From Wallet Screens to Outcome Screens: Product Design for Intent-Centric Web3

A practical playbook for decision‑makers to ship faster, safer, MEV‑aware “outcome” experiences that hide chains and surface results—powered by intents, solvers, and standardized cross‑chain settlement.

Intents let users state “what” they want; solvers decide “how” to achieve it. In 2025, mature intent rails (CoW Protocol, UniswapX, MEV‑Share) plus new standards (ERC‑7683, ERC‑7579/6900, EIP‑7702, EIP‑7951) make it realistic to redesign products around outcomes instead of transaction checklists. (anoma.net)

TL;DR (for your description)

Most Web3 apps still make users click through wallet modals and chain choices. This guide shows how to ship intent‑centric “outcome screens” that commit to price, timing, fees, and safety—using battle‑tested rails (CoW, UniswapX, MEV‑Share) and the newest standards (ERC‑7683, EIP‑7702, EIP‑7951) to reduce failure, hide chains, and measurably improve conversion. (docs.cow.fi)

Why “wallet screens” fail business goals

They surface implementation details (chain, gas, slippage) instead of the outcome (what the user gets, when, and at what maximum cost).
They amplify MEV risks (public mempool broadcasts, reverts) and produce unpredictable latencies across L1/L2s. (collective.flashbots.net)
They fragment cross‑chain journeys, forcing users to hop between bridges and swaps—each with separate approvals, risks, and fees. (erc7683.org)

Outcome screens flip this: declare a result (“Receive 1.00 ETH on Arbitrum within 60 seconds, pay ≤$2 fees, MEV‑protected, refundable if not filled”), then use intent rails to deliver it.

What “intent‑centric” means in 2025 (and why it matters)

Intents are signed statements of a desired end‑state plus constraints (assets, min receive, deadlines, privacy). Solvers compete to realize them; settlement verifies only the outcome, not the path. (anoma.net)
You see this in production already:
- CoW Protocol batches off‑chain signed orders and runs solver auctions to maximize user surplus with MEV‑resistant uniform prices. (docs.cow.fi)
- UniswapX uses intent orders with Dutch auctions to route across on/off‑chain liquidity, now extending to cross‑chain via a shared standard. (blog.uniswap.org)
- Flashbots MEV‑Share auctions orderflow privately so users/wallets can reclaim part of MEV while avoiding front‑running and paying nothing on failed transactions. (docs.flashbots.net)

The result: fewer failed txs, better prices, faster fills, and measurable MEV refunds when you opt into private orderflow. (docs.flashbots.net)

The new backbone: standards and infra you can build on

ERC‑7683 (cross‑chain intents): a common order format (“CrossChainOrder” + “CrossChainSettler”) and universal filler network so apps don’t each recruit their own relayers. Widely supported and used by UniswapX’s cross‑chain roadmap. (erc7683.org)
Open Intents Framework (OIF): EF‑backed modular reference stack that operationalizes intent execution at scale across L2s (origination → fulfillment → settlement), building on ERC‑7683. (coindesk.com)
Account abstraction and modular smart accounts:
- EIP‑7702 lets EOAs temporarily behave like smart accounts in a single transaction—enabling native batching, sponsorship, and scoped permissions without abandoning EOAs. (eips.ethereum.org)
- ERC‑6900 and ERC‑7579 standardize modular smart‑account interfaces so wallets can add plug‑ins (validators, hooks) and avoid vendor lock‑in. (erc6900.io)
- EIP‑7951 (secp256r1 precompile) brings native passkey/WebAuthn signatures to Ethereum—unlocking biometric sign‑in for smart wallets with hardware‑rooted security. (eips.ethereum.org)
Privacy and MEV:
- MEV‑Share defines open orderflow auctions with configurable “hints” and redistribution policies—an antidote to exclusive orderflow centralization. (docs.flashbots.net)

Architecture blueprint: from intent to outcome

Origination (off‑chain)
- User signs EIP‑712 intent (e.g., “Swap 1,000 USDC to ETH on the best chain under 30s; min receive X; fee cap Y; privacy Z”). For CoW‑style flows, it’s a signed order; for cross‑chain, it’s an ERC‑7683 CrossChainOrder. (beta.learn.cow.fi)
Discovery and solving
- Broadcast to open solver networks: CoW solvers, UniswapX fillers, and/or MEV‑Share searchers via private orderflow. They simulate, bid, and commit to constraints. (docs.cow.fi)
Execution and settlement
- Winning solver executes on target chain(s). Settlement contracts verify limits, deadlines, and proof of fill; cross‑chain variants use standardized settler interfaces. (erc7683.org)
Receipt and refunds
- Outcome receipt references auction ID, solver ID, settlement tx hash, realized slippage, and any MEV refund. Flashbots reports median Protect txs landing in under one block with ~$5 average refunds. (writings.flashbots.net)

