MEV

Unhappy-Branch8118

Most of that is probably just MEV bots on Uniswap frontrunning everyone. I've been running grid bots on bydfi lately since they've been around 6 years and have a $1M anniversary pool running.

Berrio6

Yeah this is a known issue with MetaMask swaps specifically on cross-chain bridges. The 0.875% is their base fee, but what they don't advertise upfront is that it compounds with bridge fees, LP fees on the destination, and worst of all — their quote engine sometimes uses stale liquidity data, so by the time you execute, you're getting a worse rate than shown. On a 5-figure swap that gap adds up fast. What most people switch to after this exact experience: **For EVM chains (ETH/Base/Arbitrum):** **1inch** or **CoW Swap**. 1inch routes through 200+ DEXs and charges zero platform fee — you only pay the underlying pool fees and gas. CoW Swap batches orders and protects against MEV front-running, which is probably also eating your swaps without you knowing. **For cross-chain specifically:** **deBridge** — no liquidity pools, no slippage, guaranteed rate. It's what I use for anything over $10k. **If you're open to Solana:** **Jupiter** is genuinely miles ahead of anything on EVM for swap execution. Sub-cent fees, splits across 50+ DEXs automatically. Obviously only relevant if you're holding Solana-native assets. The dirty secret is MetaMask's swap UI is optimized for UX, not best execution. It's fine for small trades where convenience matters more than 0.5%. For 5-figures it's the wrong tool. On your question "is this the state of DeFi in 2026" — kind of yes for wallets that charge interface fees, no for dedicated aggregators. The aggregator layer has gotten genuinely good. The problem is wallet UX hides the fee structure. Worth reading if you want to understand why Solana-based DeFi has structurally lower costs: [https://wealthmindlabs.com/solana-staking-rewards-2026.html](https://wealthmindlabs.com/solana-staking-rewards-2026.html) — it's about staking but it explains why the fee architecture is different from EVM. The same reason staking fees are fractional is why swaps on Solana are also much cheaper.

oak1337

Reminder: Hedera doesn't even own it's own source code. Both ETH and Hedera are open sourced. But Hedera's technical roadmap is community led with Linux Foundation, and not gatekept by one single person (Vitalik). Hedera also doesn't have centralized block leaders. You can't bribe the "King Block Leader" to get your transactions re-ordered, like on ETH. Unfair ordering, cheating other users, frontrunning their transactions, sandwich attacking, etc. Hedera uses Leaderless Fair Ordering, with no MEV, no frontrunning, no bribing the leader, etc. Also, a single block leader is a single, centralized point of failure from a security standpoint. Not to mention Hedera has fixed gas fees, priced in USD. Imagine knowing how much you're gonna spend for the next year, instead of not knowing what you'll spend in the next few minutes or hours on ETH. Hedera's EVM Compatibility means any ETH project can migrate to Hedera easily and run better, faster, more secure, and more decentralized.

foretdown

The most profitable ways are also the riskiest. If you don’t want the risk, look into MEV bots. It’s been my safest passive income in crypto.

oak1337

Every metrics website says the Nakamoto is 2. I guess everyone has it wrong except you lol. ETH = Slow finality. Centralized. Complicated/heavy. Unfair ordering with a centralized block leader (MEV/frontrunning/cheating). Not scalable. L2's centralized trash as an attempt to scale. There is literally not one good thing about it. ETH introduced the world to smart contracts. That's it. Thank you. But that only makes it a stepping stone, and for all the other reasons, it will never be the final destination.... Except for ETH maxis, who will never let go of it. It'll die a very slow and painful death because of that. Vitalik says they have to basically rebuild the whole thing to try and make it scale. He says L2's are useless. Honestly that doesn't inspire one bit of confidence about the future. Let alone quantum threats. Good luck. 👍

RefrigeratorLow1259

X is trying to be a bank here itself! A centralised entity running on a supposed decentralized network with outages, MEV, and failed txs! ( Solana! )😏

alt-co

That makes sense as an allocation strategy. The part I would still think about in advance is the source of funds / source of wealth side once you actually rotate BTC or XMR into the banking system. Compliance is very strict when it comes to crypto even at "crypto friendly" banks. For smaller amounts, it's often manageable. For larger amounts, banks usually want a coherent file showing: * how the position was built (trades from an exchange if it's still around & salary slips other proof of income) * which wallets / exchanges were used * Forensic report on your crypto addresses (Scorechain, Chainalysis etc) * how the assets were sold (ideally you prepare this before selling to avoid your funds getting frozen) These are the requirements for a basic case they can get a lot more complex and they usually are for early adopters, privacy coin users, miners, high frequency traders, market makers, MEV bot operators, ICO participants, Early OTC purchases (in cash) etc. BTC is usually easier to document. Monero is possible too, but obviously more complex from a compliance and documentation standpoint. I actually posted on r/Monero about how people can prepare that file in advance if that is useful to you. Something to keep in mind for when you eventually diversify part of your crypto holdings.

ginete_tech

yeah MEV is the clearest proof that on-chain doesn't mean fair. settlement transparency and execution fairness are two completely different things and most people conflate them.

Matthews_Allestra

yeah this is actually a solid take, people fixed custody but just ignored execution. on chain doesn’t automatically mean fair, MEV alone proves that

Matthews_Allestra

yeah this is kinda facts tbh, everyone learned self custody but nobody questions execution. just cuz it’s on chain doesn’t mean you’re not getting played by MEV bots or weird ordering

AutoModerator

Post is by: Unhappy_Step9279 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1skclp2/rescuing_stuck_funds_how_i_outsmarted_a_hackers/ **The Nightmare Start** A few days ago, I made the classic mistake: I accidentally leaked my private key in a `.env` file on a cloud server. Within seconds, a "Sweeper Bot" was attached to my wallet. If I sent 1 MATIC to pay for gas, the bot would drain it in the same block. My USDC was sitting there, reachable but "un-spendable". **The Battle** I tried everything. Manual transfers? Failed. Standard scripts? The bot was faster. I even tried private MEV relays, but network latency and DNS issues in the cloud were killing my timing. I felt the frustration of watching my money "trapped" while a hacker's script stood guard. **The Breakthrough: Multi-RPC Parallel Turbo** As a Senior Dev, I decided to stop playing by the hacker's rules. I built a custom Python engine designed for one thing: **Speed and Redundancy.** Instead of hoping for one connection to work, my solution: * **Parallel Broadcasting:** Dispatches the rescue transaction to 5+ high-performance RPC nodes simultaneously. **The Result** Yesterday, the script fired. While the bot was busy looking at one node, my transaction was already confirmed through another. **33.83 USDC rescued.** It wasn't just about the money; it was about winning the technical fight. **Can I help you?** If you have funds stuck in a compromised wallet (Polygon, Ethereum, or BSC) and you’ve been told "it's gone," don't give up yet. I’ve refined this "Parallel Rescue" method and I’m looking to help others who are in the position I was in. **What I need from you:** * The Public Address of the hacked wallet. * The type of token stuck. * *Note: I will NEVER ask for your seed phrase. All I need is to coordinate the rescue script execution.* Drop a comment or DM me if you’re tired of the bots winning. Let’s get your funds back. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

