What is Aori: Understanding Intent Settlement for Cross-Chain Trading

The blockchain ecosystem continues to expand with new Layer 2 networks and alternative blockchains, but this growth introduces a challenge: how do you trade assets across different chains without excessive fees, delays, or security risks? Aori offers a solution through intent settlement architecture, a model that shifts trading from complex execution paths to simple outcome-based requests.
​

Intent-based systems let users specify desired outcomes rather than execution steps, fundamentally changing how traders interact with blockchain networks. Instead of manually managing bridge protocols, selecting specific decentralized exchanges, or worrying about gas tokens across multiple chains, users express their goals and specialized networks handle the technical implementation.
​

An intent settlement protocol coordinates these user requests with solvers—market participants who compete to fulfill orders using the most efficient execution paths available. The architecture involves intent creation through signed messages, relayer competition to find optimal fulfillment methods, and execution when conditions are met. This "offchain matching, onchain settlement" approach reduces costs and increases efficiency while maintaining security.
​

The shift represents a move from imperative to declarative interactions. Rather than instructing the blockchain to "swap token A for token B on exchange X, then bridge to chain Y," users simply state "I want token B on chain Y" and allow the protocol infrastructure to determine the best path forward.
​

Aori is a universal intent settlement protocol designed specifically for cross-chain trading environments. The protocol connects users and solvers from any chain to any chain, facilitating peer-to-peer exchange from any token to any token. Built on LayerZero messaging infrastructure, Aori coordinates order execution between paired smart contracts deployed across supported blockchains.
​

The protocol currently operates across Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, and Optimism, with identical smart contracts deployed on each network. These contracts maintain independent states while communicating settlement confirmations, cancellation notifications, and balance synchronization through LayerZero's omnichain messaging system.
​

At its foundation, Aori addresses the fundamental challenge of cross-chain coordination: securing asset exchanges across different blockchains without requiring users to trust centralized intermediaries. The protocol achieves this through a combination of signature-based orders, competitive solver networks, and atomic settlement mechanisms.
​

Signature-based orders allow for gasless order placement and cancellation, enabling traders to operate freely without concerns about network congestion. This approach eliminates one of the biggest friction points in decentralized trading.
​

Traditional blockchain transactions require users to hold native tokens for gas fees on every network where they trade. With gasless transactions, users sign an order expressing their intent to a third party who executes the trade and covers the gas. The cost gets priced into the final exchange rate, but users avoid the complexity of managing multiple gas token balances.
​

The implementation uses meta transactions where the protocol pays gas costs using native tokens and gets reimbursed with equivalent amounts of the tokens being traded. For traders, this creates a seamless experience where they can focus on strategy rather than operational overhead.
​

Aori's architecture enables market makers and solvers to compete directly for order flow. This competition ensures traders receive the best price across all available liquidity sources, rather than being limited to a single pool or exchange.

The competitive mechanism works because orders are broadcast to multiple solvers simultaneously. Each solver can propose their own execution path, potentially sourcing liquidity from on-chain DEXs, off-chain order books, private inventory, or even cross-protocol arbitrage opportunities. The protocol selects the most favorable execution for the user.

This model contrasts with traditional automated market makers where prices are determined by mathematical formulas applied to fixed liquidity pools. Instead, Aori creates a dynamic marketplace where professional market participants use sophisticated strategies to provide optimal pricing.

One of Aori's distinguishing characteristics is its approach to chain abstraction. The protocol provides access to any chain through a single unified interface, allowing developers to build and deploy trading strategies without managing multiple complex integrations.

Users don't need to understand the technical differences between Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, or Base. They specify source and destination chains in their orders, and the protocol handles all cross-chain coordination. Each blockchain has a unique endpoint ID within the LayerZero network, and orders specify both source and destination endpoints to enable cross-chain routing.

This abstraction extends beyond simple token swaps to support more complex trading patterns, including multi-hop routes where an order might involve intermediate conversions across different chains to achieve the best overall execution.

Orders on Aori can be backed by any liquidity source, aggregating liquidity and order flow to create a universal, high-performance liquidity layer. This universality addresses one of DeFi's persistent challenges: liquidity fragmentation.

When liquidity sits isolated in separate pools across different chains and protocols, trading becomes inefficient. Large orders face excessive slippage, smaller markets lack depth, and capital remains underutilized. Aori's solver network can tap into diverse sources including decentralized exchanges, private market maker inventory, and even centralized exchange liquidity through specialized solvers.

The aggregation happens transparently from the user's perspective. They submit an intent to trade, and the protocol ensures they receive optimal pricing regardless of where that liquidity ultimately originates.

Security in cross-chain trading requires careful coordination to prevent loss of funds. Trades are settled atomically in a single transaction that provides MEV protection, eliminating slippage and ensuring trades execute exactly as intended.

