Stables & payments
Gasless USDG sends and stable-to-stable swaps with a slippage ceiling, not a hope.
Pay 500 USDG gaslessly to 0x…cafeState what should be true afterwards. AI and compliant solvers compete over how.
The chain enforces that they did. The X Layer-native Intent Operating System for agents, stablecoins and Real World Assets.
X Layer testnet · wallet abstraction via submitFor · agents share owner history · no new token
1952chain id · X Layer testnet
~30sauction window
2live solvers, 6 lanes
0stripped floors on record
Lifecycle
OPEN→
SELECTED→
FULFILLED
Live settlement preview: one basket, four legs
Why this exists
Tokenized equities and stables on X Layer are real. Using them still looks like a DEX: approve, swap, approve, swap, fix the fill that slipped. Agents have it worse: they must emit transactions, not outcomes.
IntentOS moves the boundary. The user or agent commits to an outcome and a policy. Solvers compete on fee, speed, and binding per-leg guarantees. Settlement sizes every leg from the user's weights. A solver never supplies amounts. If a floor is missed, if capital is under-deployed, if a non-KYB solver wins a compliant intent, the transaction reverts.
Not a bridge. Not a chat UI that “does DeFi for you.” Single-chain on purpose: one atomic settlement, no half-finished cross-chain state.
What you can declare
xStocks & RWA
Weighted baskets across attested tokenized equities, sized from committed weights.
Allocate 10,000 USDT across 4 xStocksCompliant only
Pin a lane: only KYB-attested solvers may win. Everyone else reverts out.
Using only compliant solvers, allocate 25,000 USDTAgents & enterprise
Declared via SDK, same owner history as a wallet, integrator-controlled selection.
Rebalance my xStocks every MondayBuilt for neobanks & fintechs
Integrator-controlled selection pins who may pick the winning solver, so a neobank building on X Layer keeps execution inside a policy the chain will actually enforce, not a terms-of-service promise.
Pair that with KYB-only lanes and USDG rails, and a fintech front end can offer “declare an outcome” while every settlement still runs through the same auditable auction.
The best way to operate RWAs on X Layer
One intent can allocate across TSLA, NVDA, AAPL, META and SPY xStocks with equal weight, a slippage cap, attested-only assets, and a fee ceiling. Rebalances exit and enter in the same transaction. A PAYMENT lands as a cash sleeve.
TSLAxNVDAxAAPLxMETAxSPYxGOOGLxUSDGRWA attestedKYB solversgasless
Weights are not negotiable. Floors are doubled. The whole notional gets deployed, or settlement reverts.
Guardrails travel with the intent: spend cap, fee cap, solver reputation, token allowlist, live RWA attestation, KYB-only execution, solver-sponsored gas.
Modular solvers, not a single router
General solvers compete on fee, ETA, and guaranteed output.
Compliant solvers are owner-attested. Policy.requireCompliant reverts anyone else.
Specialists that only touch attested xStocks and tokenized funds.
You sign. Coordinator pays submit gas via submitFor. Solvers can sponsor settlement. No OKB required to declare.
See the auction decide
Any registered solver may bid. Aggressive usually wins on price.
“Using only compliant solvers, gaslessly convert stables into a diversified basket of six xStocks on X Layer, then rebalance monthly.”
A single declared outcome
Registry, recent
Open the appNo intents on this deployment yet.
Agents are first-class
Declare via SDK
Clarifications hold the intent. Nothing is signed until the spec is complete. Gasless by default (submitFor + permit). History is the same list a human wallet sees, inside the app.
await agent.declare("put 5,000 USDT into NVDA and AAPL, 60/40, only attested assets", { relayUrl });
await agent.track(intentId);
await agent.history();
Isn’t this just a router?
Isn't this just a router with extra steps?
A router returns whatever it returns. IntentOS measures the recipient's balance delta and reverts if it misses max(user minOut, solver guarantee). The guarantee is enforced, not advisory.
Why single-chain, not a bridge?
One atomic settlement means no half-finished cross-chain state. A guarantee that only means something if every leg lands in the same transaction.
What stops a solver from lying in its bid?
Nothing stops the bid. The contract stops the payout. A solver that wins and can't meet its guarantee doesn't get paid, and its reputation drops.
Do I need to trust the coordinator?
No. It can't touch funds and can't force a bad settlement. It can only pick a worse bid, and that's slashable via challengeSelection.
Is this wallet abstraction / ERC-4337?
The live path is signed intents: EIP-712 Submit + exact-amount permit, coordinator pays submit gas. Agents are owner addresses on the same registry. Smart accounts and session keys are next, not a rewrite.
Ready when you are
Connect a wallet on X Layer testnet, mint test stables, and submit a live intent. Solvers compete. The chain checks the result.
Open the app