jclaslie

The encrypted lending use case mentioned here is actually the biggest takeaway. MEV and front-running are massive issues for large players right now. If FHE can successfully hide collateral liquidation points and loan sizes without breaking the underlying smart contract logic, it removes a massive barrier for institutional capital entering DeFi.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Odd_Willingness5510 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1sg2y01/most_crosschain_strategies_fail_to_account_for/ # The Data (Net of all fees): • RocketX: 9,990.79 USDC Received • Houdini Swap: 9,869.37 USDC Received • Outcome: Using the RocketX aggregator yielded an extra $121.42. # Strategic Advantages Found: • Execution Speed: RocketX (2-5 mins) vs. Houdini (30 mins). Speed is a strategy in itself when you need to enter a position quickly. • Liquidity Depth: RocketX pulls from 450+ sources including CEX partners, which helps maintain tighter spreads for trades over $5k. • Security: MEV-aware routing protects against sandwich attacks that often drain 1-2% of value on standard bridges. # Risks to Consider (DYOR): • RocketX is non-custodial and audited (Zokyo), but some high-liquidity routes involve brief custody via CEX partners (this is always disclosed in the UI). • The team is currently undoxxed, though the protocol has 4+ years of history. # Summary: If your strategy involves moving large bags across L2s, the aggregation depth here is a measurable way to save on execution costs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

jawni

yeah, if no one else is trying to use the blockspace then having MEV take up a large amount inefficiently isn't really an issue. If blocks are full then it's more of a problem.

Heypisshands

If it works well it should be adopted by institutions that are slowly rolling out their dlt solutions. Governance and compliance is critical for these institutions, along with security, costs, efficiency and more. I know nothing about lightning but if it ran on hedera it might succeed, abft consensus, sha 384 encryption, falcon signatures (when needed), no front running (MEV), transaction costs from $0.0001, efficiency at 0.000003 kwh per transaction or 3000kwh for 1 billion transactions, compliant and accountable governance, transaction finality around 3 seconds. If lightning matches what hedera can do, then it has a chance imo.

Stats_DontCare0

That 35% number sounds scary, but a lot of “failed” ETH txs aren’t really system failures in the way people think. A huge chunk comes from MEV bots and arbitrage attempts that are designed to fail if conditions change mid-block. So it ends up inflating the stats, especially during volatile periods or when bots are competing hard. Layer 2 interactions and bad gas settings from newer users probably add to it too. Still not great optics though. Even if it’s mostly bot noise, seeing failure rates spike like that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence for regular users.

tornavec

Yes, this figure includes MEV bot activity as well

jawni

It is and it isn't an issue for the chain. It's working as intended, which is what people typically misunderstand, but the intended working procedure is often not optimal in these cases. As block space opens up from gas increase limits or other scaling solutions, it disproportionately gets taken by MEV bots who do pay for the transactions but likely are underpaying compared to how much block space they use and the fees they pay. It's an issue on any chain with a lot of tradable assets and cheap enough fees. https://x.com/bertcmiller/status/1934657926272307332 https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01462 https://x.com/chrischang43/status/1923835638261907921

AutoModerator

Post is by: TheLazy_Owl and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1se2jr1/no_one_talks_about_hidden_spread_and_i_lowkey/ So I went down a rabbit hole last week because I was tired of feeling like I was hemorrhaging money on every swap without knowing why. We all obsess over gas fees right? Like "$0.21 vs $0.18, I'm a genius." Meanwhile a 1.6% spread just quietly ate $16 on your $1000 swap and you didn't even blink. I ran the same trades across Bungee, 1inch, Houdini, and RocketX and just... wow. Bungee: -1.7% Houdini: -1.0% 1inch: -2.5% RocketX: -0.5% Houdini was the worst experience tbh. Marketed as THE privacy swap. Tried it once for a $42 ETH → USDT swap. Waited 45 minutes. Got less money. Their private cap is $100K. The only thing they made disappear was my money and my patience. 1inch isn't the hero you think it is either. DEX only. No CEX comparison. No privacy. -1.65% on their "best" route. That's not a route, that's a donation. Bungee: Sent 10 USDT, got 9.80 back. Paying fees to receive less of the same token. Bold strategy. What actually got me about RocketX is that you can SEE everything — every route, every fee, spread included. Other platforms are literally designed so you never compare. RocketX just... shows you. DEX + CEX + Bridge liquidity in one engine, MEV-aware routing, no KYC, 200+ chains. its crazy bro Once you start comparing outputs instead of just fees, you can't go back. Anyone else actually sat down and compared swap rates side by side? Feels like most people never do. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

FriendsMade_MeDoIt

This is exactly the kind of thing my group chat would spiral over for a day lol. Someone sees “35% failed” and suddenly everyone’s questioning everything. From what I’ve seen though, a lot of those “failed” txs aren’t normal users messing up, it’s bots and MEV stuff firing off tons of attempts that get invalidated. One of my friends tried doing manual trades during a busy period and yeah, failed txs happen, but nowhere near that level. Still kinda wild if the trend keeps going though. Curious if devs address it soon or if it just ends up being one of those bot-driven noise spikes again.

jawni

If it's mostly MEV bots, then that's kinda to be expected. A lot of people and bots (operated by people) will just spam transactions because they don't care how many times it fails as long as they have a chance to submit a successful transaction. This is probably very similar to what causes a lot of failed transactions on Solana. When Solana had rates of failure similar to this, the vast majority were from an error code given when slippage is exceeded. Most failures (85%) were from traders who would rather have the trade fail to execute than give a bad price, so they submit with low slippage, if it fails no biggie.

