MEV

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

oak1337

Prop AMMs (like those used by Drift or various "Dark Pools") move the pricing logic off-chain or into "private" smart contracts. The claim is that bots can’t see the price curve, so they can’t calculate a sandwich. The Reality is that you are replacing a Transparent Thief (the MEV bot) with a Secretive Middleman (the Proprietary Market Maker). You now have to trust that the private market maker isn't giving you a worse price than the public market. You've traded a decentralization problem for a "Trust Me, Bro" problem. On Hedera, you don't need 'Proprietary' black boxes or other gimmicks to be safe. Because the network itself orders transactions fairly and leaderlessly, even a standard, transparent Uniswap-style AMM on Hedera is mathematically protected from sandwich attacks.

oak1337

MEV, as the industry defines it, is the ability for a network participant to profit by manipulating the sequence of other people's transactions. Hedera eliminates this. Period. The goal of a DLT is to ensure that once the network receives the transactions, no corrupt middleman (Leader) can change the order for profit. By admitting that Hashgraph removes 'proposer discretion,' you are admitting that it removes the corruptible middleman. That is the only thing a DLT can, and should, mathematically guarantee. Hedera is probably the only network where the architecture itself does not provide the tools for the system operators to rob the users.

Numerous_Wonders81

Removing proposer discretion eliminates the worst MEV vector. It doesn’t mathematically prove the impossibility of all extractable value that would require stronger assumptions than any open network currently makes.

oak1337

If MEV is just an 'economic externality' and not a 'consensus failure,' then why is the Ethereum research community spending millions of dollars on 'MEV-Boost' and 'Proposer-Builder Separation' to try and mitigate it? Why does Algorand attempt to minimize it? Because they all know it's a systemic failure. Hedera is just the only one that solved it at the math level. You're also conflating Market Arbitrage with MEV. If an asset is cheaper on DEX 'A' than DEX 'B', a bot buying on 'A' and selling on 'B' is Arbitrage. That is a healthy economic function that aligns prices across markets. Hedera doesn't stop this, nor should it. MEV specifically refers to **value extracted by manipulating the sequence of transactions** within the ledger itself. In a leader based system (Ethereum, Solana, Algorand), the proposer has the discretion to look at your pending trade and say, "I'm putting my trade in first." When you say MEV is an 'economic externality,' you are hand waving away the fact that the proposer is a thief. Hedera makes this 'mathematically impossible' because no single node (proposer) has the discretion to decide the order. The order is a result of a collective median timestamp. If you can't reorder the transactions, you can't 'extract' value from the sequence. Therefore, the M and E in MEV are eliminated. What's left is just standard market arbitrage, which happens after the fair order is settled.

Numerous_Wonders81

Not disputing that Hashgraph removes proposer discretion. The overreach is claiming that all MEV is “mathematically impossible.” The whitepaper proves safety and fair ordering under standard aBFT assumptions, not the impossibility of all economic extractability under open adversarial conditions. MEV is not a consensus failure; it’s an economic arbitrage that can persist even when consensus is correct, as shown empirically on permissionless systems.

oak1337

MEV is not an "economic externality," it's unfair and a security vulnerability. It is a philosophical failure and the antithesis of a fair global distributed system. Imagine you are waiting in line at a high-end restaurant that has a "First Come, First Served" policy. You are at the front of the line. Just as you step up to take the last available table, a concierge (The Block Leader) sees you. Before seating you, the concierge whispers to a professional "wait-list flipper" standing behind them. That person pays the concierge $20 to jump in front of you. The flipper takes the table, turns around, and offers to sell you the reservation for $50 because they know you’re hungry. Is that the market discovering the true value of the table? Or did the concierge steal your spot in line for personal profit?

Numerous_Wonders81

MEV is not a consensus vulnerability it’s an economic externality of transaction ordering. The Algorand study explicitly shows consensus remains correct while residual backrunning MEV exists. Hedera eliminates ordering-based MEV by constraining consensus participation today; Algorand minimizes it while remaining permissionless. Those are different assumptions, not a contradiction of security principles.

Numerous_Wonders81

Gini/Theil measure distribution within a validator set, not permissionlessness or governance control. Hedera’s fair ordering is real, but it’s reinforced by a permissioned council today. Algorand’s FCFS design demonstrably suppresses proposer-level MEV without restricting participation, as shown in recent MEV studies. These are different trade-offs, not a ranking problem. Hedera minimizes MEV by constraining who participates in consensus. Algorand minimizes trust assumptions by allowing anyone to participate, accepting minimal, non-systemic MEV as the cost. Gini coefficients don’t compare those trade-offs.

