This is really interesting, I had a few questions:
- Which entity is responsible for converting the User Intents to ATOs? What happens if this entity is malicious and generates invalid ATOs.
- While calculating the DoE, it looks like all fields are currently given equal weightage. If this is correct, than this would assume that all fields are normalised, which might not hold in practice. Also, some fields may be more important than others - for example the user may care about the reputation of the bridge used, but not as much as the slippage.
- How does the system account for the possibility of multiple pathways to resolve an intent? Say for a cross chain swap depending on the liquidity distribution, bridging->swapping could be more optimal than swapping->bridging. These two pathways would have their ATOs swapped, in this case how would the DoE^{ATO_i} calculate behave?