Unusual_Brain3815

If privacy is the main priority, I'd separate the category into two buckets: 1. tools that are branded privacy-first 2. tools that are better on execution but still offer private routing Houdini is usually the one people bring up first for the privacy-first side. RocketX is worth looking at from the second bucket. It has private swap routing and MEV-aware routing, but what stood out more to me is that execution seems better when you compare rates, speed, and size. So if the goal is "private enough without giving up route quality," it’s one of the more practical options I’ve seen. Main pitfalls I’d watch for with any no-KYC / anonymous crypto swap service: * price impact vs quoted amount * actual received amount vs expected amount * execution time * transaction limits * whether "privacy" just means no account, or whether the route itself is actually designed to reduce exposure So I wouldn’t just compare on the privacy label. I’d compare on output, time, and limits too, because that’s where a lot of these services separate pretty fast.

atlasayn

Most "crypto AI agents" fall into two buckets: signal generators (what to trade) and execution bots (how to trade). The missing piece is risk governance — how much to risk given current conditions. For analysis: CoinGlass for derivatives data (funding, OI, CVD, liquidations), DefiLlama for on-chain/TVL, and FRED API for macro. Feed those into any LLM and you get decent regime reads. For execution: CoW Protocol if you're on Ethereum (MEV protection, better fills than Uniswap for larger orders). The gap nobody talks about: none of these tools tell you position sizing relative to current market regime. An agent that's correct on direction but 3x oversized during a volatility spike still loses money. That's the layer most people skip.

Z3LUT

All that talk about MEV after the digital asset summit was pretty bearish too.

niloc_w

Does Llamaswap protect you from MEV?

Bluejumprabbit

This usually happens when slippage tolerance is set too high or the MEV extraction is brutal on that particular pool. For six figures, think you can have this escalated to MetaMask support with the transaction hash and screenshot. Going forward, compare multiple DEX aggregators before committing because different routing algorithms hit different liquidity. Some alpha is to use Llamaswap i find their aggregator effective plus gives you a warning on slippage

HSuke

Did you fact check this? > Ethereum has been deflationary for a while now. No, it's been inflationary (though very close to 0%) since the start of 2025 > EIPs like EIP-4844 will further reduce Layer 2 costs of transaction Huh? EIP-4844 was released 2 years ago. Fukasa's update, not Decun's, is what scales blobs reduces L2 Tx cost. Recent L1 gas limit increases also indirectly decrease L2 Tx cost. > Hegotá Upgrade in the 2nd half of 2026 which will focus on Layer 1 security, long-term growth, and quantum-proofing the network security That's not what [Hegota](https://etherworld.co/all-you-need-to-know-about-ethereum-hegota-upgrade/) is about. It completes Glamsterdam's updates (FOCIL from Glamsterdam was moved to Hegota) and focuses on censorship-resistance and MEV-resistance.

alterise

In the [swap transaction](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9fa9feab3c1989a33424728c23e6de07a40a26a98ff7ff5139f3492ce430801f), (ignoring insignificant sums), the weth-usdt lp received $50m usdt, sent $37m worth of weth, the weth-aave lp received $37m worth of weth and sent $37k worth of aave to the user. [**in the very same block**](https://etherscan.io/txs?block=24643151&sort=desc&p=2) (24643151), the [mev transaction](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x45388b0f9ff46ffe98a3124c22ab1db2b1764ecb3b61234e29e5c9732b7fd4ab) immediately after that swap transaction, $14.5k worth of aave was swapped for $37m worth of eth $27m worth of eth was sent to Titan Builder, the block builder, as a bribe, $10m worth of eth was taken by the MEV bot this is the bulk of the lost value. subsequent MEV transactions in the same block systematically arbitraged the rest of the imbalanced LPs, paying Titan Builder their bribes to extract as much as they can. in total, Titan Builder received 16,943.64 eth ($35m) in bribes for that block alone, the rest of the approximately $15m went to the MEV bots.

MyMagicJohnsonIsSick

It’s collusion between the swapper and MEV bot owner. Washing funds.

alterise

No, most of it went to the block builder as a bribe, the remaining went to the MEV bot.

EastCoastGrows

I do understand. That isn't even close to what happened. Titan builder got $34M, two different MEV bots got $12.5M combined, and $3.5M went to swap fees.

schmuhmuhu

Yes... and 99,9999 period % are scams. People get rugged in general or lose money in MEV attacks. It's a shame.

CHL9

how are the humand receiving the MEV bot moneys, and the swap fees, and the titan builder thing (plus what is titan builder)

Logical_Lemming

That's actually a complicated topic. [This article](https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-block-building-the-hidden-economy-behind-every-transaction) is a pretty good primer on how block production and MEV works in modern-day Ethereum. Back in the day it was the big mining pools who would benefit most from mistakes like these. These days it's more complicated. The MEV searchers, block builders, and validators all get a cut. But ultimately it comes down to: can you develop algorithms that are smarter and faster than the algorithms already developed by some of the smartest people in the world?

Logical_Lemming

Titan builder got $34M, two different MEV bots got $12.5M combined, and $3.5M went to swap fees.

Ourcrypto_news

Vitalik pushing for big FOCIL and encrypted mempools is all about **reducing centralization in block production**. Keeping block builders from seeing transactions early helps level the playing field and protects the network from MEV extraction and front-running. Exciting to see Ethereum continue experimenting with fairness at the protocol layer.

Boring_Tailor_5350

Yeah bro setup. Personal MEV bots, zero impermanent loss, and steady rewards really put it in a different league compared to typical yield farming.

Long-Scholar-2113

The personal MEV bots in 2.0, zero impermanent loss, and those steady daily rewards make it stand out from the usual yield farming crowd.

AnneCodeX

Honestly happy I listened to my friend about MEV staking

Pitiful_Fortune_3300

it's easy to see why with things like AI powered MEV bots, high APRs, and user friendly tools. 

GPThought

encrypted mempools are the one im most excited about honestly. right now MEV bots are just front-running regular users on every single swap and most people dont even realize its happening. ePBS and FOCIL are nice for validator decentralization but encrypted mempools is what actually protects your average degen from getting sandwiched

garybaws

Yess finally no more jaredfromsubway MEV bot

External-Neck-7278

I’ve been on MEV 2.0 for a bit now. Returns have been steady so far, and the daily payouts feel smooth

ToeInside3570

Hello mate ,How long have you been using MEV 2.0, and what kind of returns have you been seeing so far?

External-Neck-7278

I’d recommend MEV 2.0 to anyone wanting consistent, hands off income from their crypto holdings.

