I. Practical Comparison of Purchasing New Tokens
1. IntentEX
· Assume the user wants to purchase a new token XYZ. First, the user initiates a limit order to buy XYZ on the IntentEX platform, setting the price at $5 per XYZ. This order is published as an intent task to the intent execution network of dappOS.
· The professional service nodes of dappOS begin to work, leveraging their extensive connectivity (able to connect to multiple DEXs and other liquidity sources, including some hidden high-quality liquidity pools) to search for suitable sell orders across the entire market. For example, the service node discovers a large sell order for XYZ on a DEX, priced at exactly $4.8 each.
· Since IntentEX settles on opBNB, its transaction execution speed is very fast. Coupled with the OMS mechanism of dappOS, the initial matching of this order can be completed in a very short time (for example, a few hundred milliseconds). Then, through on-chain confirmation, the entire purchase process can be completed in just 1-2 seconds, with a fee of only 0.1% of the transaction amount. Assuming the purchase of 10 XYZ, the fee would only be $0.05.
· The entire process is transparent, and users can query all details of the transaction on-chain, including the addresses of buyers and sellers, quantities, prices, and other information.
2. Traditional On-Chain Exchanges
· In traditional on-chain exchanges, the user similarly initiates a limit order to purchase XYZ at a price of $5. The exchange needs to find matching sell orders from its own order book. If the depth of its order book is insufficient, it may take a long time to complete the transaction. For example, the user may have to wait for other users to post suitable priced sell orders, which can take several minutes or longer.
· Moreover, the transaction fees for traditional on-chain exchanges are usually high, possibly reaching 0.3% - 0.5%. If purchasing 10 XYZ, the fee would be around $0.15 - $0.25.
· Although transactions are also recorded on-chain, due to the mix of numerous transactions, querying specific detailed connection information about transactions can be relatively complex, and the level of transparency is somewhat lower than that of IntentEX.
II. Comparison of Market Liquidity
1. IntentEX
· IntentEX utilizes professional service nodes from dappOS to capture liquidity across multiple blockchain projects and liquidity pools. For instance, it can simultaneously connect to DEXs such as Uniswap and SushiSwap on Ethereum, as well as liquidity from specific trading venues on other public chains. When users trade, it's like fishing in a large lake that integrates numerous small ponds, providing more opportunities to find suitable prices and sufficient quantities.
· In practice, if a user wants to sell a relatively niche token on IntentEX, the service nodes have the opportunity to find buyers in other niche liquidity pools or specific trading platforms, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful transactions and price advantages.
2. Traditional On-Chain Exchanges
· Traditional on-chain exchanges often primarily rely on their own user development and accumulated liquidity. For some niche tokens or emerging assets, if there isn't enough user participation in trading, liquidity can be very poor. For example, a newly launched niche on-chain exchange may have only a small number of users placing orders, and users trading on such platforms may face long wait times for transactions to complete or may only be able to execute trades at unfavorable prices.
III. Comparison of Decentralization and Transparency
1. IntentEX
· All transactions are strictly recorded on-chain according to blockchain rules. Each transaction has clear timestamps, addresses of both parties, asset quantities, prices, and other information. Users can easily query any transaction of themselves or others using a blockchain explorer, and due to the nature of the transaction process, the possibility of behind-the-scenes manipulation is almost nonexistent.
2. Traditional On-Chain Exchanges
· Although most traditional on-chain exchanges claim to be decentralized, there may be some centralized factors in practice. For example, trading depth may be influenced by the exchange's own operational strategies, and there may be instances where the exchange imposes certain restrictions or delays on transactions for specific purposes (such as preventing malicious dumping). Moreover, when querying transaction details, it may not be as convenient and comprehensive as querying on IntentEX due to the exchange's own data organization methods.