defi.app

Behind one swap

One of the main questions I spent time on was what actually has to happen behind a simple action like swapping one asset for another. From the user’s perspective, the transaction can look like a single trade. Underneath it, the system may need to choose between liquidity providers, move value across chains, account for gas and slippage, and decide which execution path has the highest probability of completing successfully.

Intents

Defi App uses an intent-based execution model for this. Instead of requiring the user to choose a bridge, DEX and route manually, the user specifies the outcome and the execution layer searches across different sources of liquidity. I looked at how that abstraction changes the way execution quality should be measured.

Execution quality

The cheapest quoted route is not necessarily the best route. Liquidity depth, gas, bridge costs, failure probability and the number of steps involved can all change the final result. This becomes particularly important when the trade crosses chains or when liquidity is fragmented between several venues.

The wallet layer

I also spent time looking at the wallet layer. Defi App combines EVM smart accounts with Solana wallets and abstracts much of the signing and gas management from the user. That creates a very different experience from traditional DeFi, but it also means that wallet architecture, execution and routing need to work together. A failure in one layer can surface to the user as what looks like a simple failed trade.

Outside infrastructure

Another part of the work was understanding the role of external infrastructure. Defi App does not operate as an isolated venue. Its execution layer connects to providers such as 1inch, Jupiter, Relay, deBridge and other liquidity and routing systems. Wallet infrastructure also depends on partners including Dynamic and Turnkey. I looked at these dependencies as part of the product rather than treating integrations as interchangeable APIs.

Yield

Yield aggregation created a similar problem. When several protocols offer yield on the same asset, comparing APY is only the first step. The route into the position, the underlying protocol, liquidity, withdrawal path and any asset conversion required on exit can matter as much as the displayed return.

What I took from it

The broader question throughout the collaboration was how much DeFi complexity can be hidden from the user without hiding the information that still matters for a financial decision.

That became the most useful way for me to think about Defi App. The product is not simply another interface on top of DeFi. It is an execution layer that has to turn fragmented wallets, chains, liquidity venues and protocols into a transaction that feels like one action to the user.