Full-Two-5917

Kalqix is a high-speed zkDEX • First vApp • Private, verifiable trades • No custody, no MEV

216_Cleveland

There's a real tension here between speed and safety that doesn't get talked about enough. Yes, being current matters — stale information costs money. But the push toward automation and instant execution also creates new attack surfaces. MEV bots, sandwich attacks, and front-running are all consequences of prioritizing speed over security. The people making the most sustainable returns I've seen aren't the fastest — they're the most systematic about risk management. Having a repeatable evaluation process beats trying to out-speed algorithms every time.

ToeInside3570

Yup, one of the known road maps for this year is the Mevstake 2.0. Transitioning to personal MEV bots for each user instead of pooled bots, improving load distribution and system stability. Exciting right?

SpendAffectionate161

Hey bruhh, I’m already using Mevolaxy, and its MEV-based automation makes staking super easy. How consistent have you found the daily payouts with Mevstake 2.0?

External-Neck-7278

Hey, I’ve been using Mevolaxy for a while now its MEV based automation makes staking really simple. How consistent have your daily payouts been with Mevstake 2.0?

External-Neck-7278

From what I’ve seen, the roadmap mentions ongoing MEV bot improvements, broader asset support, UI refinements, and steady infrastructure upgrades rather than any sudden, flashy changes.

Sea-Examination-1073

Based on what I’ve read, Mevolaxy’s roadmap mentions updates like improving automation, refining MEV bot strategies, and adding features to make reward tracking and management easier.

Pitiful_Fortune_3300

 Yeah. its audited contracts, automation, and MEV revenue offer a compelling risk reward profile over traditional staking.

Mission_Department12

that's the beauty of Rust Rocket, it simplifies Solana trading while keeping things super secure with its non custodial setup and built in protections like revert handling and optional MEV mitigation.

biba8163

> Could be that changes to the protocol are making it worthless For the first time in 8 years, I actually got some upvotes yesterday for comments in the Ethereum sub that were critical of Ethereum. Maybe people are starting to wake up to what these L2s and protocol updates have done to Ethereum. > Last year I got mass downvotes for stating this below with someone replying that I *"you do not understand the concept of roll-up"* > > It's hilarious to see ETH holders Stan for L2s which are competitors and are absolutely stealing all the fees from the network. > > - L2s are essentially databases that do batch updates to the Ethereum main chain. > > - ETH fees are down -40% from 1-year ago and down -80% from 2021. > > - Ethereum's highest volume L2, Base has contributed less than $5 million to the mainnet since 2023. > https://np.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/1on460t/daily_general_discussion_november_03_2025/nmwdhrz/ > Today the ETH Maxi Brigade downvoted me again for the following comment in /r/cc about Tom Lee talking about fundamentals. > Like all crypto subs, ETH Maxis have very little understanding of what they're investing in but just like to repeat the same narratives peddled by clueless influencers. When they are given the green light to change the narrative, they will. They cannot think for themselves. > > **Transactions Fees Collected by Ethereum Mainnet is down -97% since 2021** > > Fundamentally broken... > > https://www.theblock.co/data/on-chain-metrics/ethereum/ethereum-miner-revenue-daily > > **Cheap L2s have taken a massive percentage of the transactions from ETH Mainet** > > Fundamentally broken... > > | Chain | 1-day Transaction count > > |:-----------|------------:| > > | Base Chain | 12.2M > > | Polygon PoS | 6.6M > > | Arbitrum One | 4.11M > > | Ethereum Mainnet | 2.31M > > https://www.growthepie.com/fundamentals/transaction-count > > **Settlement fees paid by L2s to Ethereum mainnet has dropped -99% over one year** > > Fundamentally broken... > > | Date | Cost of Revenue (Mostly Blob Fees) | > > |:-----------|------------:| > > | Jan. 2025 | $1.6 Million > > | Jan. 2026 | $14.6K > > https://tokenterminal.com/explorer/projects/base/financial-statement https://np.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/1quk1p6/daily_general_discussion_february_03_2026/o3ecs7o/ It's the same thing I've been explaining to Ethereum Maxis for years > in order to compete with other chains, Ethereum will have to scale and that has seen the rise of L2/sidechains which results in loss transaction fees and MEV tips essentially stealing value from ETH. **This essentially turns Ethereum, Solana, BSC, Tron, L2/Sidechains, etc into competing networks for DeFi casinos and rails for StablecCoin transfers where they have to remain cheap** or utility and users will move to competing chains. **(September 2024)** https://np.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1f9ef5k/daily_general_discussion_september_5_2024/llmkgtm/

Long-Scholar-2113

In my opinion, it's the operation of the Mevolaxy's AI and MEV bots defi staking activities

Bellar101

The personal MEV bot for each user and individual execution logic is what I like about the update.

Mbiticles20

As someone who's been front-run on a large swap, that optional MEV toggle looks like a lifesaver. It's about managing downside, not just chasing upside.

Witterki

The biggest improvement is the shift to personal MEV bots for each user, which improves performance, stability, and execution efficiency by replacing the shared bot model.

Fluffy_Cookie_2023

My take is that MEV bots probably optimize some profits.

AutoModerator

Post is by: KarimHann and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1qtlk0i/sold_btc_into_usdc_erc20_now_want_to_get_back/ Hey everyone, Quick question, looking for some advice. A while ago I sold some BTC into USDC on Ethereum (ERC-20) to sit in stablecoins for a bit. Now I want to rotate back into BTC exposure. Since I’m already on Ethereum, I’ve been looking at WBTC as the easiest way to get back into “Bitcoin” without having to bridge or move funds to a centralized exchange. From what I understand, WBTC seems to be the main BTC representation on Ethereum with the most liquidity, so swapping: USDC → WBTC on something like Uniswap feels like the most straightforward option. The reason I’m hesitant about using third-party swap services (Changelly/Rango/etc.) Or centralised exchange like coinbase,binance,kraken etc is that I’ve heard they can sometimes freeze transactions or ask for KYC/proof of funds, and I’d rather avoid that kind of hassle if possible. So I wanted to ask: • Is Uniswap the best way to do a clean USDC → WBTC swap? • Any risks I should be aware of (slippage, MEV, custodian risk with WBTC)? • Would you recommend WBTC or something else like tBTC? Appreciate any input just trying to do this in the simplest and safest way. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

