📑 If you've used a dApp that touches more than one chain, you know the pain.

You want to make a trade:

- the liquidity is on another chain
- you bridge
- you wait
- you sign multiple transactions
- you hope nothing breaks.

This isn’t “user experience.” It’s ops work disguised as UX.

Even with all the bridges, relayers, routers, and aggregators in the world, most apps are still bound by one assumption:

The user must push every transaction, know where assets are, and manually chain-hop to get what they want.

This is where 'intent solvers' come in.

————————————————————

➩ From Transactions to Intents

In traditional crypto systems, users submit low-level transactions:

- "Send X from A to B"
- "Swap token X for Y on Uniswap"

But users don’t really want to submit transactions.
They want outcomes.

- "Get me 100 USDC from my assets, wherever they are."
- "Buy this NFT below 0.1 ETH, even if it takes a day."

@anoma introduces a new abstraction called 'intents': outcome-oriented expressions of user goals, without needing to specify the path or chain.

The result?

You describe what you want. The network figures out how to get it done.

————————————————————

➩ Understanding the Solver Network

Intents are powerful, but they don’t execute themselves.

That’s the job of solvers; decentralized agents that scan the mempool of declared intents and compete to fulfill them optimally.

Think of solvers as a real-time, chain-spanning mesh of bots, market makers, and routing engines that:

- Discover counterparty intents
- Construct valid transaction bundles
- Atomically execute them across one or more chains

It’s decentralized counterparty discovery + settlement. Something no traditional smart contract system offers natively.

————————————————————

➩ Why This Solves Multi-Chain UX at the Root

Multi-chain apps today suffer from:

- Fragmented state and liquidity
- Fragile routing logic
- Manual user bridging
- Reliance on centralized relayers or sequencers

Solvers abstract that away.

Instead of coding "connect to chain A, then B, then C," you design your app around intents and let solvers compete to fulfill them regardless of which assets, routes, or chains are involved.

In other words:

Multi-chain complexity becomes a 'solver' problem, not a 'user' or 'developer' problem.

This is the clean separation of concerns the space has needed.

————————————————————

➩ Benefits for Builders

With @anoma and intent solvers, devs don't need:

- to deploy contracts on every chain
- to hardcode bridging logic or liquidity paths
- users to know where their assets are

You simply define what an 'intent' looks like in your app, and solvers handle the rest.

This shifts dApp design from being chain-bound to being outcome-bound.

It’s like moving from assembly to high-level programming, but for app UX.

————————————————————

➩ Conclusion

Solvers aren’t bots. They’re a new infrastructure layer.

Where sequencers order transactions and rollups batch them, solvers compose intents into meaningful, executable flows across chains, assets, and participants.

They’re the missing connective tissue between users and liquidity in a world that’s becoming increasingly modular, asynchronous, and agent-driven.

In 2020, AMMs became the primitive.
In 2021, it was L2s.
In 2023, modularity.
In 2024, shared sequencing.

In 2025?
The primitive is intent solving.