A lot of solvers have quietly been frustrated with CoW Swap for a while fee splits and unpredictable batch auctions create real execution drag. That’s exactly why NEAR Intents is starting to look so attractive. Here’s the technical angle most people miss: 1. Latency matters more than hype Intent-style execution on NEAR doesn’t wait for batch auctions. Solvers can hit the best cross-chain route immediately, which reduces exposure to toxic flow and narrows the effective slippage window. For stable swaps, this is everything. 2. Solver economics actually work here On most RFQ systems, solvers get squeezed between LP fees, protocol fees, and unpredictable candidate competition. NEAR Intents flips this: - predictable fee environment - competitive execution across venues - healthier solver margins - no pointless race conditions 3. CoW is great tech, but not the right UX for every flow Batching is powerful for large, toxic or adversarial flow. But for daily stablecoin and cross-chain swaps? Speed > optimal batching theory. NEAR Intents solves the other 99% of real-world swaps. 4. A recommendation on fees If @near_intents wants to fully dominate stablecoin orderflow, they should push fees on core stable pairs to near 1:1. Massive volume will follow. But for privacy assets charge more. That market is willing to pay. 5. The story is simple Solvers follow incentives. Users follow execution quality. Protocols win on predictable flows + best price. Right now, NEAR Intents is delivering all three. This is why you’re seeing the charts hockey-stick.