Intent-based cross-chain protocols are not just transforming user experience -- they are also creating entirely new earning opportunities. From becoming a solver to earn spreads, providing liquidity to collect fees, to exploiting cross-chain arbitrage -- this article provides a complete analysis of the entry barriers, returns, and risks for every participation method.
Understanding the Core Mechanism: Solver Economics
The core earning logic of intent protocols is intuitive: a user says "I want X," and solvers competitively fulfill that demand, earning spreads or fees in the process.
According to LI.FI's research, a small number of well-capitalized solvers (such as Wintermute) currently handle the vast majority of order flow in the cross-chain ecosystem. Wintermute's total 2025 revenue reached $35.2M (141 employees), with solver operations being a significant revenue source.
But this doesn't mean retail participants have no opportunities -- different protocols have different entry barriers, ranging from a few hundred dollars in staking to million-dollar-scale solver operations.
1. Running a Solver / Relayer / Filler
This is the highest-profit but also highest-barrier participation method in the intent ecosystem.
Across Protocol -- Relayer
Across is a relatively accessible option. Technical requirements are modest: 64-bit Dual Core, 4 GB RAM, Node.js + Yarn, and an RPC endpoint for each chain.1
How it works:
- Relayers identify unfilled deposits across chains and fill them using their own token balances
- Repayment is received through root bundles (at minimum once every 1.5 hours)
- The new Across Prime bonded model significantly improves capital efficiency2
Capital requirements: You need sufficient token balances on each target chain. You can set a minimum return on capital and only fill relays that meet your return threshold.
Competitive landscape: Over 15 solvers actively compete on Across, with relatively distributed order flow. Across accounts for 54% of all daily active bridge users, has processed over $28B cumulatively, with zero fund losses.3
UniswapX -- Filler
Two participation strategies:
- Direct Filler: Directly approve output tokens to the reactor, calling
execute()orexecuteBatch() - Custom Executor Contract: Deploy an
IReactorCallbackcontract to execute complex strategies4
Pull open orders from the UniswapX Orders Endpoint, or register a Webhook for low-latency notifications.
How to profit: The Dutch Auction continuously lowers the exchange rate, and fillers enter at an appropriate price point. You can leverage Uniswap V3/V4 pools, Balancer, Curve, or even hedge on CEXs. Submitting via Flashbots Protect is recommended to manage gas competition.5
deBridge DLN -- Taker/Solver
Warning: This is a high-capital, high-competition market.
Each chain requires approximately 1M+.6
The reference implementation @debridge-finance/dln-taker has been archived, but the code remains available for reference. deBridge officially notes this is a "conservative" version -- actual competition requires building a faster custom engine.
Risk control features worth studying:
- TVL budget: Set maximum deployed assets per chain
- Throughput limit: Control fulfillment speed (e.g., $2,500/30 seconds)
- Transaction finality control: Set different block confirmation numbers based on order size6
CowSwap -- Solver
CowSwap solvers require DeFi knowledge + optimization algorithm capabilities.
Bond requirements (after 2025 CIP-44 reduction):
- Minimum: $50K yield-bearing stablecoin/ETH + 500K COW tokens
- Target: $100K yield-bearing stablecoin/ETH + 1M COW tokens
- Alternative: Can be vouched by an existing bonding pool owner7
Reward mechanism uses Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG): Payments can be negative (solvers may have to pay the protocol). Distributed weekly on Tuesdays in COW tokens. Currently 16 independent solvers compete.8
1inch Fusion -- Resolver
The most exclusive participation method -- only 10 resolver slots globally.
In 2025 Q4, the 5% Unicorn Power staking threshold was removed, replaced by completing due diligence + holding a Resolver NFT. You need to deposit 1INCH into FeeBank to pay resolving fees.9
NEAR Intents -- Solver
NEAR Intents solvers are fully permissionless and open source, with the lowest entry barrier. Users or AI agents submit intents, and solvers price them within <500ms. Fulfillment can use CEX, DEX, off-ramp, bridge, and other methods.10
November 2025 trading volume exceeded $3.69B, with 791K unique users.11
Solver Comparison Table
| Protocol | Minimum Capital | Bond Requirement | Slot Limit | Technical Barrier | Competition Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Across | Token balances per chain | Bonded model | Unlimited | Medium | Medium-High |
| UniswapX | Output token balances | None | Unlimited | Medium-High | High |
| deBridge | ~$100K/chain | None | Unlimited | Medium | Very High |
| CowSwap | 100K | 500K + COW | DAO approval required | High | High |
| 1inch Fusion | FeeBank deposit | NFT + due diligence | Only 10 slots | High | Very High |
| NEAR Intents | Solver inventory | None | Unlimited | Medium | Medium |
2. Providing Liquidity
Don't want to run a solver? Providing liquidity is a more passive income approach.
