A distinct execution model worth comparing with cross-chain AMMs. Review the particular app using NEAR Intents: the protocol and its distribution channels do not have one identical fee schedule.
- Product
- Intent-based execution system
- Networks
- Multichain; verify asset support
- Cost model
- Interface-dependent
- Mechanism
- Intent quotes and on-chain verification
Fees and cost context
The dedicated fee page lists a 0.0001% protocol fee, an additional 0.2% for unauthenticated 1Click requests and a 0.2% near-intents.org interface fee. The fee schedule also lists a 0.1% withdrawal fee for NEAR, ZEC and STRK withdrawn to Solana. App-specific fees can also apply. It describes a 50/50 split of eligible positive quote improvement. These are context-specific components, not numbers to add indiscriminately. Network costs and market-maker spreads also affect value received.
What to know
- The official documentation distinguishes protocol and distribution-channel fees.
- Published chain, compliance and changelog pages make ongoing verification practical.
What to check
- Solver pricing, chain settlement and integration-specific controls matter.
- The risk page describes compliance screening; do not equate wallet-based access with guaranteed absence of checks.
Key question
Which interface, fee configuration and asset route are you comparing?
References & record details
- What are intents? ↗NEAR Intents
- NEAR Intents fees ↗NEAR Intents
- Risk and compliance ↗NEAR Intents
- Supported chains ↗NEAR Intents
Profile details updated 7 Sep 2026. Personal review has not been completed. Documentation does not establish transaction performance. Read our standards.