Atomic settlement means either the entire trade completes successfully or it reverts entirely—there's no intermediate state where assets could be locked or lost. This property is especially important for cross-chain operations where timing mismatches between different networks could otherwise create vulnerabilities.

MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) protection shields users from front-running and sandwich attacks. Because orders are filled by solvers and submitted as private, bundled transactions, MEV bots in the mempool never see them, preventing exploitation that commonly affects traditional DEX trades.

Performance matters in trading environments where prices change rapidly. Orders are matched in milliseconds through a high-performance off-chain engine, enabling execution at speeds comparable to traditional finance.

The off-chain matching engine processes order flow without blockchain latency. Only final settlements hit the chain, which means the protocol can handle high-frequency trading patterns that would be impractical with fully on-chain systems. This architecture delivers the speed of centralized exchanges while maintaining the security guarantees of decentralized settlement.

The cross-chain trading process follows a structured lifecycle with distinct phases ensuring security and efficiency.

Users create orders by signing messages that specify their trading intent: input token, output token, amounts, source chain, destination chain, and any additional conditions like time limits or minimum execution prices. The signature proves authorization without requiring an immediate on-chain transaction.

When a solver accepts an order, they deposit it to the protocol's smart contracts. The protocol transfers input tokens from the user to a locked balance, awaiting fulfillment. These tokens remain under protocol custody throughout the process, never touching centralized wallets or intermediaries.

Multiple solvers monitor the protocol for new orders. Each solver evaluates whether they can profitably fulfill an order by checking available liquidity sources, calculating gas costs, and assessing market conditions. Solvers compete by offering the best execution terms.

The winning solver provides the output tokens to the recipient on the destination chain. This happens off-chain or through separate on-chain actions depending on the solver's chosen execution path. The important point is that users receive their desired tokens before the protocol releases the input tokens from escrow.

Once the solver proves they delivered the output tokens, the protocol initiates settlement. For successfully settled orders, the protocol transfers tokens from locked balance to the solver's unlocked balance and marks the order as settled. The solver can then withdraw these tokens at their convenience.

Cross-chain coordination uses LayerZero messaging to synchronize state between chains. If an order gets filled on the destination chain, that information gets communicated back to the source chain to trigger settlement. This messaging ensures consistency without requiring both chains to process transactions simultaneously.

Flexibility is important when market conditions change. The protocol provides cancellation options for orders that haven't been filled. Solvers can cancel orders they deposited but haven't fulfilled, immediately unlocking the user's tokens.

Cross-chain cancellations are more complex since they must coordinate state updates across multiple blockchains. The protocol uses LayerZero messaging to propagate cancellation requests from destination chains back to source chains, ensuring that locked tokens get properly released regardless of which chain initiated the cancellation.

Intent settlement protocols like Aori operate differently from traditional cross-chain bridges. Understanding these differences helps clarify when each approach makes sense.

Traditional bridges focus on moving assets between chains, often through lock-and-mint mechanisms or liquidity pools. Users must specify exact execution paths: bridge from chain A to chain B, then swap on chain B's DEX. The burden of optimization falls on users.

Intent protocols shift the model by allowing users to state goals like moving or swapping tokens while solvers handle execution. The protocol determines optimal routing automatically. This abstraction significantly simplifies the user experience, especially for complex multi-step operations.

Bridges typically require dedicated liquidity pools on each supported chain. These pools must be capitalized in advance, and liquidity can become fragmented across many chains. Pool-based models also introduce impermanent loss risks for liquidity providers.

Intent settlement facilitates capital rebalancing between chains and assets for solvers, with solvers bringing their own liquidity from diverse sources. Rather than pools sitting idle, professional market makers actively deploy capital where it's needed, improving overall capital efficiency.

Cross-chain bridges face significant security risks, with bridge-related hacks resulting in losses exceeding $2.8 billion as of 2025. Many exploits target the smart contracts that hold pooled liquidity or the validator sets that secure message passing.

Intent protocols reduce these risks through atomic settlement and solver-backed execution. Users never deposit funds into shared pools, and settlement only occurs after output tokens are delivered. The trust model shifts from trusting bridge infrastructure to trusting that solvers have economic incentives to execute orders correctly.

Bridge fees typically include protocol fees, gas costs on both chains, and slippage within liquidity pools. These costs are often opaque until after execution begins, and failed transactions can still consume gas.

With intent protocols, costs get bundled into a single quoted price. If the swap fails, there's no gas cost to users since solvers bear the execution risk. This predictability helps users make informed decisions and eliminates surprise fees.

Solvers are the economic agents that make intent settlement functional. Understanding their role provides insight into why the model works effectively.