Across Protocol LP Pools
LPs deposit assets into a centralized pool on Ethereum mainnet, from which relayers draw liquidity to complete cross-chain transfers.3
The Reward Locking mechanism is key:
- After staking LP tokens, the multiplier increases daily, up to 3x
- Unstaking resets the multiplier to 1x -- strongly incentivizing long-term holding12
- Supported tokens: ETH, USDC, DAI, WBTC, ACX
Estimated APY: Typical DeFi bridge LP pool returns range from 5%-20%, depending on pool size, trading volume, and ACX price. Rewards are distributed in ACX tokens.13
deBridge's Different Model
deBridge DLN uses a solver-based model with no traditional LP pools. "Providing liquidity" essentially means "becoming a solver."14
Yield/Risk Comparison
| Method | Expected Annual Return | Primary Risk | Suitable For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Across LP | 5%-20% APY | Contract risk, ACX volatility | General investors |
| deBridge Solver | Spread-based | Inventory risk, high capital requirements | Professional market makers |
| CowSwap Solver | COW rewards | Bond slashing, negative payment | Quant teams |
| 1inch Delegation | 5%-15% APR | 1INCH price volatility | Token holders |
3. Market Making and Arbitrage Strategies
Cross-Protocol Market Making
Top market makers (such as Wintermute) simultaneously serve as solvers across multiple intent protocols, using CEX inventory as off-chain liquidity and profiting through RFQ systems and CEX-DEX arbitrage.15
Cross-Chain MEV: An Untapped Gold Mine
According to research from NeuralArb and Extropy:
- Single-chain MEV is extremely saturated, while cross-chain MEV remains "largely untapped"
- Cross-chain arbitrage spreads range from 0.5%-5%
- Key opportunity sources:
- Price discrepancies caused by liquidity fragmentation
- Price gaps from L2 delays
- Gas cost differences between chains (up to 1,000x)
However, note: Intent protocols are designed to counteract MEV. CowSwap's batch auction makes JIT and sandwich strategies harder to execute. That said, in UniswapX's Dutch Auction, fillers are essentially performing JIT-like behavior.16
Delta-Neutral Solver Strategy
The most sophisticated market making strategy:
- Fill a user's swap intent on an intent protocol (acquire token A, deliver token B)
- Simultaneously open a reverse position on a CEX
- Earn spread fees + funding rates
- Periodically rebalance inventory
This is essentially an extension of market making, but leverages the structured order flow of intent protocols to reduce uncertainty.15
Real-World Calculation: How Much Can a NEAR Intents Solver Actually Earn?
The previous sections covered many protocol comparisons, but what readers want to know most is: How much capital is needed, and how much can you earn? Below is a detailed calculation using NEAR Intents, as it offers the lowest barrier to entry for intent solvers.
Basic Parameters
According to NEAR Intents 2025 data:
- November 2025 monthly volume: $3.69B, 791K unique users
- Cumulative 15.7M+ swaps, averaging ~$830 per swap
- Protocol fee of only 0.0001% (negligible impact on solver profits)
- Solvers compete on quotes, with estimated spreads of 0.1%-0.3%
Your Inventory Determines Your Order Capacity
Solvers deliver with their own capital, so inventory size directly determines your order capacity:
| Inventory Size | Reasonable Per-Order Limit | Estimated Daily Orders | Daily Volume |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1K | ~$500 | 5-10 | $2,500-5,000 |
| $5K | ~$2,500 | 10-20 | $25,000-50,000 |
| $10K | ~$5,000 | 20-40 | $100,000-200,000 |
| $50K | ~$25,000 | 40-80 | $500,000-1,000,000 |
Optimistic Scenario (0.2% spread, 30% rebalance cost)
| Inventory | Daily Volume | Daily Gross (0.2%) | After Rebalance | Monthly Net | Monthly Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $1K | $3,000 | $6 | $4.2 | ~$126 | 12.6% |
| $5K | $35,000 | $70 | $49 | ~$1,470 | 29.4% |
| $10K | $150,000 | $300 | $210 | ~$6,300 | 63% |
| $50K | $750,000 | $1,500 | $1,050 | ~$31,500 | 63% |
Why the Discount?