biba8163

If you look at ETH in any fundamental valuation metric it is MASSIVELY overvalued. For instance, looking at ETH fee revenue, ETH has a a P/S of 2,200 even with the recent drop. **Price-to-Sales (P/S), a Fundamental Valuation Metric** | Network | Daily Fee Revenue | Marketcap. | P/S |:-----------:|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:| | ETH | ~$350K | $280 Billion | ~2,200X Compare that to tech companies which generally have a very high P/S, **ETH's value in any fundamental metric is comical. ** - QQQ heavily weighted towards tech companies currently has P/S ratio (marketcap/revenue) of approximately 6.16 and is considered overvalued because it's much higher than it's historical average. - NVDIA has a P/S of 23 because it's priced as a hyper growth tech stock whose revenue has gone from ~$10 Billion in 2020 to $130 Billion today and continues to grow. - PLTR has a has a P/S of 130X is considered MASSIVELY OVERVLAUED I tried to explain this to clueless ETH Maxis that ETH's value is not based on fundamentals and ETH/SOL/BNB/TRON and even all of ETH's L2s are just competing networks that will have to get cheaper and cheaper in order to compete for stablecoin dominance. > in order to compete with other chains, Ethereum will have to scale and that has seen the rise of L2/sidechains which results in loss transaction fees and MEV tips essentially stealing value from ETH. **This essentially turns Ethereum, Solana, BSC, Tron, L2/Sidechains, etc into competing networks for DeFi casinos and rails for StablecCoin transfers where they have to remain cheap** or utility and users will move to competing chains. **(September 2024)** https://np.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1f9ef5k/daily_general_discussion_september_5_2024/llmkgtm/ And look at what happened. ETH's fee revenue has dropped -80% from ~$1.5M to $350K since that time (Tron's dropped -60%) and transactions have also migrated to cheap ETH L2s which have stolen a ton of the value from the network. https://www.theblock.co/data/on-chain-metrics/ethereum/ethereum-miner-revenue-daily

Bonita-101

Fixed daily rewards was done by MEV bot. That's amazing

00roast00

Fast finality, transactions settle in seconds Extremely low and predictable fees Scales to thousands of transactions per second Energy efficient with a tiny carbon footprint Enterprise-grade security model Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerant consensus Fair transaction ordering No miner manipulation No MEV games Fixed maximum supply Governing council of global organisations Decentralised governance, not founder-controlled Built for real-world business use Regulatory friendly by design Stable fees with no surprise spikes Smart contracts supported Native token service for assets and NFTs High uptime and reliability Designed for long-term sustainability

biba8163

Stablecoins marketcap has gone up by 190% since 2021. ETH has gone down by -40% since 2021. Stablecoin growth has nothing to do with ETH price I've tried to explain that to ETH Maxis MANY times that Ethereum/Tron/Solana/ETH L2s are just competing RAILS for Stablecoins and that they will be forced to remain CHEAP to keep Stablecoin dominance but playing bag holder bingo you still cannot grasp this simple concept > in order to compete with other chains, Ethereum will have to scale and that has seen the rise of L2/sidechains which results in loss transaction fees and MEV tips essentially stealing value from ETH. **This essentially turns Ethereum, Solana, BSC, Tron, L2/Sidechains, etc into competing networks for DeFi casinos and rails for StablecCoin transfers where they have to remain cheap** or utility and users will move to competing chains. **(September 2024)** https://np.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/1f9ef5k/daily_general_discussion_september_5_2024/llmkgtm/

External-Neck-7278

It just works better overall pooling funds gives more flexibility, opens up more MEV opportunities, and helps keep returns more consistent.

Sea-Examination-1073

It just works better overall pooling funds gives more flexibility, opens up more MEV opportunities, and helps keep returns more consistent.

Boring_Tailor_5350

How does combining stakes from multiple users enhance MEV strategy performance?

SpendAffectionate161

How does combining stakes from multiple users enhance MEV strategy performance?

ArtReasonable3728

Yeah. It transforms staking into an effortless, high yield opportunity through MEV bots and ethical automation. 

Wonderful_Link_5057

This is one of the best features of this platform, the MEV strategies

Pitiful_Fortune_3300

It prioritize ethical MEV extraction, real on chain activity, and user empowerment

Wonderful_Link_5057

 I love staking my assets on this platform. Earning yields through MEV bots

Educational-Row-4262

Yes. That's the work of MEV bot and thanks to their automation strategy

Numerous_Wonders81

Algorand is actually a counter-example here. It has a hard 10B cap minted at genesis—no perpetual issuance. What people called “inflation” was scheduled distribution, which is now essentially finished. Network security doesn’t rely on ongoing rewards the way most PoS chains do, so it doesn’t need constant dilution to function. Fees are tiny by design, but security isn’t propped up by emissions or MEV either.

hawkeling

copied from grok: The Bitcoin puzzle is like a treasure hunt: There are special Bitcoin addresses with money in them, and the challenge is to guess the secret code (private key) that unlocks each one. These codes are hidden in known ranges—like, for puzzle #66, it’s a number between about 36 quadrillion and 72 quadrillion. People use computers to guess until they find it. The problem happens when you win and try to claim the prize. To move the Bitcoin, you have to send a transaction to the network, which shows everyone your public key (a math thing derived from the private key). This transaction sits in a waiting area (the mempool) for about 10 minutes before it’s confirmed in a block. Bad actors watch the mempool. Once they see your public key and know the small range, they can use a smart math trick called Pollard’s Kangaroo algorithm. It jumps around the range super fast to figure out your private key—way quicker than the original guessing game. For a 66-bit puzzle, this might take just minutes on good hardware. With your key, they make their own transaction stealing the money to themselves, but pay a higher fee so miners pick theirs first. Boom, you’re “MEV’d” (max extractable value)—they snatch the value you found. To dodge this: Don’t broadcast publicly. Send your transaction straight to a trusted mining pool, or if you’re fancy, mine your own block. Some puzzles already show the public key, so this trick doesn’t work on those.

jawni

I find it kind of funny how these posts get made about Ethereum breaking usage records and no one bats an eye, but if you made the same post about Solana you'd have the entire subreddit questioning it. The truth is, this has been a pretty common occurrence on a lot of chains, especially as they have upgraded throughput. Typically it isn't dusting attacks, rather arb bots/mev, but with ETH L1 having the lion's share of TVL, that might be what drives the different usage here. It happens on Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, and on Solana. If you have a lot of assets/trading/volume, it's going to happen. Here are some other interesting things to note: --- >In Q1 2025, optimistic MEV made up: >🔹 Over 50% of gas used on Base and Optimism >🔹 Only 7% on Arbitrum --- >Despite consuming over half the gas on Base and Optimism in Q1 2025, these MEV bots pay less than 25% of total gas fees. They dominate blockspace without paying their share. --- >The economic limits imposed by MEV are visible across the industry. On Solana MEV bots consume 40% of blockspace but only pay 7% of fees. --- >In the worst case, spam neutralizes scaling altogether >From Nov '24 to Feb '25, Base added 11M in gas/s throughput. Three Ethereum Mainnets worth of capacity! >It was all consumed by spam bots. --- Sources: https://x.com/liobaheimbach/status/1935362742883434759?s=20 https://x.com/bertcmiller/status/1934657926272307332 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.14768 (the full research paper) https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01462 (partially related research paper) >How should people actually be measuring “real” usage once fees stop being the constraint? Fees are probably still the best measure of usage.

