NEAR Intents, the cross-chain swap layer built atop NEAR Protocol, lost roughly $3.8 million in an exploit that followed the protocol's assistance to cryptocurrency exchange Bitget during a separate security incident, according to a TradingView report.

What happened?

TradingView's headline frames the breach in direct sequence with NEAR Intents' prior cooperation with Bitget, the centralized cryptocurrency exchange that publicly disclosed a security episode earlier in the period.

The phrasing leaves open whether the two are causally linked — through reused access, shared tooling, or a single threat actor operating across both incidents — or merely temporally adjacent. TradingView's summary does not specify the attack vector or identify the perpetrator.

How does NEAR Intents work?

The protocol operates as a solver-based execution layer.

Rather than routing swaps through on-chain liquidity pools, the system lets users express a desired outcome — for instance, swapping one asset on Ethereum for a different asset on a destination chain — and lets competing market makers bid to fill the request.

Settlement occurs once a matching solver posts the appropriate quote. This architecture has placed NEAR Intents alongside other emerging intent-based systems that aim to abstract cross-chain routing from end users.

What is the Bitget context?

Bitget disclosed a security incident earlier in the operating cycle. NEAR Intents reportedly participated in the response.

Whether the NEAR Intents exploit drew on residual access from that cooperation — or represented an independent intrusion timed to the same window — is not addressed in available reporting.

How does the loss compare?

At $3.8 million, the incident fits within the moderate band of cryptocurrency exploits reported over recent quarters.

The figure positions NEAR Intents alongside a steady cadence of seven- and eight-figure losses affecting protocols across decentralized finance, including bridges, lending markets and now intent-based systems.

The category has drawn increasing attention from security researchers given the structural properties of signed-intent execution.

What is the attack surface?

Solver networks carry distinct risks compared with conventional automated market makers.

Because solvers receive signed user intents and execute settlements on the originator's behalf, a compromised solver, a manipulated intent parser, or a hijacked oracle can reroute funds to attacker-controlled addresses before the cross-chain leg clears.

These properties make intent protocols a focus area for ongoing security review.

What comes next?

NEAR Intents has not yet released a public post-mortem.

The protocol will need to disclose the exploit's technical pathway, the on-chain addresses involved, and any reimbursement plan drawn from treasury reserves, foundation holdings or a future governance proposal.

Forensic coordination between the Bitget and NEAR Intents response teams will shape whether subsequent reporting treats the two events as a single campaign.