The above is an ideal scenario. Real-world factors that reduce returns:
- Increasing competition: As more solvers join, spreads may compress from 0.2% to 0.1%, cutting revenue in half
- Orders aren't available 24/7: Actual order volume may only be 50% of estimates
- One-sided inventory: If no one trades in the reverse direction on a chain, your capital gets stuck and you can't take new orders
- Price volatility: The ETH you hold might drop before settlement
Conservative Scenario (Optimistic x 0.3)
| Inventory | Monthly Net (Conservative) | Monthly Return |
|---|---|---|
| $1K | ~$40 | 4% |
| $5K | ~$450 | 9% |
| $10K | ~$1,900 | 19% |
| $50K | ~$9,500 | 19% |
Cross-Chain Asset Composition: Stablecoins Are the Main Event
Before formulating a strategy, consider a key data point -- what assets are actually being moved across bridges?
According to deBridge November 2025 data, of $1.53B in monthly volume, 40% went through Tron's USDT. deBridge's settlement mechanism even uses USDC as the default reserve asset -- solvers only need to maintain USDC inventory to cover most orders.17
Meanwhile, Circle CCTP (dedicated to USDC cross-chain transfers) ranks second among all bridge protocols by volume at $3.8B monthly, directly demonstrating the massive scale of stablecoin cross-chain activity.18
| Asset Type | Estimated Share | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| USDC/USDT | 60-70% | Traders chasing yield, arbitrage, and capital management -- stablecoins move most frequently |
| ETH/WETH | 20-25% | DeFi operations, moving ETH between L2s |
| Other (WBTC, etc.) | 5-15% | Relatively lower volume |
This is good news for solvers -- handling stablecoin pairs alone captures the majority of volume, with zero price risk, earning pure spread.
How to Maximize Earnings? Five Key Strategies
1. Choose the right chains -- pick those with cheap gas and high traffic
Top priority: Arbitrum, Base, Optimism (gas costs pennies, high L2 traffic). Avoid Ethereum mainnet (gas too expensive) and obscure chains (no volume).
2. Choose the right trading pairs -- stablecoins first
Stablecoins account for 60-70% of total cross-chain volume. USDC <-> USDC cross-chain and USDT <-> USDC cross-chain are the safest starting points: highest volume, prices barely move, no price volatility risk. $5K of USDC inventory spread across 2-3 L2s running stablecoin pairs is the most pragmatic way to start as a solver. ETH cross-chain volume is also high but carries price risk.
3. Use CEX as a backstop for Delta Neutral positioning
Keep some inventory on Binance/OKX. When users want to swap, you deliver on the DEX side and hedge on the CEX side. You only earn the spread without bearing price risk.
4. Automate rebalancing
Set thresholds to automatically replenish via Across (0.06-0.12% fee) or deBridge (0.04% fee) when inventory falls below a certain level. Or use Everclear's netting mechanism -- offset opposing cross-chain flows against each other, settling only the net difference, reportedly reducing unnecessary cross-chain transfers by approximately 80%.19
5. Quoting strategy: speed first
Within the 3000ms quoting window, fast speed + reasonable price > lowest price but high latency. Solver Relay collects all quotes before returning them, and early quotes have an advantage.
Recommendations by Role
| Goal | Recommended Capital | Expected Monthly Return | Suitable For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning only | $1K | Break-even to small profit | Developers wanting to understand solver operations |
| Side income | $5K-10K | $450-1,900 | Technically capable DeFi participants |
| Serious operation | $50K+ | $9,500+ | Market making teams ready to go full-time |
$5K is a pragmatic starting point -- enough to run stablecoin pairs across 2-3 L2 chains, earning hundreds to over a thousand dollars monthly while learning the entire process. Scale up capital after confirming consistent profitability.
4. Staking and Governance
The most passive, lowest-barrier participation method.
