Why IEL is different
A step-change in how we handle cross-chain coordination
| Pain-point in today's stack | How most projects attack it | IEL's step-change |
|---|---|---|
| Intent discovery vs. execution split | Messaging layers do discovery only; execution is left to the dApp or wallet, so users still sign raw calldata. | IEL bundles discovery with a generalized execution kernel—delegated signers, constraint validation, relayer proof-of-execution. No second round of manual signing; no bespoke per-app glue code. |
| Cross-chain UX | Each rollup invents its own “account-abstraction” contract or relies on its canonical bridge; bridging → swap → call is multi-step. | IEL’s userOp format is chain-agnostic; one signed intent compiles to whatever initCode + calldata a target chain expects. Bridges become courier hops. |
| Security budget | Projects spin up bespoke tokenomics or rely on multisigs for oracles/relayers. Trust assumptions fragment. | IEL secures itself with slashed EigenLayer stake (or any AVS), so validator sets are shared and economically aligned from day one. |
| Constraint logic | Hard-coded in each smart contract (if constraints exist at all). Upgrades require redeploys and risk migrations. | IEL externalises constraints to pluggable “validators” (on-chain or WASM off-chain). Upgrade or swap validators without touching wallet code. |
| Automation & batching | DEX aggregators or wallets build ad-hoc batch transactions; little composability, brittle gas models. | IEL treats automation as first-class: intents can queue future userOps, reference off-chain data, and be re-signed by authorised agents. Cron-jobs with economic guarantees. |
| Developer ergonomics | Each infra project ships its own SDK, types, and signing flow. Integration ≈ weeks per chain. | IEL’s type-safe CLI & SDK generate intent schemas, EIP-712 helpers, and compile routes automatically. Goal: under one day from “function” to intent-aware dApp. |
Intent discovery vs. execution split
Messaging layers do discovery only; execution is left to the dApp or wallet, so users still sign raw calldata.
IEL bundles discovery with a generalized execution kernel—delegated signers, constraint validation, relayer proof-of-execution. No second round of manual signing; no bespoke per-app glue code.
Cross-chain UX
Each rollup invents its own “account-abstraction” contract or relies on its canonical bridge; bridging → swap → call is multi-step.
IEL’s userOp format is chain-agnostic; one signed intent compiles to whatever initCode + calldata a target chain expects. Bridges become courier hops.
Security budget
Projects spin up bespoke tokenomics or rely on multisigs for oracles/relayers. Trust assumptions fragment.
IEL secures itself with slashed EigenLayer stake (or any AVS), so validator sets are shared and economically aligned from day one.
Constraint logic
Hard-coded in each smart contract (if constraints exist at all). Upgrades require redeploys and risk migrations.
IEL externalises constraints to pluggable “validators” (on-chain or WASM off-chain). Upgrade or swap validators without touching wallet code.
Automation & batching
DEX aggregators or wallets build ad-hoc batch transactions; little composability, brittle gas models.
IEL treats automation as first-class: intents can queue future userOps, reference off-chain data, and be re-signed by authorised agents. Cron-jobs with economic guarantees.
Developer ergonomics
Each infra project ships its own SDK, types, and signing flow. Integration ≈ weeks per chain.
IEL’s type-safe CLI & SDK generate intent schemas, EIP-712 helpers, and compile routes automatically. Goal: under one day from “function” to intent-aware dApp.
Why this matters in practice
- 1Unified trust surface – By outsourcing security to restakers and keeping execution logic deterministic, IEL sidesteps the "trust donut" (per-feature multisig and bespoke token) that plagues most cross-chain tooling.
- 2Path of least resistance for wallets – Wallet teams can opt-in by supporting a single intent signature type; they don't need to implement bridging, swapping, or per-protocol UX.
- 3Modular upgradeability – Because validators are hot-swappable and intents are declarative, IEL can evolve without forcing migrations or breaking older apps—crucial for long-lived finance or supply-chain systems.
- 4Composability of policies, not just functions – Enterprises care about compliance workflows ("two-of-three CFOs must sign, under $50 k, before 2026"). IEL lets you encode that as a JSON-serialised constraint set, not 500 lines of Solidity.
The punchline
IEL is effectively laying down the POSIX for programmatic coordination—a thin, boring, dependable layer every higher-level service can rely on. Once a few production pilots prove that the model scales (payroll, invoice factoring, Aave treasury swaps), it's hard to imagine new projects opting for bespoke pipelines when they can inherit a battle-tested, validator-secured coordination fabric for free. Early adopters inherit the security economics of a shared validator set on day one.
That structural edge—and the fact that coStruct is building it before the rest of the market realises how ugly intent execution really is—puts IEL in a category of its own.