External-Neck-7278

Makes a lot of sense. MEV based staking feels like a cleaner, more sustainable way to earn from real on chain activity.

ceezaleez

ETH is a great Proof of Concept blockchain. Chia is a compliant blockchain. It took many of the ideas that ETH brought to the table and built them with compliance in mind and solved a lot of the issues that prevent ETH and other EVM chains from accomplishing their goals. It also took many of the things that make Bitcoin great and incorporated those as well, while fixing some of it's inherent flaws. Notably, Chia uses an updated UTXO model, uses Proof of Space and Time to validate blocks (Something it's founder, Bram Cohen, pitched to the bitcoin devs over a decade ago), and fixed the issue where Pools sign the blocks on bitcoin instead of the miner who actually found the block. Blocks are settled in parallel, which renders most forms of MEV impossible. The order in which transactions are included in a block don't affect the price of each transaction. Beyond that, it doesn't utilize centralized contracts. On ETH, a flaw in the contract could affect every holder of a token. On Chia, each wallet would have to be individually compromised to compromise the same amount of tokens. It also created an offer file system, which is akin to a limit order. The difference with a Chia offer file and a limit order on an exchange, is that you can share that offer file across the globe in the form of a qr code or an offer string and have it executed with no counter party risk and absolutely no middle man. People have put offers up on twitter and settled transactions. I can include an offer in this post and settle a transaction with no worries. Finally, Chia has filed with the SEC to launch Permuto Capital, and is moving through that process as I type this. Originally filed under the '33 act, the SEC asked them to refile under the '40 act because they are worried that the '33 act filing leaves too many loopholes for other companies who want to follow in Permuto's footsteps. You can read more about that here: [https://www.permuto.capital/2025/09/its-a-long-way-to-the-top-if-you-wanna-rock-n-roll/](https://www.permuto.capital/2025/09/its-a-long-way-to-the-top-if-you-wanna-rock-n-roll/) Notably, Citadel will be market making for Permuto, which signifies wall street's acceptance of this novel securities product.

whisperedstate

MEV is not an Ethereum specific problem. This is the case for ALL decentralized blockchains, because you need to gossip the transaction list to all nodes on the network. And this is not an issue at all on a L2 as the sequencer is responsible for ordering transactions.

ceezaleez

If you're referring to ETH, I would counter that it's also the most reliable blockchain for North Korea to hack, and also the juciest blockchain for MEV bots, which would be committing felonies if they front ran security transactions. In other words, I don't think ETH is the right choice for anything security related.

ceezaleez

Not a chance. MEV allows frontrunning which is illegal in literally every country with a stock market.

Striking-Name-1165

MEV driven staking typically offers more dynamic and potentially higher yields, as rewards are tied to real onchain activity, but it can also introduce variability compared to the fixed returns of traditional staking.

KimBo_kBok

How does MEV driven staking differ from traditional staking in terms of risk and rewards?

Mission_Department12

Yes. And thanks to MEV bot for the amazing experience when it comes to staking haha

Striking-Name-1165

How does pooling multiple users’ stakes improve MEV strategy performance?

Boring_Tailor_5350

It is bro. And its actually the main idea of staking at a platform that uses MEV BOTS. It lets you rest while your money sleep on it and grow at the same time. Let the AI do all the work for you 👌 Quite convenient, aint it?

Numerous_Wonders81

1) “Hard cap doesn’t equal Bitcoin scarcity / social consensus matters” Correct — and that cuts both ways. Bitcoin’s “immutability” is social too. The real question is: what’s the credible commitment of each system now and what are the governance levers to change it? ETH has changed monetary policy multiple times (issuance + burn mechanics fundamentally changed after EIP-1559 and the Merge). So “code can change” isn’t an Algorand dunk — it’s a universal property. The relevant comparison is how hard it is to coordinate a change and what interests dominate that coordination. 2) “Algorand changed its supply schedule / accelerated vesting” Yes — early distribution policy changed. That’s not “revisionism,” it’s history. But you’re acting like that automatically invalidates everything else. It doesn’t. Two separate axes: Token distribution / emissions (economics) Consensus / settlement guarantees (protocol) You can criticize early emissions while still acknowledging: Algorand’s L1 gives deterministic finality with fast settlement and no reorg game. 3) “ETH ‘middleman’ argument is overstated; PBS/relays mitigate MEV” This is the biggest sleight of hand. Saying “PBS isn’t centralization, it’s mitigation” is like saying “adding a middle layer isn’t a middle layer.” PBS/relays/builders create structural specialization, which creates concentration pressure. “Validators can build their own blocks” is technically true, but economically irrational at scale — so it centralizes in practice. That’s the whole point: decentralization isn’t what’s possible, it’s what’s incentive-compatible. 4) “Centralization risk is researched and mitigated, unlike hand-waving here” Researching a risk doesn’t delete it — it admits it exists. The critique is that ETH scaled by moving complexity and trust boundaries up the stack (L2s, sequencing assumptions, cross-domain messaging, etc.). That’s a tradeoff. Pretending it’s “not centralization” because it’s being studied is marketing. 5) “HBAR comparison is a strawman” Not really. Nobody claims Hedera is permissionless today — that’s exactly why it’s relevant in a ‘decentralization vs tradeoffs’ discussion. If a network has a council/permissioned governance model, that’s a different trust model. Mentioning it isn’t a strawman — it’s classification. 6) “Bitcoin energy per transaction is a bad metric / security budget not tied to tx count” Agree. Per-tx energy is a sloppy metric. Better framing: PoW’s security budget is tied to block reward + fees, not tx throughput. But that doesn’t magically make PoW critique “activism.” The real critique is: PoW converts external resources into Sybil resistance. Some people value that, others don’t. Call it a tradeoff — not a moral victory. 7) “Virtually zero e-waste for PoS is marketing; hardware still obsoletes” Also agree partially. PoS still uses hardware. But it’s disingenuous to pretend PoW and PoS are comparable here: PoW’s competitive dynamic explicitly incentivizes constant capex/opex arms races. PoS doesn’t require burning energy to stay competitive in the same way. So yes, “zero” is marketing — but orders of magnitude lower is not. 8) “Stake concentration introduces centralization risks PoW does not” PoW has concentration too — it just hides inside mining pools + cheap energy geography + ASIC supply chains. PoS concentration is visible (stake). PoW concentration is visible (hash). Neither is immune. 9) “Cardano chose hard languages for formal verification; accessibility isn’t rigor” Fine — but “Haskell = safety” is not automatic. What matters is: whether the platform’s design + tooling reduces exploit surface in practice, and whether composability + execution semantics encourage safer patterns. Accessibility and rigor aren’t opposites; they’re orthogonal. 10) “Overall reads like an Algorand pitch deck; tradeoffs exist” Sure. Tradeoffs exist. That’s the whole conversation. But dismissing protocol arguments as “pitch deck” is a dodge. The core claims being made are protocol-level: deterministic finality fast L1 settlement low fees no reorg / no confirmation depth games You can say “ecosystem smaller” without pretending those guarantees don’t matter.

