Protocol Mechanics
The Physics of Intent: Bridging the Semantic Gap Between Security and UX
In our previous research note, [Ethereum 2026: The Triad of Scale, UX, and Resilience], we identifie...
February 23, 2026
In modern financial systems, alpha rarely dies in the model. It dies at the interface. The majority of profitable strategies fail not due to incorrect assumptions, but because the pathway between decision and execution is obstructed by latency, abstraction, and loss of control. This paper examines the interface layer wallets, bridges, RPCs, and user-facing execution paths as the primary site of alpha decay. We argue that unless execution interfaces are treated as first-class system components, all upstream intelligence is systematically neutralized.
Alpha is traditionally attributed to:
Superior information
Better models
Faster reaction
This framing assumes that once a decision is made, execution follows. It does not.
In distributed systems, the gap between "Decision" and "Transaction" is not empty space; it is a hostile environment.
Every interface introduces loss. In onchain systems, interfaces include:
Wallets & Signing flows
RPC endpoints
Bridges
Sequencer submission layers
Each step adds delay, uncertainty, ordering ambiguity, and external dependency. By the time execution occurs, the market state has already shifted. Alpha decays before it touches the chain.
Interfaces exist to abstract complexity. But abstraction removes control.
A wallet does not guarantee inclusion time or ordering position.
A bridge does not guarantee arrival window or price continuity.
Interfaces promise usability. Markets demand determinism.
These goals are incompatible.
Under normal conditions, interfaces appear sufficient.
Under stress:
Wallets stall.
RPCs throttle.
Bridges freeze.
Queues form.
This is not accidental. Interfaces are optimized for average users, not adverse conditions. Alpha is generated precisely when conditions are adverse. Relying on retail infrastructure during a crash is a guarantee of failure.
Alpha exists inside narrow temporal windows ($t < 100ms$).
Interfaces operate on human timescales ($t > 1s$): confirmation dialogs, retry logic, fallback routing.
By the time a human-facing interface completes, the window has closed. This is why backtests succeed, simulations succeed, but production fails. The interface cannot keep up with the market it intermediates.
The industry maintains a convenient fiction: "Research produces alpha. Execution applies it."
This separation is artificial. Execution constraints shape which strategies are even viable. A strategy that ignores its execution surface is invalid by construction.
High-performance systems collapse the boundary.
Execution is:
Pre-authorized
Pre-positioned
Automated
Local
There is no "submit" step. There is no "confirm" step. Decision and execution occur inside the same control domain. This is not UX optimization. This is survival architecture.
Every interface extracts a tax:
Temporal Tax: Latency added by hops.
Informational Tax: Signaling intent to intermediaries.
Probabilistic Tax: Uncertainty of inclusion.
This tax compounds. Most strategies are profitable before interface costs. Most are unprofitable after. Markets do not forgive interface inefficiency.
Institutions do not rely on wallets. They build:
Direct RPC paths
Privileged access
Co-located infrastructure
Internal execution engines
Retail systems cannot do this. This asymmetry explains why strategies leak, spreads compress, and users underperform. Alpha migrates to those who eliminate the interface.
Any system that treats interfaces as neutral, prioritizes usability over control, or externalizes execution responsibility cannot sustain alpha.
Execution surfaces must be deterministic, minimal, and tightly coupled to capital. Anything else is an alpha sink.
Alpha does not fail because models are wrong.
It fails because interfaces delay, distort, and dilute execution.
In distributed financial systems, the interface is the battlefield. Those who control it retain alpha. Those who do not watch it evaporate.