For LPs - Liquidity Providers & Market Makers

For Liquidity Providers & Market Makers

TetraFi routes $1M-$10M compliant institutional orders to competing solvers via sealed RFQ auctions. Best price wins. No relationship selling. No information leakage. Connect your pricing engine and start filling.

Access regulated institutional flow - $1M-$10M per order
Atomic T+0 settlement vs T+1/T+2 - capital freed instantly
Compliance handled for you - no in-house KYC/KYB infrastructure
70-85% of fees go to solvers - fair revenue split

KYB onboarding: 1-3 business days. Start filling within a week.

Apply as a Solver Read Solver Documentation

Live

Day 0

MVP

Cross-chain atomic swaps with 2 takers and 2 LPs

Day 1

Expansion

Chain and asset expansion with more takers and more LPs

Day 2

Credit

Permissioned credit facilities and pools

Day 3

Full Network

Protocol token, governance, and ecosystem incentives

$1M-$10M

Order Size Range

70–85%

Fees to Solvers

T+0

Settlement Speed

Sealed

Auction Format

The Solver Advantage

Compliance is a competitive moat, not a burden.

Identifiable counterparties

Automated sanctions screening

Full audit trails

You get institutional-grade flow without building compliance infrastructure.

Pre-Screened Counterparties

Automated compliance checks

Every order has passed 7 automated compliance checks: KYC/KYB status, originator sanctions (OFAC/EU), beneficiary sanctions, jurisdiction corridor policy, corridor volume caps, Travel Rule data validation, and unhosted wallet due diligence. Onboard once to TetraFi — bilateral onboarding with each counterparty is streamlined and reusable across the network.

Traditional

KYB from scratch per counterparty - weeks of redundant onboarding for each new relationship

TetraFi

One onboarding, reused across all counterparties - 7 automated checks per order

Zero Counterparty Risk

T+0

Atomic settlement

Atomic delivery-versus-payment via smart contract escrow. The taker’s funds are locked before your RFQ is even broadcast. You fill against escrowed capital, not promises. Both legs settle or neither does.

Traditional

Trust-based settlement - T+1 to T+2 with counterparty exposure

TetraFi

Atomic DvP via escrow - T+0 settlement, zero counterparty risk

Fair Competition

Information leakage

Sealed bid auctions. No last-look. No information leakage. Win on pricing quality, not relationship. Your quotes are protected from front-running by mechanism design. Every auction is documented for regulatory audit.

Traditional

Relationship-based voice pricing - last-look, information leakage

TetraFi

Sealed bid auctions - win on pricing quality, 0% leakage

Capital Efficiency

Pre-funding required

Non-custodial. No pre-funding requirement. Fill from your existing inventory, exchange positions, or DeFi venues. You can use Stargate, CCTP, Across, or any liquidity source internally - TetraFi doesn’t know or care how you source liquidity.

Traditional

$5M+ pre-funded per venue - capital locked across counterparties

TetraFi

$0 pre-funding - fill from existing inventory, any liquidity source

Integration

Both paths settle atomically via the same smart contract escrow. Choose API Solver for full RFQ access and programmatic control, or On-Chain Filler for a permissionless, contract-only integration.

RecommendedDay 0Path A~2 days to integrate

API Solver

Connect via WebSocket or REST. Receive RFQs, submit quotes, manage orders programmatically.

Full access to the RFQ stream across all 4 match types (Simple, Batching, Intermediate, Ring). Programmatic quote management, real-time order status, and the highest fill-rate potential.

API Endpoints

GET /tokens
POST /quotes
POST /orders
GET /orders/{id}

4 linesbash

solver.js

1// 1. Subscribe to RFQ stream
2const ws = new WebSocket("wss://api.tetrafi.io/v1/rfq");
3ws.onmessage = (event) => {
4  const rfq = JSON.parse(event.data);
5  // rfq: { id, pair, side, amount, corridor }
6
7  // 2. Return your quote
8  ws.send(JSON.stringify({
9    rfqId: rfq.id,
10    price: computePrice(rfq),
11    ttl: 2500, // ms
12  }));
13};

13 linesjavascript

Configurable timeout ~2.5sFIX 4.4 Phase 2All 4 match types

Day 1+Path B~1 week to integrate

On-Chain Filler

Monitor ERC-7683 events directly on-chain. Fill orders by calling the settlement contract.