noviwu97

I disagree with a lot of this framing. It mixes valid critiques with selective comparisons and a few misleading claims. Hard cap alone doesn’t equal Bitcoin-like scarcity. Bitcoin’s issuance credibility comes from social consensus and ossification, not just a number in code. Algorand’s supply schedule was changed multiple times early on, including accelerated vesting. You can argue it’s now fixed, but pretending that history doesn’t matter is revisionism, not analysis. The Ethereum “middleman” argument is overstated. PBS, builders, and relays are explicit design choices to mitigate MEV harm, not evidence of centralization by default. Validators can build their own blocks; many choose not to because it’s economically rational. That’s a market outcome, not a governance failure. Centralization risk exists, but it’s actively researched and mitigated, unlike the hand-waving here. The HBAR comparison is a strawman. No one serious claims Hedera is permissionless governance. That has nothing to do with whether Ethereum or Bitcoin are decentralized. The Bitcoin energy numbers are doing activism, not protocol analysis. Per-transaction energy is a bad metric because Bitcoin’s security budget is not tied to transaction count. You can criticize PoW on environmental grounds without resorting to cherry-picked or sensationalized stats. Also, water-use comparisons to Sub-Saharan Africa are rhetorically charged and analytically weak. “Virtually zero e-waste” for PoS is marketing language. Consumer hardware still obsoletes, data centers still exist, and stake concentration introduces economic centralization risks that PoW does not. Different tradeoffs, not free lunches. Cardano’s language choice being hard is not an accident; it’s a deliberate prioritization of formal verification and safety. Saying “Python and TypeScript” as if that automatically produces better smart contracts ignores why exploits keep happening in the first place. Accessibility is good, but it’s not a substitute for rigorous design. Overall, this reads less like a balanced comparison and more like an Algorand pitch deck. Every system has tradeoffs. If the thesis is “Algorand made different design choices,” fine. If the thesis is “everyone else is broken and centralized,” that claim doesn’t survive serious scrutiny.

Nisyth_

Thanks, really instructive explanations. I did track the address and the funds out of curiosity, and they bounced to another address that sent the funds to a Binance Hot wallet. So my guess is that they cashed out the USDC borrowed, in part of a laundering operation. But that's just guessing, no way to be sure. So, the first lending vault (MEV Frontier) ends up relatively safe, given that out of the 650k $ deposits, only 31k are exposed to the satUSD market. So it ends up with a little pumpin' apy. Wouldn't put all of my bags into it though, still risky. Your analysis made it quite clearer, thanks pal

Numerous_Wonders81

Reorg risk is low, but it’s non zero and explicitly managed via confirmations and social consensus. That distinction matters to institutions doing large, time sensitive settlement. JPM Coin being available on Base doesn’t change the core point, Base inherits Ethereum’s execution model and MEV dynamics, while Canton is designed around explicit ordering, permissioning, and compliance controls from day one. Those are different requirements, not substitutes.

Numerous_Wonders81

That’s a valid design choice, but it comes with tradeoffs: fragmentation, added complexity, and MEV still living at settlement. Ecosystem scaling ≠ L1 scaling.

oak1337

You say I’m "redefining" things, but I’m just looking at the scoreboard. You’ve admitted Ethereum is failing its own "trustless" goals. Now you’re just arguing that intent matters more than results. You’re evaluating a centralized, leader based, and permissionless Ethereum, based on a dream from 10 years ago that has turned into a $100k entry fee nightmare, where users get robbed by MEV kings. **Again, it has a Nakamoto score of 2, which is literally 1 step away from being an SQL database with a million spectators.** Amazing to be that centralized with 1.1 million validators (13,000 nodes), right? Experiment over. Failed. Once you're that centralized, there's no un-fucking it. Not to mention it can't scale and isn't ABFT. I’m evaluating a decentralized, leaderless and permissioned Hedera based on Mainnet code that has delivered the most fair, most secure, high-speed performance in the history of computer science. Nakamoto score of 11, which only increases as any nodes are added (equal node consensus power). ABFT at unlimited scale is the end game of DLT. Rolling out permissionless in a methodical fashion, while guaranteeing decentralization along the way, is practical and necessary. Ironically Ethereum also started permissioned and moved to permissionless, but didn't have a strong foundation and didn't implement a good plan for obtaining true decentralization. It failed. 2015 Canary "Centralized" Contracts, 2016 DAO Hack & Centralized Fork, "Difficulty Bombs" for coerced centralized governance, 72 million centralized Genesis ETH Distribution. All factors in ETHs current Nakamoto score of 2. Leader based systems like ETH can add as many nodes as they want, whenever they want, because there's only 1 leader at a time, and the most important leaders already hold all the power. They don't care what you do, your node is literally a paperweight. You are really a spectator, not an actual contributer. Hedera is leaderless, so you don't just add nodes willy-nilly otherwise you unnecessarily increase Time To Finality for no reason. It's a Gossip protocol, where every node participates in every transaction. You add nodes when you need to scale. When you add enough nodes, you shard. You keep sharding as needed by TPS demands, or other demands, like the need for your nodes to be within your country bounds by law (banks, etc). Again this is already coming into action, the DAB is already live today. It officially removed the "manual gatekeeping" of node account IDs. Block Nodes tested this month. They are preparing for imminent scale, likely having to do with CLARITY Act regs on the horizon. While membership to the Council is gated, membership to community and permissionless nodes is now ready for implementation as required by TPS or other demands.