ACX (Across Protocol)
- Stake LP tokens into Reward Locking, with the multiplier increasing daily
- In late 2025, a governance reform was proposed (token-for-equity exchange with AcrossCo), ACX surged 82%20
COW (CoW Protocol)
- Approximately 28% of total supply is locked in the staking contract
- APY approximately 6%-12%
- Maximum inflation rate capped at 3%/year
- Revenue share is not currently implemented -- the DAO is discussing it21
1INCH
- Staking earns st1INCH and Unicorn Power
- Lock period from 1 month to 2 years; longer periods yield more UP
- Delegating UP to a Resolver can earn 5%-15% APR9
DBR (deBridge)
- 50% of cross-chain message fees are distributed to validators14
Staking Comparison
| Token | APY/APR | Mechanism | Special Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACX | Includes reward multiplier | LP staking | 82% price surge event |
| COW | 6%-12% | Token staking | No revenue share yet |
| 1INCH | 5%-15% | Delegation to Resolver | Lock period weighted |
| DBR | 50% message fee | Validator staking | Direct fee distribution |
5. Advanced Yield Strategies
Cross-Chain Yield Farming
Leverage the low cost and high speed of intent bridges to chase the highest yields across different chains:
- Monitor APYs of yield pools across chains
- Use intent bridges to move capital quickly and cheaply
- Automate rebalancing to capture optimal returns22
Emerging multi-chain vaults can automatically allocate capital across multiple chains.
AI-Driven Strategies
AI-driven aggregators can automatically identify undervalued pools and redirect capital before competition intensifies. NEAR Intents' AI Agent Market enables AI agents to autonomously create and execute intents, providing infrastructure for automated strategies.23
6. Comprehensive Risk Analysis
Smart Contract Risk
Cross-chain bridges have been hacked for over $2.8B, accounting for ~40% of total Web3 stolen funds. In 2025 Q1, private key compromises accounted for 88% of stolen amounts.24
Key attack vectors include:
- Smart contract logic flaws (e.g., Binance Bridge IAVL Merkle proof vulnerability)
- Private key compromises (e.g., IoTeX ioTube bridge $4.4M)
- Infinite approval vulnerabilities (e.g., Socket 2024/01)
- Contract upgrade vulnerabilities (e.g., ALEX bridge 2024/05 $4.3M)25
Slashing Risk
- CowSwap: Bond (500K + COW) can be slashed, payments can be negative8
- NEAR Intents: Misbehavior can be proven and slashed10
- Everclear: Relies on EigenLayer but currently does not support slashing, limiting economic security19
Inventory Risk
Solvers need to maintain token inventory across multiple chains. An L3 might suddenly surge in popularity, an L2 might suddenly shut down -- inventory management is extremely complex. Capital is "spread across a dozen chains," requiring continuous active management. Everclear's netting mechanism can reduce unnecessary cross-chain transfers by approximately 80%.19
Market Risk
- Reward token (ACX, COW, 1INCH) prices may drop significantly
- DEX/CEX spreads may vanish during execution
- Price movements during bridge delays
- Gas fee spikes can eat into profits
Regulatory Risk
The US and EU are tightening DeFi regulation. The EU Digital Finance Strategy is addressing the legal status of smart contracts. The 2025 market has shifted from "points-driven growth" to "clear security and slashing risks."26
Summary: Who Should Do What?
| Role | Suitable For | Minimum Capital | Expected Annual Return | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Across LP | General investors | ~$1K | 5%-20% | Low |
| 1INCH Delegation | Token holders | ~$100 | 5%-15% | Low |
| COW Staking | Token holders | ~$100 | 6%-12% | Low |
| Across Relayer | Technical staff + medium capital | ~$50K | Variable | Medium |
| UniswapX Filler | DeFi developers | ~$50K | Variable | Medium-High |
| NEAR Solver | Developers | ~$10K | Variable | Medium |
| deBridge Solver | Professional market makers | ~$1M+ | Variable | High |
| CowSwap Solver | Quant teams | ~500K bond | COW + fees | Very High |
| 1inch Resolver | Top-tier MMs | Large 1INCH holdings + NFT | Spread + rewards | Very High |
| Cross-chain Arb | MEV specialists | ~$100K+ | 0.5%-5%/trade | Very High |
Core recommendations: If you are a general investor, the combination of Across LP + 1INCH delegation is the easiest entry point. If you have technical capabilities, NEAR Intents' permissionless solver is currently the most open opportunity. If you are a professional market maker, cross-protocol solver + delta-neutral strategies offer the highest profit ceiling.
