Been watching the situation around NEAR Intents closely. They gained a lot of volume by undercutting THORChain on price, but now they seem to be running into the same issue many intent-based solutions eventually face. If the model doesn’t earn enough to support the business case, fees eventually have to rise. And once fees rise, the volume that was driven by “being the cheapest” starts to look a lot less stable. It’s also worth noting that the only real liquidity provider on NEAR Intents has been themselves (correct me if I am wrong). That makes undercutting easier in the short term, but much harder to sustain once fees need adjusting. Still, it’s impressive how fast NEAR Intents captured market share simply by offering better rates. It shows how powerful price really is in this space. But it also highlights the limitation of models that rely on keeping fees artificially low to stay competitive. It will be interesting to track how much their fees increase from here. This is exactly why I am so bullish on Pact Swap. Because it is built on Coinweb’s infrastructure, the base cost of running a cross chain swap is basically nothing. More or less the cost of issuing a smart contract on Coinweb and executing a few L2 transactions. That means margins remain high even when fees are the lowest in the market. You don’t need to raise fees to stay alive. You don’t need to rely on huge spreads or MEV. You can simply offer the best price, sustainably. Seeing NEAR succeed by being cheaper validates the entire thesis. Price wins. Now imagine that same playbook with real margins, real sustainability, no extra validator sets, no hidden costs. The future looks 🔥 for @Pact_Swap and @CoinwebOfficial.

Maximalists will hate this: The future isn’t monolithic. It’s modular. It’s multi-chain. It’s interoperable. Apps will live across chains. Users won’t even notice. That’s true decentralization.

Mr @TobyCoinweb's calendar has more overlapping calls than Ethereum has rollups. Still makes every one. Legend.