this can dwarf your marketing budget.
Account abstraction (EIP‑7702) landed with Pectra on May 7, 2025—opening powerful delegated execution but also new phishing and delegation‑misuse risks if you don’t constrain modules and signatures. Failing a security review here blocks the release, period. (blog.ethereum.org)
Cross‑chain intents without an auditable policy layer trigger red flags with InfoSec and Compliance: “Who authorized what? With which key? Under which limits? Show me the log.”

Solution

At 7Block Labs, we implement intent‑centric systems that are technical enough for Solidity/ZK engineering yet pragmatic for procurement and ROI. Our approach ships in 90 days, with measurable KPIs and SOC2‑aligned controls.

Strategy and architecture
- Pick the right mechanism per venue: batch‑auction intents (CoW Protocol), Dutch/RFQ intents (UniswapX), Cosmos intent orchestration (Skip/Intento), privacy‑preserving intents (Penumbra/Namada), and optional private orderflow (SUAVE‑style) where appropriate. (docs.cow.fi)
- Standardize authorization on smart accounts: ERC‑4337 EntryPoint v0.8, EIP‑7702 “smart EOAs,” and ERC‑7579 modular wallets for session keys and policy modules. This yields explainable, least‑privilege execution and auditable logs. (hackmd.io)
Build and integrate
- Implement typed intents (EIP‑712) with solver‑facing constraints: worst‑case price, allowed venues, allowed bridges, gas policy, time validity, and privacy level.
- Plug into CoW batch auctions for uniform clearing price, EBBO enforcement, and MEV resistance; integrate UniswapX reactors (V3 Dutch, Priority Gas) where latency matters. (docs.cow.fi)
- Introduce “gasless” UX via paymasters or filler‑sponsored gas: end‑users sign intents; solvers pay gas and recover costs in settlement—no failed‑tx fees. (docs.uniswap.org)
Govern and secure
- Lock down 7702/4337 with ERC‑7579 session keys, validator modules, and registries (ERC‑7484) to prevent rogue modules and phishing‑style delegations; enforce allowlists, spending limits, and time‑boxed sessions. (eips.ethereum.org)
- Enforce EBBO and reimbursement playbooks so users never get worse than public on‑chain routes; codify SLAs (“price integrity SLOs”) that procurement can audit. (docs.cow.fi)
Prove and iterate
- Ship dashboards with basis‑point savings, fill latency, gas sponsorship rate, EBBO incidents, and solver diversity.
- Run post‑trade analytics and “shadow routing” against baseline AMM paths to quantify surplus and MEV avoidance.

Where relevant, we deliver with:

Custom integrations via our blockchain integration services.
Delivery teams under custom blockchain development services.
Independent review via our security audit services.
Protocol‑level engineering under smart contract development and cross‑chain solutions development.

Why intents now? Concrete advances you can use

Ethereum Pectra activated EIP‑7702, enabling EOAs to temporarily execute contract code—practical for “one‑click” batched actions and sponsored gas without forcing a new address. It complements ERC‑4337 bundlers/paymasters and unblocks “keep address, upgrade UX.” Your compliance team still gets verifiable signatures and execution policies. (blog.ethereum.org)
UniswapX moved to chain‑specific auction reactors:
- Ethereum: exclusive Dutch with RFQ window.
- Arbitrum: block‑based Dutch (V3) leveraging 250 ms blocks.
- Base/Unichain: priority‑fee competitions. Users don’t pay gas and failed intents don’t incur fees—ideal for conversion. (docs.uniswap.org)
CoW Protocol batch auctions aggregate intents off‑chain, settle on‑chain at uniform clearing prices, enforce EBBO, and isolate approvals via a Vault Relayer. This undermines sandwich MEV and ensures “no worse than best public route” with refund procedures if violated. (docs.cow.fi)
Cosmos has matured “intents as workflows”: Skip’s post‑route actions atomically “swap → stake → deposit” on the destination chain; Intento’s module orchestrates conditions and feedback loops across IBC. This is how you ship true omni‑chain UX without brittle, multi‑tx guides. (docs.skip.build)
Privacy is now composable: Penumbra uses Groth16 over BLS12‑377 with homomorphic batching to execute shielded DEX flows; Namada’s MASP shields assets—and can drive shielded cross‑chain actions—useful for B2B flows where counterparties and sizes shouldn’t leak. (protocol.penumbra.zone)

What “good” looks like: technical blueprint

Intent schema (EIP‑712 typed data)

Domain: name, version, chainId, verifyingContract.
Message fields:
- action: enum {SWAP, BRIDGE, STAKE, LEND, COMPOSED}
- maxInput, minOutput, slippageBps
- routesAllowed: bitmap (AMMs, RFQ, LST venues, bridges)
- privacy: enum {PUBLIC, PRIVATE_MEMPOOL, ZK_BATCH}
- deadline, nonce
- gasPolicy: enum {SPONSORED, USER_PAYS, HYBRID}
- auth: ERC‑1271 signer (4337/7702 wallet) + policyId (ERC‑7579)