HBAR_10_DOLLARS

>Algorand accepts a tiny amount of theoretical MEV risk Let me stop you right there. The following is a quote from the Hedera whitepaper: >Security vulnerabilities and attack vectors shouldn’t be mitigated; they should be eliminated entirely

oak1337

No Hedera being permissioned has no impact on it having zero MEV or Frontrunning. Hedera starts as permissioned and moves to permissionless as it scales and needs more TPS capacity. Add more nodes/shards, add more TPS capacity. Unlimited. Algorand is actually more centralized than Hedera, even though Algorand is permissionless with many nodes. Hedera has a better Gini Coefficient and Theil Index. https://preview.redd.it/yxp1j7g3ifbg1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb1259b1b25b59245c75d21105e0615c67114279

oak1337

Minimizing.... But I'd rather have zero, like with Hedera. Architected so that MEV and Frontrunning are not possible. When MEV and Frontrunning are possible, they will be exploited, and that means unfair chain.

Numerous_Wonders81

Hedera’s MEV elimination comes at the cost of permissioned consensus participation and weaker permissionless guarantees today. Algorand accepts a tiny amount of theoretical MEV risk to preserve fully permissionless consensus and stronger decentralization. Hedera minimizes MEV by constraining who participates in consensus. Algorand minimizes trust by allowing anyone to participate, accepting minimal proposer discretion as the cost. These are different design priorities, not right vs wrong.

Numerous_Wonders81

Algorand is one of the best L1s for minimizing MEV without sacrificing performance.

HBAR_10_DOLLARS

Just a reminder - Hedera is more decentralized than Ethereum, Bitcoin, and other blockchains. In Hedera, we have (up to 39) transparently known collusion-resistant validators, who own the network via LLC, and are located in different countries, under different governments, in different industries, ran on different hardware, building different use cases, term limited, with meeting minutes and meeting attendees made public, treasury reports all public, with no node ever being able to control more than 2.5% of the network, every node participating in every transaction, all transactions fairly ordered with valid timestamps (no MEV), and with the network's entire open-source code donated to a 3rd party for decentralized meritocracy-based development (Linux Foundation). In Ethereum, they have no way to control massive staking providers like Lido, Coinbase, and now even the ETFs which are going to begin staking. It is inevitible they only become more and more centralized over time. Also, in Ethereum they have leaders which means they have frontrunning (MEV); in other words, they give *one validator* the ability to arbitrarily reorder transactions inside the block and profit off of it. This is your "decentralized chain" - allowing one person to steal money from any user on the network. Hedera and $HBAR will win. Don't midcurve this.

Hooftly

https://github.com/EqualFiLabs/EqualFi What if we built protocol that stopped MEV and extraction at the source?

biba8163

> In order for these stable coins to be sent and received they need a way to do it. Ethereum is the way to do it. I mean this is a fact. ETH Maxis really shilled you into believing this? The **stablecoin marketcap has gone up 200% and ETH has gone down -40%** in that time frame. | | Nov. 2021 | Oct. 2025 |:-----------|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:| | Stablecoins | $0.11 Trillion | $0.32 Trillion | ETH | $4,800 | ~$2,900 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 they never grasped this 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/ ...and what has happened? ETH fees have dropped like 90% and TRON was also forced to make upgrades to slash fees by -60%.

NFTbyND

If you make a transaction, everyone can see it in the blockchain. Some consequences of this are that whales can liquidate other whales, or if you are a solana user, your own validator can MEV attack you to extract your funds. It's why institutions aren't adopting blockchain. Easy example: companies wouldn't want their competitors and employees to see how much assets they have and who they are paying and how much. More advanced examples, mortgages, security lending contracts, medical record transfers, all of these concepts can use blockchain tech for more efficiency. But because there is no privacy on Eth, they won't do it.

RamoneBolivarSanchez

Node count has drastically dropped in the past year from 2500 to 700 because of it being inefficient and too expensive to even breakeven. Not everyone wants to KYC with the Solana Foundation to run a node either, and that’s assuming they have $20,000,000 on hand to even get the validator up and running for 1 year (AND that’s assuming the Solana Foundation helps subsidize fees, which they’ve had to do for years now). Broken tokenomics on top of a low validator count (getting lower by the day) doesn’t equate to good decentralization. I’ve been a SOL holder for 4+ years now but I’m not going to pretend like it has good tokenomics or ever cared about making at home staking feasible do everyday folk. It went with cheap and fast and now it has to deal with the fact it kicked the can down the road, ie validators are dropping like flies. They should’ve focused on building robust validator clients instead of only have agave rust - and they should’ve made the overhead less burdensome. They wanted MEV and quick extraction via slimey infra. People can see it and it is what it is. I’m not selling my bag but I’m not adding to it either 🤷

RamoneBolivarSanchez

Stick with BTC and ETH. Solana is centralized garbage. Only has utility when people wanted to get rugged by a bunch of scams. The lawsuit against the the Solana Foundation, Toly, Mert, Pumpfun, and infra like Jito/Meteora isn’t going to play out well. Solana was built out of crime (FTX) and when that didn’t work, they had to bounce back with MEV attacking retail and coordinating with infra providers to extract liquidity.