Monitor ERC-7683 events on Optimism / Base
Call fill() on OutputSettler
Atomic settlement via InputSettler

filler.js

1// 1. Monitor ERC-7683 CrossChainOrder events
2const filter = settler.filters.Open();
3settler.on(filter, async (orderId, order) => {
4  // 2. Evaluate and fill the order
5  const tx = await outputSettler.fill(
6    orderId,
7    order.minAmountOut,
8    { value: order.amount }
9  );
10  await tx.wait(); // Atomic settlement
11});

11 linesjavascript

Solvers operate non-custodially - no pre-funded positions required. The protocol uses Compact resource locks to guarantee atomicity: taker funds are escrowed before your quote is broadcast, and both legs settle or neither does.

Simple match only

Settlement Flow

Step 1 of 6HTLC

Economics

Zero upfront fees. Protocol fees are a fraction of traditional OTC costs. Revenue from day one.

For Solvers

Revenue model

Earn the majority of execution fees
T+0 atomic settlement
No pre-funding to the protocol
Automated compliance

Fee Distribution

Solver Revenue78%

Platform Fee15%

Gas + Settlement7%

Protocol Cost Structure

Per-user onboarding

$1-$3

KYC verification + on-chain attestation (one-time)

Tap for details

Protocol fee

TBA

TetraFi protocol fee per trade

Tap for details

Per-swap cost

$0.10-$1

Gas + oracle verification + settlement

Tap for details

Why TetraFi

Feature	TetraFi Solver	Uniswap LP	Direct OTC Legacy
Settlement	Atomic T+0 (on-chain DvP)	Instant (single-chain only)	T+1 to T+2 (manual)
Delivery-versus-payment via smart contract escrow. Both legs settle atomically or neither does. T+0 vs T+1-T+2 means your capital is freed instantly.
Cross-chain	Native (ERC-7683 intents)	Requires separate bridge	Manual per venue
ERC-7683 settlement intents enable native cross-chain execution. No bridge risk, no manual venue management. Fill on any supported chain from a single integration.
Compliance	Automated (7-check pipeline)	None	Manual per counterparty
7 automated compliance checks per order: KYC/KYB, sanctions (OFAC/EU), beneficiary screening, jurisdiction policy, volume caps, Travel Rule, and wallet due diligence.
Counterparty Risk	Zero (smart contract escrow)	Pool risk (impermanent loss)	Bilateral trust
Taker funds are escrowed before your RFQ is broadcast. You fill against locked capital, not promises. Smart contract escrow eliminates counterparty exposure entirely.
Revenue Model	Spread + majority of fee pool	LP fees - impermanent loss	Spread (relationship-based)
Solvers retain the majority of the execution fee. Protocol takes a small fraction for routing and compliance infrastructure. Fee structure TBA - no impermanent loss risk.
Flow Quality	KYB’d institutional ($1M-$10M)	Anonymous (any size)	Bilateral (relationship-based)
Every order comes from a KYB-verified institutional counterparty. Trade sizes are $1M-$10M per order. No retail noise, no MEV, no sandwich attacks.
Audit Trail	WORM evidence ledger	On-chain only (no compliance)	Paper/CRM (manual)
Write-Once Read-Many evidence ledger provides immutable compliance records. Every trade is documented for regulatory audit with full counterparty identity.
Capital Required	No pre-funding to TetraFi	Locked in pool (permanent)	Pre-fund per venue ($5M+)
Non-custodial. No capital locked with TetraFi. Fill from your existing inventory, exchange positions, or DeFi liquidity sources. Zero pre-funding requirement.

