Intent-centric protocols like utilise a variety of auction mechanisms designed to optimise order execution either in terms of execution quality or speed. By matching buyers and sellers directly without the need for an intermediary liquidity pool the protocols can reduce the impact of front-running and slippage. The design of the auction is crucial because it creates different incentives for Fillers as well as different trade-offs depending on the exact mechanisms used. Commonly used auctions like FCFS are easy for protocols to run and result in fast order execution, however the lack the RFQ-like bid auction window that would allow multiple Fillers to compete with each other on execution quality.

The openness of an auction is important in ensuring the trustworthiness of the result and proving there is no collusion between the protocol and Fillers. Open auctions allow all participants to see the auction process in real-time and verify the outcome. This transparency ensures that all bids are considered fairly, the auction rules are followed and the winning bid is the result of a fair and competitive process.

When interacting with entirely blockchain resident programs (i.e. smart contracts) all transaction originating addresses have theoretically equal opportunity to obtain service (gas fees and block building stages notwithstanding). Intent based protocols incur additional practical complexities and, coupled with a lack of standarisation between how intents are expressed, auctions are run and how Fillers obtain information about orders to fill, results in additional layers of infrastructure needing to be created. Largely, these additional layers are not implemented fully on chain and / or rely on messaging passing mechanisms which can further widen the ways that participation can be limited. Performing some of the calculation, matching or execution logic off chain introduces a potential source of centralisation. Centralisation negates the guarantees of a decentralised system where if only a single participant is acting honestly and rationally, there is a level playing field for all. Depending on the design of an protocol, centralisation can occur through multiple mechanisms like off chain order advertising, order-bid matching, auction execution, cross-chain message passing, permissioned relayers or executors and others.

Intent centric protocols require a Filler to submit a bid and execute transfers / actions that a user order specifies. Without at least one Filler facilitating orders, an Intent based protocol is unable to offer a service to users. Having no Fillers to facilitate an order (or all orders) is a existential risk factor for the protocol which is usually mitigated by the protocol running their own simplistic Filler to provide a minimum level of service. However, should there be no Fillers available to satisfy an order or, if all Fillers decline to service a particular order, there is the potential for an order to be trapped in-flight unless another Filler steps in or the facilitating protocol has an “escape hatch” mechanism for the order originator to cancel their order and have their funds returned.

The chart below shows the relationship between the fees earned by fillers and the gas paid by them. Gas fees often eat into margin. As these lines converge, intent based systems may or may not see a degradation in filler competition.