Design the “outcome screen,” not the “wallet flow”

Replace multi‑step modals with a single commitment UI:

Outcome commitment
- “Receive 0.6234 ETH on Arbitrum within 60s”
- “All‑in max cost: $1.90 (incl. gas and routing fees)”
- “Min receive 0.6200 ETH; auto‑cancel if price worsens”
Trust & privacy
- “MEV‑protected private submission; no failed‑tx fees; solver competition” with a link to a human‑readable policy and builder list. (collective.flashbots.net)
Fallbacks
- “If not filled in 60s: auto‑fallback to L2‑to‑L2 path or revert at no cost”
Proof
- “Auction ID #A1B2C3; Settlement hash 0x…; Refund: $0.74; Solver: S‑12 (slashed if SLO missed)”

Then, when the user taps “Get this outcome,” you trigger:

A single signature (intent) instead of multiple txs.
Optional EIP‑7702 “temporary smartness” to batch approvals + action while enforcing privileges and sponsored gas. (eips.ethereum.org)

Concrete patterns and how to ship them

Cross‑chain swap in one tap (UniswapX + ERC‑7683)

UX: “Swap 1,000 USDC on Base → receive ETH on Arbitrum in ≤45s; max fee 0.15%; min receive 0.62 ETH.”
Under the hood:
- Sign an ERC‑7683 CrossChainOrder; broadcast to a shared filler network. Fillers compete; winner fills on Arbitrum and is paid from the origin‑chain settler once proofs confirm. (erc7683.org)
Why it works:
- Shared filler networks reduce long‑tail chain coverage risk, giving you more consistent fill times and prices. (theblock.co)

MEV‑aware DEX trade (CoW Protocol + MEV‑Share)

UX: “Buy 10 ETH at best batched price in the next block; no reverts; share MEV refunds.”
Under the hood:
- Submit an off‑chain signed CoW order; solvers compete in a fair combinatorial batch auction with uniform clearing prices and coincidence‑of‑wants internalization. Route via MEV‑Share with hints tuned for refund vs privacy. (docs.cow.fi)
Why it works:
- Batch auctions neutralize ordering games; MEV‑Share internalizes a portion of value back to users. (docs.cow.fi)

Enterprise treasury rebalance (OIF + passkeys)

UX: “Rebalance 2% of idle USDC from L1 to three L2s by 5 p.m.; policy caps: $250 gas/day, venues allowlist; require two passkey approvals.”
Under the hood:
- Use OIF modules for origination/fulfillment/settlement across L2s; enforce policy in a modular smart account (ERC‑7579/6900) with EIP‑7951 passkey signers and plugin‑specific nonces (RIP‑7712) for parallel, auditable flows. (coindesk.com)

Latency and reliability you can put on a roadmap

Batch auctions target “next‑block” settlement on L1 and sub‑block on many L2s; Flashbots Protect reports median inclusion under one block with refunds. (writings.flashbots.net)
Cross‑chain fills have become seconds‑level on leading intent bridges; public analyses and team reports show sub‑minute medians in 2023 trending to sub‑10s medians on many L2↔L2 routes by 2025 as relayers optimize. Use these as planning anchors, then measure in your own telemetry. (medium.com)

Tip: publish SLOs in the product (“P95 time‑to‑outcome: L2→L2 ≤ 30s; L1→L2 ≤ 90s; P99 revert‑free rate ≥ 99.5%”) and show live status. Back your claims with receipts (auction IDs, settlement hashes, refund amounts).