The Thesis

Why solver-based execution will power cross-chain DeFi, OTC, and payments

The thesis: specialized solvers are better equipped to build a transaction for optimal execution onchain than a basic AMM contract or an end user navigating across multiple apps and chains.

Over the past years, intents has become one of the hottest concepts in DeFi and intent-based systems have gained significant traction in the space. Solvers, who are often professional market makers, handle transaction execution for users.

An intent can be defined as a user's desire to effectively sell X amount of token A for at least Y amount of token B. Solvers then compete to execute the trade on behalf of the user given the specified tokens and amounts.

Market Convergence

The Protocols Are Already Here

It is becoming increasingly clear that solvers and intents are not a niche design choice but the architecture the market is converging on for cross-chain value transfer.

CoW Protocol

$0.0bn

Cumulative DEX aggregator volume. From $13.6bn in 2023 to $70.8bn by Jan 2025.

Across

$0bn+

Cross-chain volume. 17m+ transactions, 4m+ users.

NEAR Intents

$0bn+

Launched Jun 2025. $7bn by Jan 2026, $14bn+ by Mar 2026.

Wormhole

$0.0bn

Transfer volume on base network. Settlement now a dedicated intents suite.

Mayan

$0.0bn

Built on Wormhole. 2m unique wallets, 7.7m swaps.

UniswapX

$0bn

Intent-based auction protocol. $24bn cumulative since launch.

1inch Fusion

$0m

Cross-chain volume in first year. Fusion+ intent-based execution.

ERC-7683 & Open Intents Framework

At the standards layer, intents are now at the center of the Ethereum Foundation's push. The EF has explicitly framed interoperability as building on the Open Intents Framework, while ERC-7683 is becoming the standard for intent-based cross-chain order flow.

Market Structure

The market is already consolidating around a small number of well-capitalized, vertically integrated solvers - which is exactly why the opportunity to back the right solver architecture early is so large.

CoW Protocol

Just 3 solvers control over 50% of all volume

Volume controlled by top 3 solvers0%

Rewards captured by a single solver0%

Solvers with any meaningful volume (>1%)0%

Only 12 of 28 active solvers handled more than 1% of volume in early 2025. The rest are marginal.

Across

$4.6bn processed in 4 months - only 13% handle 99%+ of order flow

Solvers handling >99% of all order flow0%

Solvers estimated to be profitable0%

Inventory held by the top solver alone0%

Top solver: $3.7m inventory vs under $600k for most peers. Capital is already the deciding factor.

High Barriers to Entry

Only around 5 to 10 solvers appear profitable under estimated operating costs of $13k-$26k per month ($156k-$312k annually). Capital, private liquidity, and execution infrastructure already matter more than simply having better logic.

The Edge

Deep Liquidity Creates Compounding Advantage

Dominant players can build a massive edge through:

Deep Capital

Sustained balance sheet depth across chains and venues

Private Liquidity

Off-exchange inventory invisible to the wider market

Privileged Access

Early or exclusive access to key execution venues

Order Flow

Exclusive, recurring relationships with institutional clients

Core Infra

Early control of execution, simulation, and settlement stack

That advantage compounds quickly.

TetraFi is uniquely positioned to help LPs capitalize on this dynamic: Today's solvers increasingly consolidate quoting, routing, simulation, and settlement into a single integrated stack. A trading firm with zero-fee access, CEX credit, or privileged liquidity can consistently quote better than competitors and win flow before the market fully matures.

With the right timing, TetraFi gives LPs the chance to capture a disproportionate share of the future cross-chain, regulated digital asset, OTC, and payments economy - rather than trying to break in later once the giants have already emerged.

Use Cases

Solver Use Cases and Adoption Drivers

The case for solvers is no longer driven only by existing DeFi activity. The next wave of adoption comes from participants with far stronger structural reasons to prefer solver-based execution: regulated institutions, token issuers, and payments platforms.

1.Token Issuers

Token Issuers Want Control Over Execution

Token issuers and large custodians do not just want liquidity. They want control over execution.