Policy engine (ERC‑7579 modules)

Validator module: verifies EIP‑712 intent against allowlists, spend caps, time windows, and venue constraints; logs decision hash for audit.
Session keys: ephemeral permissions for a single app or automated strategy; revoke on timeout or deviation (e.g., price > X bps).
Registry adapter (ERC‑7484): only verified modules can be installed; procurement gets a registry export for vendor risk. (eips.ethereum.org)

Solver layer

CoW batch auction: register as a solver or integrate with reputable ones; bind bids to EBBO constraints; leverage internal Balancer balances for gas efficiency; use the Vault Relayer to avoid unsafe approvals. (docs.cow.fi)
UniswapX fillers: subscribe to orders via API/webhooks, decode DutchV3 encodings on Arbitrum, send atomic executeBatch to the reactor; enforce custom risk checks pre‑fill (gas, revert, mempool). (docs.uniswap.org)
Private flow (optional): SUAVE‑style confidential compute for OFA/solves when you require pre‑trade secrecy; we scope this as a track with clear trust model given SUAVE’s evolving specs. (writings.flashbots.net)

Settlement and monitoring

Shadow routing: simulate baseline AMM path vs. achieved execution; record surplus bps.
EBBO monitor: auto‑file violation certificates and reimbursement workflows; surface on dashboard with MTTR and user‑level impact. (docs.cow.fi)
SLOs: “% gas‑sponsored,” “median fill time,” “MEV‑drag bps,” “refund rate,” and “policy violations caught.”

Practical examples

Example A: Enterprise on/off‑ramp → “gasless” cross‑chain swap/LP

User intent: “Swap 1,000 USDC on Base for wstETH on mainnet and deposit into vault; max 35 bps slippage; minimize gas; private mempool preferred.”
Flow:
1. Frontend crafts EIP‑712 intent; 7702-enabled EOA delegates to 4337/7579 smart account; session key locked to this domain and policy module.
2. UniswapX gives a low‑latency quote; CoW solver also bids; our policy engine chooses best expected surplus with EBBO guarantee.
3. Filler pays gas; settlement shows final surplus and EBBO proof; audit log stores intent hash, module decisions, solver, routes.
Why it wins:
- “Gasless swaps” improve conversion while maintaining auditability.
- EBBO and batch auctions reduce MEV drag (often tens of bps in volatile windows). (docs.cow.fi)

Example B: Cosmos “swap → liquid‑stake → deposit” in one user action

Define post_route handler on Skip: swap ATOM → stkATOM, then deposit into a yield vault on destination chain within the same transaction. Your UI displays one confirmation; our module sets guardrails (minOut, venue allowlist). (docs.skip.build)

Example C: Private B2B RFQ with shielded legs

Use Penumbra for private price discovery of an RFQ basket; settle outbound legs via shielded actions and return into private pools; provide an audit trail of policy compliance without exposing counterparties publicly. (protocol.penumbra.zone)

Emerging best practices we apply

Account abstraction hardening
- Prefer EIP‑7702 + ERC‑4337 for “keep address, gain features,” but constrain with ERC‑7579 modules. Enforce passkeys/WebAuthn where available. Maintain allowlists for modules; fail closed on unknown validators. (hackmd.io)
EBBO and solver accountability
- Adopt CoW EBBO rules and reimbursement cycles; ensure your programmatic monitor can generate violation certificates and notify solver operators within 72 hours. (docs.cow.fi)
Gas policy as a product lever
- Mix sponsored and user‑paid depending on ACV: B2C growth flows are sponsored; treasury flows are user‑paid; corporate flows adopt caps with alerts.
Privacy tiers
- Public by default; private mempool for large orders; ZK‑batched or shielded actions for sensitive counterparties. Document the threat model in your SOC2 control set.
Cross‑venue resilience
- Run UniswapX + CoW in parallel with a health gate. If RFQ stalls, fall back to batch or AMM baseline inside your minOut constraints. (docs.uniswap.org)

Security notes and known pitfalls

7702 phishing/delegation risks are real. We enforce:
- Domain‑bound session keys, human‑readable policies, and explicit scopes (token lists, spend caps, expiry).
- Policy diffing in the UI—highlighting exactly what changed since last grant.
- Onchain registries for approved modules; require attestations for modules in production. (eips.ethereum.org)
Approvals
- With CoW, route approvals to the GPv2VaultRelayer, not settlement contracts; forbid arbitrary “interactions” that could drain funds. (docs.cow.fi)
EBBO and refunds
- Codify user‑visible commitments and reimburse automatically; publish post‑mortems for procurement and compliance. (docs.cow.fi)