Security, governance, and MEV realities (and how to mitigate them)

Private orderflow centralization is a real risk; research shows exclusive deal‑making can bias builder auctions and concentrate profits. Counter with open OFAs (MEV‑Share), multi‑builder broadcast, and auditable disclosure. (arxiv.org)
Past privacy foot‑guns exist (e.g., leaked fields via a status API in 2023). Treat privacy settings as product choices, not toggles; pre‑select defaults, document hints, and verify. (collective.flashbots.net)
Solver accountability:
- Bonded solvers and slashing for illegal surplus shifts, pennying/overbidding, or deadline misses are live in CoW; use this pattern and surface it in‑product. (docs.cow.fi)
Policy guardrails:
- Enforce allowlists, spend caps, daily budgets, and time‑boxed privileges using EIP‑7702 delegations and modular validators (ERC‑6900/7579). Map each validator/plugin to its own nonce lane (RIP‑7712) to prevent deadlocks. (eips.ethereum.org)

Product pattern library you can reuse

Progressive disclosure
- Default to “Simple” (Outcome, Fee cap, Deadline). Expand to “Advanced” (privacy hints, solver markets, chain preferences).
Simulation by default
- Always show “Simulated receive” with worst‑case bounds; if the solver’s commitment differs materially at settlement, auto‑revert at no cost. (collective.flashbots.net)
Proof‑first status
- Replace spinner timelines with on‑chain artifacts: auction ID, settlement hash, solver ID, and (if applicable) MEV refund credit with a ledger entry. (docs.flashbots.net)
Retry policy
- Codify fallbacks: extend deadline → relax min‑receive within user‑approved tolerance → reroute via alternate chain → revert and refund. Expose the decision tree in your UI copy.

Developer notes (copy‑paste friendly)

CoW‑style EIP‑712 orders: sign once, gasless, batched settlement. (beta.learn.cow.fi)
Cross‑chain intents: encode ERC‑7683 CrossChainOrder; register a Settler; integrate with OIF modules for fulfillment monitoring. (erc7683.org)
Temporary account‑upgrades with EIP‑7702 for approvals + action in one go; many SDKs already expose signAuthorization. (alchemy.com)
Passkeys (EIP‑7951) for enterprise SSO‑grade UX; plan now for L1 inclusion timelines as clients ship. (eips.ethereum.org)

KPIs for outcome screens

Track these five, per route (L1→L2, L2→L2, cross‑rollup):

P50/P95 time‑to‑outcome (signed → funds available)
Fill rate (first‑choice solver vs fallback)
Price improvement vs best on‑chain route at order time
Refund/MEV share and “free revert” savings per user
Policy violations prevented (blocked destinations, fee cap hits)

Benchmarks you can cite in stakeholder decks:

Batch/MEV‑protected flows: median ≤1‑block inclusion with measurable refunds (varies by hints/privacy). (writings.flashbots.net)
Cross‑chain median fills: sub‑minute historically, with many L2↔L2 lanes trending to sub‑10s as relayers optimize; always validate on your routes. (medium.com)

What’s next on the horizon (2025–2026)

Generalized intent standards (ERC‑7521) maturing for multi‑segment, multi‑party compositions; expect wallets to add native support for entry‑point verified “intent bundles.” (eips.ethereum.org)
Shared sequencing and OFAs across rollups (Espresso, SUAVE‑style markets) to improve cross‑domain atomicity and price discovery. (blockworks.co)
Open Intents Framework adoption by major L2s and exchanges (ongoing), pushing “outcome UX” into mainstream consumer flows. (coindesk.com)

A 45‑day rollout plan (you can actually execute)

Week 1–2
- Pick two “hero outcomes” (e.g., cross‑chain swap; best‑price batched swap).
- Wireframe outcome screens with SLOs and receipts.
- Choose rails: CoW + MEV‑Share for single‑chain; ERC‑7683 + OIF module for cross‑chain. (docs.cow.fi)
Week 3–4
- Integrate EIP‑7702 batching for sponsored gas and one‑tap approvals.
- Add modular smart‑account validators for policy (ERC‑6900/7579).
- Ship internal dashboards: time‑to‑outcome, refund $, price improvement. (eips.ethereum.org)
Week 5–6
- Pilot to 1–5% of users; tune privacy hints and fallback ladder for P95 targets.
- Publish live SLOs/status page; add MEV refund ledger to receipts. (docs.flashbots.net)

Final thought

The fastest way to grow conversion in Web3 now is to stop making people do blockchain work. Intents, open solver markets, and cross‑chain standards let you promise an outcome—and then prove you delivered it. Design around the promise, automate the path, and make the proof visible.

If you’re mapping this to your roadmap and want help picking rails, designing receipts, or hitting P95 SLOs across L2s, 7Block Labs has playbooks and reference implementations ready to adapt to your stack.