# Intent-based swaps: authorizing an outcome for solvers to execute

A swap intent specifies an acceptable outcome while leaving an executor to choose how to produce it. In CoW and UniswapX examples, users sign orders with constraints and solvers or fillers arrange settlement. The security question is which limits the authorized transfer path actually enforces—not whether the interface calls the action gasless.

Evidence: [CoW Protocol](https://docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol); [Solver competition rules](https://docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/competition-rules); [UniswapX Overview](https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/uniswapx/overview)

Canonical: https://degreesofsatoshi.com/encyclopedia/intent-based-swaps/
Published: 2026-10-02
Substantively modified: 2026-10-02
Independently verified by an automated reviewer: 2026-10-02T19:18:00.092Z
Data current through: 2026-10-02

AI-assisted research and drafting with a separate automated source-verification pass; no external expert or named human review is implied.

## Key facts

- **Outcome:** Signed orders constrain what assets and amounts may be exchanged. ([UniswapX Overview](https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/uniswapx/overview))
- **Execution:** Fillers can use their inventory or external liquidity. ([UniswapX Overview](https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/uniswapx/overview))
- **Rules:** CoW distinguishes contract-enforced limits from other competition rules. ([Solver competition rules](https://docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/competition-rules))

## Delegate the route, not an unlimited objective

An illustrative intent might authorize selling 100 A for at least 98 B before a deadline. The executor could source B from a pool or its own inventory, but the settlement must respect the applicable order constraints. A vague request to get a good price is not an enforceable numeric limit.

Check the assets, recipient, validity and cancellation mechanism of the actual order being signed.

Evidence: [UniswapX Overview](https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/uniswapx/overview); [Solver competition rules](https://docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/competition-rules)

## Gasless changes who submits the transaction

UniswapX describes fillers settling signed orders on-chain. A user may avoid submitting the swap transaction personally, while the executor still has execution costs and requires an economically viable opportunity. Compare the final net amounts rather than treating absence of a wallet gas prompt as absence of cost.

Evidence: [UniswapX Overview](https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/uniswapx/overview)

## Distinguish the signature from the permission path

An intent needs a mechanism that can transfer the offered asset when conditions are met. The retrieved UniswapX description uses Permit2. Other protocols can use different approvals or settlement contracts.

Order validity does not itself guarantee a willing executor, timely inclusion or safe behavior in an arbitrary integration. Read which conditions are enforced in code and which depend on competition or governance.

Evidence: [UniswapX Overview](https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/uniswapx/overview); [Solver competition rules](https://docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/competition-rules)

## Questions

### Is an intent guaranteed to fill because I signed it?

No. A signature authorizes a constrained action; it does not supply liquidity or oblige an executor to settle an uneconomic order.

Evidence: [UniswapX Overview](https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/uniswapx/overview); [CoW Protocol](https://docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol)

## Claims and scope

### intent-based-swaps-quick-answer

A swap intent specifies an acceptable outcome while leaving an executor to choose how to produce it. In CoW and UniswapX examples, users sign orders with constraints and solvers or fillers arrange settlement. The security question is which limits the authorized transfer path actually enforces—not whether the interface calls the action gasless.

Scope: {"collection":"defi","dataAsOf":"2026-10-02","blockHeight":null}

### intent-based-swaps-fact-outcome

Outcome: Signed orders constrain what assets and amounts may be exchanged.

Scope: {"collection":"defi","dataAsOf":"2026-10-02","blockHeight":null}

### intent-based-swaps-fact-execution

Execution: Fillers can use their inventory or external liquidity.

Scope: {"collection":"defi","dataAsOf":"2026-10-02","blockHeight":null}

### intent-based-swaps-fact-rules

Rules: CoW distinguishes contract-enforced limits from other competition rules.

Scope: {"collection":"defi","dataAsOf":"2026-10-02","blockHeight":null}

## Sources

- [CoW Protocol](https://docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol) — CoW Protocol. How solvers source and settle batches. Locator: Intents; batch auctions; solvers; liquidity sources. Retrieved: 2026-10-02T18:53:20.051Z.
- [Solver competition rules](https://docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/competition-rules) — CoW Protocol. Current solution-level constraints, without asserting one global price across all auction winners. Locator: Uniform directed clearing prices; valid solutions. Retrieved: 2026-10-02T18:53:20.066Z.
- [UniswapX Overview](https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/uniswapx/overview) — Uniswap. Outcome-based swap authorization and filler settlement. Locator: Signed orders; fillers; auctions. Retrieved: 2026-10-02T18:53:19.990Z.

## Revision history

- 2026-10-02: First publication after primary-source research and separate automated verification.

## Cite this entry

Degrees of Satoshi editorial project. “Intent-based swaps: authorizing an outcome for solvers to execute.” Published 2026-10-02; updated 2026-10-02. https://degreesofsatoshi.com/encyclopedia/intent-based-swaps/