GTM metrics we’ll commit to in a 90‑day pilot

Execution quality
- Target ≥30–80 bps slippage/MEV reduction vs. AMM baseline in volatile windows; quantify surplus and refund any EBBO gaps by policy. Benchmarks leverage batch auctions and solver competition evidence from CoW and UniswapX docs. (docs.cow.fi)
Conversion and reliability
- “Gasless” completion rate uplift for first‑time users; failed‑tx rate <0.5% due to filler‑paid gas with no fee on failure. (docs.uniswap.org)
Time‑to‑Value
- TTV: first mainnet transaction in ≤30 days; majority routes on two chains by day 60; full KPI dashboard by day 90.
Compliance readiness
- SOC2‑aligned runbooks: key rotation, RBAC, module registry attestations, incident response (RTO/RPO), and SLA definitions for solvers/relayers.

We package this under our web3 development services and expand to production with DeFi development services if you’re monetizing orderflow or launching liquidity programs.

Implementation snippet (Solidity, intent verification)

Below is an illustrative pattern for verifying a typed intent from a 7702/4337/7579 wallet with policy checks. It uses EIP‑712 and EIP‑1271 with a policy module gating venue/amounts. This is not production code; we tailor modules per your governance and audit requirements.

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.24;

import {EIP712} from "openzeppelin-contracts/utils/cryptography/EIP712.sol";
import {ECDSA} from "openzeppelin-contracts/utils/cryptography/ECDSA.sol";
import {IERC1271} from "openzeppelin-contracts/interfaces/IERC1271.sol";

interface IPolicyModule {
  function validate(
    address user,
    bytes32 intentHash,
    address[] calldata venues,
    uint256 maxInput,
    uint256 minOutput,
    uint256 deadline
  ) external view returns (bool);
}

contract IntentGateway is EIP712 {
  bytes32 private constant INTENT_TYPEHASH = keccak256(
    "Intent(uint8 action,address inToken,address outToken,uint256 maxInput,uint256 minOutput,uint256 slippageBps,address[] routesAllowed,uint8 privacy,uint256 deadline,uint256 nonce)"
  );

  IPolicyModule public policy;

  struct Intent {
    uint8 action;
    address inToken;
    address outToken;
    uint256 maxInput;
    uint256 minOutput;
    uint256 slippageBps;
    address[] routesAllowed;
    uint8 privacy;
    uint256 deadline;
    uint256 nonce;
  }

  constructor(address _policy) EIP712("YourAppIntent", "1") {
    policy = IPolicyModule(_policy);
  }

  function _hashIntent(Intent memory it) internal view returns (bytes32) {
    return _hashTypedDataV4(
      keccak256(
        abi.encode(
          INTENT_TYPEHASH,
          it.action,
          it.inToken,
          it.outToken,
          it.maxInput,
          it.minOutput,
          it.slippageBps,
          keccak256(abi.encodePacked(it.routesAllowed)),
          it.privacy,
          it.deadline,
          it.nonce
        )
      )
    );
  }

  // Supports EOA (ECDSA) or Smart Account (EIP-1271) signatures
  function _isValidSig(address signer, bytes32 digest, bytes calldata sig) internal view returns (bool) {
    (bytes32 r, bytes32 s, uint8 v) = _split(sig);
    if (v == 27 || v == 28) {
      return ECDSA.recover(digest, sig) == signer;
    }
    bytes4 result = IERC1271(signer).isValidSignature(digest, sig);
    return result == 0x1626ba7e; // EIP-1271 magic value
  }

  function execute(Intent calldata it, address user, bytes calldata sig) external {
    require(block.timestamp <= it.deadline, "expired");
    bytes32 digest = _hashIntent(it);
    require(_isValidSig(user, digest, sig), "bad sig");
    require(policy.validate(user, digest, it.routesAllowed, it.maxInput, it.minOutput, it.deadline), "policy");

    // hand off to reactor/solver according to routesAllowed…
    // e.g., call UniswapX reactor or submit to CoW batch auction relayer
  }

  function _split(bytes memory sig) private pure returns (bytes32 r, bytes32 s, uint8 v) {
    assembly {
      r := mload(add(sig, 32))
      s := mload(add(sig, 64))
      v := byte(0, mload(add(sig, 96)))
    }
  }
}

This pattern cleanly separates “what the user wants” (the intent) from “how it’s allowed to run” (policy), mapping directly to procurement‑friendly guardrails.

What you get with 7Block Labs

A production‑grade intent layer that your CFO and CISO both sign off on: measurable execution quality, SOC2‑aligned controls, and vendor‑neutral architecture.
“No crypto‑tourism” delivery: we integrate, test, and benchmark on your target venues and chains with clear rollback plans and SLAs.
Ongoing optimization: solver performance tuning, routing heuristics, and privacy tiers aligned to business outcomes.

Ready to turn intents into shipped features and measurable ROI? Book a 90‑Day Pilot Strategy Call. (docs.uniswap.org)