# Traditional Bridges vs. Intent-Based Swaps

| Feature                  | Traditional Bridges 🏗️                         | Intent-Based Swaps ⚡                                      |
| ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- |
| Scalability              | Limited by locked TVL, leading to bottlenecks   | Access to a global liquidity network, infinitely scalable |
| Slippage & MEV           | Prone to slippage and MEV front-running attacks | Zero slippage, immune to MEV exploitation                 |
| Security                 | Centralized TVL pools create honeypot risks     | No locked TVL, minimizing security vulnerabilities        |
| User Experience (UX)     | Slow transaction speeds, high gas fees          | Ultra-fast swaps, no wait for network finality            |
| Liquidity Requirements   | Requires heavy incentives to attract liquidity  | No need for liquidity bootstrapping or incentives         |

### Why Intent-Based Swaps Are Better 🏅

Intent-based swaps revolutionize cross-chain transactions by eliminating the traditional limitations of bridges. They prioritize security, efficiency, and user experience, making them the future of blockchain interoperability.