Solvers profit by capturing spread between the price users request and the price solvers achieve through efficient execution. A solver might fulfill a user's order to swap 1000 USDC for ETH, then execute that trade through multiple DEX pools, arbitrage opportunities, or their own inventory to secure a small profit.

Competition between solvers benefits users by driving prices toward market efficiency. As more solvers join the network, margins compress and users receive better execution. The competitive dynamic aligns solver incentives with user outcomes.

Being a solver involves certain barriers to entry including staking requirements on some intent protocols, capital for inventory management, and technical infrastructure for monitoring orders. These requirements ensure solvers have skin in the game and can reliably fulfill orders.

Professional market makers and trading firms are natural participants in solver networks. They already maintain inventory across multiple chains, have sophisticated risk management systems, and operate low-latency infrastructure. Intent protocols provide them with a new source of order flow.

One challenge for solvers is maintaining balanced inventory across chains. If a solver consistently fills orders that send assets to chain A, they'll accumulate assets on chain A and deplete inventory elsewhere.

Solutions like Everclear allow solvers to settle up with each other across chains, minimizing the total number of settlements needed. Rather than each solver independently rebalancing through bridges, they can net out positions multilaterally, reducing costs and improving capital efficiency across the ecosystem.

Stablecoins represent a particularly important use case for cross-chain intent protocols. Their dollar-pegged value eliminates price volatility during transfers, making them ideal for multi-chain operations.

The stablecoin market has grown to over $200 billion, with stablecoins moving $15.6 trillion in value during 2024. This massive adoption creates demand for seamless cross-chain functionality. Users want to move USDC from Ethereum to Arbitrum for lower fees, transfer USDT to Polygon for DeFi opportunities, or access emerging protocols on Base—all without managing complex bridge operations.

Platforms focused on stablecoin infrastructure address specific pain points in the current ecosystem. Solutions like Eco enable apps and protocols to access stablecoin liquidity in one integration, making it easy for stablecoin holders to cross chains and use applications in one click.

The intent-based approach works particularly well for stablecoins because the outcome is straightforward: users want equivalent dollar value on a different chain. Solvers can fulfill these intents through various mechanisms—cross-chain bridges, liquidity pools, or direct inventory—knowing that execution risk is minimal since stablecoin prices remain stable.

Specialized protocols optimize for stablecoin-specific requirements. Features like one-click transfers, unified balance views across chains, and native stablecoin routing improve user experience while maintaining security. These innovations make cross-chain stablecoin operations accessible to mainstream users rather than just sophisticated traders.

The technical implementation of intent protocols relies on standardized frameworks that enable interoperability and security.

Aori builds on Seaport, originally created by OpenSea for NFT trading. Seaport handles gasless transactions for NFT transfers, but Aori adapted it for ERC20 token trading, becoming among the first to build a DEX on this infrastructure.

Seaport's signature-based order system allows users to create off-chain commitments that can be fulfilled on-chain by third parties. This flexibility enables the gasless trading experience that defines modern intent protocols.

ERC-7683, co-authored by Across and Uniswap, defines a universal framework for expressing, fulfilling, and settling intents across chains. This standardization effort aims to create interoperability between different intent protocols.

With standardized intent formats, relayers and applications can support multiple protocols without custom integration work for each one. Users benefit from increased competition as more solvers can participate across different protocol implementations. Developers gain flexibility to switch between or combine multiple intent systems.

The standard uses cryptographic proofs and decentralized verification mechanisms to ensure intents execute transparently and reliably. By establishing common data structures and validation methods, ERC-7683 lays groundwork for a more unified intent ecosystem.

Intent protocols enable various applications beyond simple token swaps.

Complex DeFi strategies often require multiple steps across different protocols and chains. Users might want to stake tokens, provide liquidity, and claim rewards—operations that traditionally require numerous manual transactions.

Intent-based systems can bundle these actions into single operations. A user specifies their desired end state, and solvers execute the necessary steps atomically. This automation reduces transaction costs, eliminates timing risks, and makes sophisticated strategies accessible to less technical users.

Managing crypto portfolios across multiple chains introduces significant overhead. Rebalancing between chains, harvesting yield from different networks, and maintaining target allocations all require careful coordination.

Intent protocols simplify this management by abstracting chain-specific details. Users can express rebalancing goals—"move 10% of my portfolio to Layer 2 networks"—and let the protocol handle execution across relevant chains with optimal routing.

For payment applications, intent settlement enables powerful user experiences. A merchant might accept payments in any stablecoin on any chain, with the protocol automatically converting and delivering to their preferred receiving address and asset.

Instant stablecoin transfers across chains turn complex cross-chain operations into simple payment flows, making blockchain-based payments competitive with traditional payment systems.

Rather than building their own liquidity pools, DEX frontends can use intent protocols to aggregate liquidity from across the ecosystem. This aggregation provides users with better pricing while allowing DEX interfaces to focus on user experience rather than liquidity management.

