Skip to content
Blockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryMarkets2023Design paperCorpus record

UniswapX: signed intents filled by a reactor

UniswapX. Uniswap Labs.

UniswapX publishes a signed order that a filler can execute through a reactor contract, which checks the user's limit before moving tokens.

A reading of the project's public design document. Not a copy, not a benchmark, and not an offer.

UniswapX publishes a signed order that a filler can execute through a reactor contract, which checks the user's limit before moving tokens.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
2

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The defect

    An intent protocol from the Uniswap name is not the v2 or v3 pool. The pool math is a different document.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    The proposal

    UniswapX publishes a signed order that a filler can execute through a reactor contract, which checks the user's limit before moving tokens.

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    The mechanism

    The user signs a permitted output. The reactor, not the filler, is supposed to enforce that minimum.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    The bound

    No fill rate is stated here.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The defect

    Observation

    What the study says

    An intent protocol from the Uniswap name is not the v2 or v3 pool. The pool math is a different document.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The document is the one at the source URL. A marketing page with the same brand is not this text.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What does the reactor verify against the user's signature?

  2. 02 The proposal

    Observation

    What the study says

    UniswapX publishes a signed order that a filler can execute through a reactor contract, which checks the user's limit before moving tokens.

    Model

    What has to hold

    You are reading the UniswapX overview. The AMM white papers are separate.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What happens if no filler accepts the order?

  3. 03 The mechanism

    Observation

    What the study says

    The user signs a permitted output. The reactor, not the filler, is supposed to enforce that minimum.

    Model

    What has to hold

    No price, supply, yield, or adoption figure is added by this desk.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What does the reactor verify against the user's signature?

  4. 04 The bound

    Observation

    What the study says

    No fill rate is stated here.

    Model

    What has to hold

    You are reading the UniswapX overview. The AMM white papers are separate.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What does the reactor verify against the user's signature?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01The user signs a permitted output. The reactor, not the filler, is supposed to enforce that minimum.
  2. 02Fillers compete to satisfy the order. Competition is not the same object as an AMM invariant.
  3. 03A Dutch-auction schedule, if the order type uses one, is a price path the user signed. It is not a price the protocol discovered.

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. What the name has to mean

    The cut

    UniswapX publishes a signed order that a filler can execute through a reactor contract, which checks the user's limit before moving tokens.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A reactor bug is a loss of the check that makes the filler untrusted. Read the contract boundary.

  2. What actually moves

    The cut

    Fillers compete to satisfy the order. Competition is not the same object as an AMM invariant.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

  3. What a later deployment may change

    The cut

    A Dutch-auction schedule, if the order type uses one, is a price path the user signed. It is not a price the protocol discovered.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Model · Not re-measured

    You are reading the UniswapX overview. The AMM white papers are separate.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The document is the one at the source URL. A marketing page with the same brand is not this text.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    No price, supply, yield, or adoption figure is added by this desk.

06 Divergence

What happened after the paper

This does not retire the v2, v3, or v4 studies.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it names

An intent protocol from the Uniswap name is not the v2 or v3 pool. The pool math is a different document.

What the design proposes

  • The user signs a permitted output. The reactor, not the filler, is supposed to enforce that minimum.
  • Fillers compete to satisfy the order. Competition is not the same object as an AMM invariant.
  • A Dutch-auction schedule, if the order type uses one, is a price path the user signed. It is not a price the protocol discovered.

How the mechanism is specified

  • The user signs a permitted output. The reactor, not the filler, is supposed to enforce that minimum.
  • Fillers compete to satisfy the order. Competition is not the same object as an AMM invariant.
  • A Dutch-auction schedule, if the order type uses one, is a price path the user signed. It is not a price the protocol discovered.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • No fill rate is stated here.
  • A reactor bug is a loss of the check that makes the filler untrusted. Read the contract boundary.
  • This does not retire the v2, v3, or v4 studies.

Why the desk still reads it

UniswapX publishes a signed order that a filler can execute through a reactor contract, which checks the user's limit before moving tokens.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

Reactor
The contract that settles an intent. It is the enforcement point.
Filler
A party that supplies the other side. They are not the AMM.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

Protocols

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.