Practical research
Intent versus classic routing
Who constructs and submits the transaction changes the trade-offs.
Classic transaction
A routing service supplies a path and transaction data. The user’s wallet signs the transaction and submits it through a chosen channel. Composability and submission control can be advantages.
Signed intent
The user specifies an outcome in an order. A solver or resolver competes to fulfill it. Signature rules, expiry, partial fills and settlement costs depend on the protocol.
Compare the mode, not the brand
1inch and Velora document more than one mode. CoW Protocol uses solver orders. The same service name can therefore appear on both sides of a comparison; do not transfer one mode’s MEV or fee claim to another.
Profiles: 1inch, Velora, CoW Swap
Sources checked
Source review: . Product documentation describes intended behavior; no trade execution or security audit was performed.
- Fusion execution ↗
Resolver intents and MEV scope
- Market mode ↗
Classic routing and listed networks
- API and network endpoints ↗
Quotes, order workflow and selected endpoints
This publication compiles documented information. It does not provide investment advice, recommend trades, connect wallets or execute swaps.