oak1337

Hedera didn't "sidestep" the problem, it simply took a more disciplined engineering approach to solving it. Unlimited scalability, solved. Best mathematically possible security ABFT, solved. Permissionless roll out, measured. You’re still clinging to the idea that 'trying to be trustless' is better than 'being mathematically fair.' Your rust analogy is backwards. Ethereum is an iron car that’s rusting (NC of 2, billions lost to MEV) and you’re praising it for staying in the snow as the blizzards get worse every year. Hedera didn't 'move to a dry climate', it built the engine out of titanium (ABFT) so it physically cannot rust, regardless of the environment. You say Hedera 'rigged the system' by excluding peers. I say Hedera prioritized the user. Why should a regular user care if a network is 'permissionless' if that network allows a 'leader' to front-run their trade and steal from them? I’d rather have 39 equal global rivals who can’t cheat the math than 2 anonymous whales who can. And the 'fence' you're talking about? It's in the process of coming down as we speak. It’s January 2026 dude. Dynamic Address Book is live. Block Nodes are in community testing this month. Ethereum is trying to fix its foundation while the building is already 100 stories high. Hedera built a foundation that could hold 1,000's stories from day one, and now it’s just opening the doors to the public. You call it a compromise or a sidestep, I call it superior architecture with a measured and mature rollout. GUARANTEED decentralization throughout time.

oak1337

Let's get our definitions correct first. **Decentralization has to do with equally distributed power.** Power is decentralized or centralized. Distributed or concentrated. **Permissioning is about who can participate in validation.** Though to be clear, on Hedera they are more technically "consensus nodes", not "validator nodes". This is because the full group of Hedera nodes comes to leaderless consensus and participates in every transaction equally **(decentralization of power)**. This makes your "voting" analogy above even funnier. Every node has equal weight in the virtual voting of the hashgraph. This is not the case on Ethereum. Ethereum uses a Block Leader, where ONE person **(centralization of power)** is the "king" of that block that validates the transactions in whatever order they choose. Because there is a leader, they can see your transaction in the mempool and intentionally put their own transaction in front of yours (Frontrunning/MEV). This steals billions of dollars from regular users every year. Why would I want a system where the a couple wealthy leaders are allowed to rob me in broad daylight? I’d rather have a system where the math makes it physically impossible for anyone to cut in line. No one can reorder transactions. Fair. You say "anyone can validate the network", but that's not really true is it? It's a different kind of barrier to entry. An economic one. At current prices of ETH and hardware, it's well over $100k if someone just wanted to "join validation" and participate. For 99.9% of the world's population, $100k+ is not "accessible." So it is also a gated community, like Hedera, but a different kind. Hedera's council members are known and accountable corporations, but Ethereum's validators are a "landed group " of anonymous early adopters and whales. Maybe you're right, "anyone can join", **but only a few matter.** You brushed it off rather easily before, but Ethereum’s Nakamoto Coefficient is currently 2. This means that if Lido and Coinbase (the two largest staking entities) colluded, they could control the chain. TWO players. **Centralized power, even though it's permissionless.** **That kind of "decentralization" is purely psychological.** This means after your $100k investment, running a node with 32 ETH in a sea of millions of validators gives you something like 0.00001% of the power (refer above to your voting analogy - this is the same thing as having zero vote). It is "decentralization theater." It makes the user feel like a participant, but they have zero actual influence over consensus or the King Block Leader. So the question is, are you going to spend $100k+ just so you can "verify the chain yourself"? Cause that's all it's good for. And while we're talking about it, you don't need to be a consensus node on Hedera to "verify the chain". Anyone can run a Mirror Node. You don't need permission from the Council. A Mirror Node receives the state of the ledger and allows you to verify that every transaction is legitimate and that the math adds up. You don't need to write to the ledger (Validate) to audit the ledger (Verify). You can prove the Council is being honest without being on the Council. That said though, Hedera is midway though implementing Block Nodes, Block Streams, and Dynamic Address Book. All will be done in 2026. These are all the precursors for permissionless, it's listed next on the "Hedera roadmap". Hedera adds nodes/shards as TPS capacity is needed. When the 10k+ TPS throttle is reaching it's limit, it's time to add more. Add scale, add nodes. It's inevitable if Hedera needs to scale. So the only "maybe" at this point is how much TPS Hedera can capture. Then a permissionless shard can be created and there will be no more FUD left on Hedera. To use your voting analogy one last time: Ethereum is like a country where "anyone can vote", but it costs a $100,000 poll tax to enter the booth, and two giant corporations own 51% of the total ballots anyway. Hedera is currently a constitutional republic where the 39 'governors' are public, rivals to one another, and physically unable to cheat the count because of the math. I’ll take the one where the math prevents the theft every time.

oak1337

Chains architected with MEV and Frontrunning are trash though. Built to be unfair to the users. There's not much nuance to be had. If there's MEV and Frontrunning, it's black and white. The problem is, these properties are FOUNDATIONAL to these chains. It's in the base architecture. Fixing it isn't really an option for these trash chains. All they can do is try to mitigate, minimize, etc, but if it exists, it will be exploited, and it's a financial crime. Trash is trash.

oak1337

Part of the problem is lack of awareness about it. Most people don't realize how unfair these chains are, don't know what MEV is, etc. The Ethereum research community is spending millions of dollars on 'MEV-Boost' and 'Proposer-Builder Separation' to try and mitigate it. Algorand and others are also attempting to minimize it. Because they all know it's a systemic failure. Hedera is just one of the only ones that solved it at the math level. Solana's founders, the Foundation and pump.fun are involved in a class action lawsuit about it right now. MiCA and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has labeled MEV activities, particularly frontrunning and "sandwich attacks," as market abuse. Regulators have indicated that trading based on information gleaned from the mempool (where pending transactions sit) is likely to be treated as illegal frontrunning, similar to traditional finance. In the US, the Peraire-Bueno Case was a landmark criminal case where two brothers were charged with wire fraud and money laundering for a $25 million MEV exploit on Ethereum. The CFTC has signaled that while arbitrage is generally legal, "predatory" transaction reordering that harms retail users may violate the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

Sea-Environment-5938

This is the uncomfortable truth most crypto people don't want to admit. MEV isn't a "bug," it's an architectural choice and once you accept transaction reordering for profit, you've already abandoned fairness. At that point you're not building neutral infrastructure, you're running a legalized extraction machine.

TheLaw-RBNT

This describes Redbelly Network. Leaderless consensus, MEV, front running and fork proof.

SuggestionSea2882

A lot of anger, not much nuance. MEV is an issue, sure, but it’s not black-and-white and yelling trash chain doesn’t fix it