Key Signals

They already have the infrastructure:

Recurring cross-chain demand - they already see it
Inventory management - they already do it
Secure infrastructure - they already run it
Third-party dependency - why keep paying forever?

The Case

Generic solvers optimise for their own capital efficiency. Issuers care about predictability, distribution, and user experience.

Once an issuer manages token distribution, execution becomes part of the product. It affects spreads, settlement, and reputation.

Running a solver becomes natural - to internalise execution for their own flows.

For RWA issuers and stablecoin operators, these flows need compliant execution rails. That means regulated infrastructure like TetraFi.

Prediction

Issuer-aligned solvers will emerge - focused on own assets, starting with stablecoins. They will need compliant solver rails for both operational and regulatory requirements.

2.Institutions

Regulated Institutions Need Compliance

For regulated institutions, it is not enough that a route is cheap, fast, or liquid. It also needs to be accountable.

Key Signals

They need to know:

Who executed the flow
What policies they follow
What jurisdiction they operate in
Who is responsible if something goes wrong

The Case

Permissionless liquidity breaks down for institutional use. You cannot KYB a pool. Tracing flows is not contractual accountability.

A solver can be a known operator, monitored and certified. A path to compliant liquidity without permissioning the whole market.

Enterprise clients need to know who executed the swap. In a solver-based model, enforced at the execution layer.

Prediction

Compliance-oriented solver networks emerge - for stablecoin treasury flows, enterprise payments, and regulated institutions, they become a default requirement.

3.Payments

Payments Demand Deterministic Execution

Trading users can tolerate some variance. Payments users cannot.

Key Signals

The basics must work:

Merchant settlement - the merchant gets paid
One clear amount - no surprises for the user
Predictable refunds - handled consistently
Clean failure handling - clear accountability
Consistent behaviour - every time

The Case

One solver commits to the outcome, handles routing, manages rebalancing, owns failure and recovery logic.

The user just wants the result: pay X, receive Y, settle fast.

The user gets a simple, deterministic experience. The solver gets paid for providing certainty.

Prediction

Payments will be one of the strongest drivers of solver adoption - because payments needs certainty and clean execution more than most DeFi use cases.

The Opportunity

Solvers started as a niche part of DeFi. This is not true anymore.

The next wave of order flow will not come from random retail swaps. It will come from:

Issuers

who want control

Institutions

who need compliance

Commerce platforms

that demand deterministic execution

These players do not just want the best price. They want reliability, accountability, and integration into their product stack.

Winning in 2026 will not be about being the fastest bot in a fragmented system - it will be about being integrated into the flows that matter, meeting compliance requirements, and being trusted with recurring, high-value order flow.

Join the Network

Zero upfront fees. Connect your pricing engine, pass KYB onboarding, and start receiving sealed RFQ auctions from institutional counterparties.

90%+

Fee Savings

T+0

Capital Freed Instantly

Matching Strategies

Get Started

Apply as a Solver

Schedule a Technical Call Access Solver Documentation

enquiries@tetrafi.io | Telegram: @TetraFi_Team

Access Institutional Flow.Compete on Price.

Institutional Flow Through One Onboarding Hub

Two Ways to Connect

Solver Economics

For Solvers

TetraFi Solver vs. Alternatives

Why Solvers and Intents

The Protocols Are Already Here

Winner Takes Most

Deep Liquidity Creates Compounding Advantage

Solver Use Cases and Adoption Drivers

Token Issuers Want Control Over Execution

Regulated Institutions Need Compliance

Payments Demand Deterministic Execution

The Opportunity

Start Filling Institutional Orders

Institutional Flow Through One Onboarding Hub

Two Ways to Connect

Solver Economics

For Solvers

TetraFi Solver vs. Alternatives

The Protocols Are Already Here

Winner Takes Most

Deep Liquidity Creates Compounding Advantage

Solver Use Cases and Adoption Drivers

Token Issuers Want Control Over Execution

Regulated Institutions Need Compliance

Payments Demand Deterministic Execution

The Opportunity

Start Filling Institutional Orders