Intent Networks

At one venue, yes, in full. Querying ten consecutive auction ids on 2026-08-08 returned solution counts of 2, 15, 17, 13, 14 and 14 for the six that resolved, with four returning HTTP 404 and the body "solver competition not found". That transparency cuts both ways and is more useful for it: one of those auctions drew two solutions from two distinct solvers. Publishing the bid set did not make the auction deep — it made the shallowness legible, and at the six opaque venues an auction with two participants and one with seventeen are indistinguishable from outside. Everywhere else you get the winner: an opaque quote id and the winning filler, a nominated relayer emitted in a deposit event, or an order feed carrying no losing bids at all.

Normalised to a $10,000 swap on one date, and counting only the cut each network publishes for itself, the spread is three orders of magnitude — and the venue that discloses the most charges more than one that discloses nothing. UniswapX takes $0.00, with Labs fees set to zero; NEAR Intents takes $0.01 through an API key holder but $20.01 for a buyer arriving through its own front end, because a 0.2% charge sits on top; CoW Protocol takes $0.30 on correlated assets or $2.00 standard. deBridge documents a 4 bps headline and never numbers the charge that actually bites a small order — its fee page describes only "a fixed amount in the source-chain native token paid to deBridge validators", and calling the contract settles it at globalFixedNativeFee() = 1000000000000000 wei, a flat 0.001 ETH. One caveat on the zero: the same proposal that sets those fees to zero also lists UniswapX among the products where "fees can be turned on". A buyer comparing on today's rate is comparing a governance decision, not a schedule.

No, and this category contains the cleanest possible demonstration. Relay publishes the most precise schedule here — 0.00%, 0.01%, 0.06% and 0.15% by transaction class, plus a flat charge described as "always included", broken out as discrete API fields — while its own protocol overview states that "There is no orderflow auction or solver competition window. Solvers receive orders and fill immediately." Fee transparency and execution competition are orthogonal properties, and a buyer who reads the first as evidence of the second has drawn the wrong conclusion from a genuinely good disclosure. That is why they are scored as two separate criteria rather than rolled into one.

It varies from anyone to an approved list, and the venue that restricts the most publishes the least. 1inch Fusion requires an operator-approved KYC/KYB process before anyone may fill — its resolver documentation describes access being granted when "Your Access NFT(s) will be minted, granting access to Order fulfillment" — and publishes no per-order resolver record, no roster and no Fusion fee number. Three admission rules could not be established at all and are scored at the midpoint rather than guessed: whether registering as a solver on the NEAR Intents message bus requires approval, a stake or an identity check, and whether Relay admits solvers permissionlessly. Both sets of pages were re-read and neither states a rule. Separately worth knowing that deployment is not liquidity: one network is listed on a chain whose newest filled order was created in October 2023, and three of its listed chains have never filled one.