The approach reduces fragmentation and improves capital efficiency across DeFi. Instead of liquidity splitting between hundreds of isolated pools, professional solvers actively move capital to where it's most productive.

While intent protocols offer numerous advantages, users should understand the security model and potential risks.

Like all DeFi protocols, intent settlement depends on smart contract security. Vulnerabilities in protocol contracts could allow unauthorized fund access or settlement manipulation. Established protocols undergo regular audits, but smart contract risk cannot be entirely eliminated.

Users should verify that protocols have recent, comprehensive audits from reputable firms. Historical security track records provide useful signals about protocol reliability.

The intent model introduces reliance on solvers to fulfill orders correctly. While economic incentives and competition generally ensure reliable execution, solver failures could result in delayed or unfilled orders.

Well-designed protocols implement timeout mechanisms and penalty systems to discourage bad actor solvers. The atomic settlement model also ensures that even if solvers fail, users don't lose deposited funds—orders simply don't execute.

Protocols using cross-chain messaging infrastructure like LayerZero depend on the security of that underlying system. Compromises in messaging layers could potentially disrupt protocol operations or enable attacks.

This risk is mitigated by LayerZero's decentralized validation model and the fact that messaging coordinates state rather than directly controlling funds. Still, users should understand the additional complexity that cross-chain operations introduce.

Like all DeFi applications, users face risks from malicious front-ends and phishing attempts. Always verify you're connecting to official protocol interfaces and carefully review all transaction signatures.

Hardware wallets and transaction simulation tools provide additional protection by letting users verify transaction details before signing.

The intent settlement model continues to evolve with several emerging trends shaping its future.

ERC-7683 and similar standards will drive greater interoperability between protocols, creating shared infrastructure and reducing fragmentation. As standards mature, we'll likely see intent protocols becoming as interoperable as current ERC-20 token standards.

This standardization benefits the entire ecosystem by reducing integration costs for applications and enabling competition between different protocol implementations.

Zero-knowledge proofs and other advanced cryptographic techniques will replace optimistic mechanisms, enabling faster settlement with stronger security guarantees. Current cross-chain protocols often use optimistic approaches with challenge periods, introducing delays.

Zero-knowledge proofs can validate cross-chain state instantly without multi-day waiting periods, making the user experience more immediate while maintaining security.

The ultimate goal is complete chain abstraction where users interact with applications without knowing or caring about underlying blockchain infrastructure. Blockchains become invisible backend systems rather than user-facing components.

This abstraction will be critical for mainstream adoption. Most users don't need to understand which chains host their assets—they just want secure, fast, and cheap transactions.

Emerging developments include AI agents that can autonomously create and execute intents based on user-defined goals. Rather than manually specifying each trade or interaction, users could delegate portfolio management or strategy execution to intelligent agents operating within intent frameworks.

These agents could monitor market conditions, identify opportunities, and execute complex multi-chain strategies while respecting user-defined constraints and risk parameters.

What makes intent protocols different from traditional DEXs?

Traditional DEXs require users to specify exact execution paths—which pools to use, how to route trades, and how to handle slippage. Intent protocols let users specify desired outcomes while solvers determine optimal execution. This abstraction improves user experience and often results in better pricing through solver competition.

Are gasless transactions truly free?

Gasless transactions aren't free—someone still pays for blockchain gas fees. Instead, solvers pay these costs upfront and recover them through the spread between user-requested prices and achieved execution prices. Users pay once through final pricing rather than managing gas tokens across multiple networks.

How do intent protocols protect against MEV attacks?

Intent protocols use private order flow and solver-based execution to shield users from MEV extraction. Orders don't enter public mempools where MEV bots can front-run them. Instead, solvers execute trades through private channels and competitive mechanisms that minimize extractable value.

Can intent protocols support all types of cross-chain operations?

Current implementations focus primarily on token swaps and transfers, but the architecture can theoretically support any cross-chain operation that can be expressed as an intent with verifiable outcomes. Future developments will likely expand to more complex DeFi interactions, including lending, derivatives, and governance operations.

What happens if a solver fails to fulfill an order?

Intent protocols use atomic settlement mechanisms, ensuring users don't lose funds even if solvers fail. If execution doesn't complete properly, orders remain unfilled and deposited assets stay accessible to users. Timeout mechanisms automatically cancel orders that aren't fulfilled within specified time periods.

How does Aori compare to other cross-chain solutions?

Aori focuses specifically on the intent settlement model for trading, emphasizing gasless operations, competitive pricing, and atomic execution. It differs from general bridge protocols that primarily move assets without optimizing trading execution, and from application-specific solutions focused on stablecoin infrastructure or particular use cases.