Intent-based execution vs traditional bridges: technical tradeoffs

Wanted to start a technical discussion on how cross-network execution is evolving.

Traditional bridges use lock-and-mint: assets locked in a contract on chain A, wrapped representation minted on chain B. Simple model but the locked pool becomes an attack surface (see: Wormhole, Ronin, Nomad).

Intent-based execution takes a different approach. Users declare an intent ("I want X asset on Y network") and a Solver network coordinates the execution. No locked pools, no wrapped assets. The Solver either matches you with someone going the opposite direction or uses its own liquidity and settles later.

SODAX is one implementation I've been looking at. Their Solver handles the routing across 15+ networks and uses bnUSD for settlement. Technically interesting because it separates user intent from execution path.

Curious what others think about this architecture. The tradeoff seems to be trust in the Solver vs trust in the bridge contract. Both have failure modes but they're different.