Aurora Labs has added Sui as a destination for one-signature cross-chain transactions through its Intents Connect product, extending access to a solver network the company says has already routed more than 30 billion USD in volume.
In a Sept. 17 press release shared with crypto.news, Aurora Labs said Intents Connect can now route supported assets from other blockchains directly into applications built on Sui — and not merely into a Sui wallet. Depending on the application, a single approved transaction can end with the user lending an asset, entering a trade, or depositing funds into a yield product.
The company said users do not need to open a separate bridge, switch wallets, or acquire SUI tokens for gas. Intents Connect handles the process inside whatever application the user already has open, while NEAR Intents supplies the underlying liquidity, settlement system and connections between chains.
From transfers to completed actions
Cross-chain services typically focus on moving a token from one network to another, leaving the user to finish the remaining steps manually. Aurora Labs says roughly three-quarters of the applications it speaks with need more than asset delivery, because their users arrive intending to stake, lend or trade.
Intents Connect is designed to bundle the transfer and the requested on-chain action. A user starts with an asset on a supported source chain, approves the transaction once, and receives the intended position on Sui without arranging each step separately.
Consider a Solana user who wants to deposit USDC into a Sui protocol. Previously, that user would have needed to move between two wallets, bridge the funds, and buy SUI to pay network fees. Through the new integration, the user can authorize the full process inside the Sui application with one signature.
Why Sui was a genuine engineering challenge
Sui required additional work because it does not follow the Ethereum Virtual Machine model shared by many chains that cross-chain products support. Its object-based programming system, address format and transaction structure all differ from Ethereum-compatible networks.
Aurora Labs CEO Declan Hannon noted that Sui is only the second non-Ethereum-style blockchain supported by the service, after Solana. “We chose Sui because the engineering challenge is exactly what makes this integration meaningful,” Hannon said, adding that supporting Sui as a destination lets Intents Connect handle its technical differences for users while giving developers access to funds held on other networks.
For developers, the integration creates a route from wallets on supported chains into Sui-based products without each application having to build separate bridging and execution systems. Aurora Labs said a single Intents Connect integration can make an application accessible to users and assets across every network the service supports.
Solvers power the settlement layer
NEAR Intents coordinates the system through a solver network. Solvers compete to satisfy a user’s requested outcome, while the infrastructure manages liquidity and settlement across the connected blockchains. Aurora Labs reported that the network has routed more than 30 billion USD to date, though it did not provide a Sui-specific volume figure or name the first applications using the new destination support.
The timing coincides with broader growth in Sui’s DeFi stack. In August, NAVI Protocol launched NAVI Prime, an on-chain lending framework built for funds and professional market participants, with roughly 124.6 million USD in total value locked across the NAVI Protocol group at the time. Sui’s stablecoin infrastructure has also expanded, with the Sui Foundation saying USDsui entered mainnet in March 2026 and that the network processed more than 111 billion USD in stablecoin transfers during January.
Wallet dynamics add context to the launch. Phantom announced in August that it will end Sui support on September 24, removing Sui balances, transaction tools and application connections from its interface. Phantom said the change will not delete or move user assets, and holders can retain access by importing credentials into another compatible Sui wallet — but the exit narrows the retail on-ramp options for the ecosystem.
Intents Connect takes a different approach to the same problem: instead of requiring a dedicated Sui wallet at all, a user can begin from a wallet on another supported blockchain, with the application managing the route into Sui including the destination action. The model does not eliminate the blockchain transactions involved in settlement — it removes the need for the user to arrange each transaction, asset transfer and gas payment separately.
Developer support is available immediately. Aurora Labs has published technical guides covering transaction construction, address requirements and the steps needed to integrate Sui as a destination, and the company is positioning the integration as a template for further non-EVM destinations.
For Sui, the integration represents a liquidity bridge at a moment when the network’s application layer is maturing faster than its standalone retail tooling — and for Aurora, it extends a cross-chain network that now spans both major non-EVM ecosystems.
Market snapshot at press time (Sept. 17, 12:00 UTC): Bitcoin traded near 76,323 USD, Ethereum near 2,436 USD, and Solana near 100 USD, according to CoinGecko data.
30 billion routed already is a serious number for an intents network. and the part where you dont need SUI for gas is what actually gets normies in the door
^ also kills the fake-deposit window where people get scammed mid bridge. slept on feature honestly
fake deposit scams die when there is no deposit step to fake. still wanna see a bond registry before calling it solved but the attack surface shrinks a lot
Bundling the bridge and the deposit into one signature is nice until a solver fails mid-route. Would love to know what recourse looks like in that scenario.
recourse depends entirely on whether the solver is bonded, and aurora does not publish a bond registry last i checked. until they do its trust the routing table
a public bond registry would settle this in a day. routing 30b through unbonded solvers and not publishing collateral is a choice, not an oversight
a public bond registry is table stakes once you route 30b. until then solver risk is just an unpaid line item sitting inside every users trade
tbh the recourse answer is probably a support ticket and a shrug. one signature convenience comes with one signature worth of ambiguity
recourse is basically pray the solver is bonded. ask anyone who had an intent stuck for 6 hours during a congestion spike
6 hours stuck is bad but compare it to a bridge with a 12 hour timelock and no status page. intents at least fail loudly
stuck for 6 hours beats drained by a fake deposit forever. people forget what the alternative actually costs them
recourse today is basically none, its slash and socialize. bonds at least make the solver eat the failed route instead of the user
sui apps getting users deposited straight from other chains, no wallet switch, no gas token. this is how onboarding shoulda worked years ago
no wallet switch no gas token no fake deposit window. three scam vectors gone in one product update, quietly huge for sui onboarding
30 billion already routed is the number that stands out. Bundling the transfer and the final action into one signature kills like three separate approval screens on a normal bridge hop.
The no SUI for gas part is underrated. Half the friction of trying a new chain is figuring out how to acquire the gas token before you can do anything.
one signature and youre in a sui lending app straight from ethereum without touching a cex. that onboarding funnel just collapsed into a click
NEAR Intents supplying the settlement layer while Aurora handles the app side is a clean split. Curious which solver actually wins when routes compete on price though.
the solver market is where all the margin hides. first few months of route competition usually means better pricing than any bridge could offer
whichever solver posts bonds first wins by default. price competition in a trust market only goes so far
solvency is step one, price competition is step two. whichever solver can eat a failed route without going negative wins the long run