Hooftly

To be clear I’m not attacking Aave. They’ve done a lot for the space. My comment was about the design pattern, not intent. What I’m building is a lending system where loans are deterministic contracts. Costs are known up front, and users don’t get liquidated because a price feed moved. Collateral is only lost if someone breaks the loan terms, not due to market volatility. Think Self secured credit. It also allows Peer to Peer Loan agreements between counterparties between any asset. Think a CLOB but for loan agreements. It allows for revolving credit lines as well. Revenue is simple and transparent: small fixed fees for things like opening and closing positions, upfront interest on loans and flashloans . No hidden mechanics, no reliance on liquidations or MEV. The idea is sustainability without needing users to mess up. All this revenue is split between protocol and system participants. Its designed so every flow is visible. Still early, but the goal is boring, predictable finance on-chain that anyone can reason about and see ALL risks up front before making a decision.

Hooftly

This is because a lot of builders are building for greed and extraction. Take Lending for example. Everyone praises AAVE but they literally function by extracting from borrowers through liquidations while feeding MEV and THIS is the gold standard? Nah its gotta change or yes we did just build Tradfi in a fucking hoodie. Im building in this space for the right reasons and if you are too I want to talk yo you. It is not too late.

RefrigeratorLow1259

Solana is monolithic garbage, it's only use is retail gambling and losing to it's colluding MEV extraction - also becoming centralised, It's not built for institutional use cases that require top notch security.

Fancy_Palpitation_38

Secret Network (SCRT) is one of the few blockchain projects focused on true privacy at the smart-contract level — it lets developers and users build and interact with dApps where inputs, outputs, and state are encrypted by default, unlocking real use cases that public chains can’t support.  This isn’t just about hiding transactions — it’s about protecting financial data, identities, and sensitive logic in DeFi, NFTs, gaming, and beyond. That means MEV resistance, front-running protection, and private DeFi interactions right on-chain.  Secret also enables privacy for tokens from other blockchains through Secret Bridges and the SNIP-20 standard, so assets from ETH, BNB, and more can become privacy-preserving in Secret’s ecosystem.  SCRT itself has real utility — it’s used for network fees, staking (security + rewards), and governance, meaning holders can help shape the future of the protocol.  In an age where data privacy is increasingly valued but rarely delivered on public blockchains, Secret Network represents a unique and growing niche in Web3 — and that’s why more people need to pay attention to SCRT now.

MinimalGravitas

That's actually a surprisingly good article, with a pretty good summary of what Proposer-Builder Separation means and why you want it: > Under ePBS, block builders would assemble blocks and cryptographically seal their contents, while proposers would simply choose the highest-paying block without being able to see or tamper with what’s inside. The transactions would only be revealed after the block is finalized, reducing opportunities for manipulation and abuse related to MEV As always though, the best place to keep up to date with Ethereum upgrades, how development is going and what different EIPs actually mean for you, is Forkcast (put out by the Ethereum Foundation's protocol support team): https://forkcast.org/upgrade/glamsterdam

CriticalCobraz

**Ethereum's Glamsterdam Upgrade Overview** Ethereum developers are planning a major 2026 upgrade called "Glamsterdam" — a combination of two simultaneous upgrades across Ethereum's execution layer (Amsterdam) and consensus layer (Gloas). **Key Features:** * **ePBS (Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation)**: The centerpiece that will separate block builders from block proposers at the protocol level, reducing reliance on centralized off-chain relays. Builders will cryptographically seal block contents before proposers select them, preventing transaction manipulation and addressing MEV (maximal extractable value) fairness issues. * **Block-level Access Lists**: An optimization allowing blocks to pre-declare which accounts and smart-contract data they'll access, enabling faster and more efficient block execution with more predictable gas costs. The full scope hasn't been finalized yet, with additional Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) to be selected in coming weeks. No specific launch date is set, but developers are targeting sometime in 2026.

Glad-Issue4297

It really does look like a deliberate risk control mechanism baked into the MEV bot framework to keep outcomes consistent and exposure low over time.

PixelPirate_2024

I’ve been counting profits for months, fast withdrawals, nice daily income. Calling it Ponzi shows a lack of understanding of MEV bots.

SimpleMhie4667

 I think yes, it's a deliberate risk control measure in it's MEV bot system

BudgetTutor3085

Sounds like another promo post for some MEV staking thing promising easy daily returns without the usual risks. I've seen a bunch of these pop up lately with the same hype about automation and accessibility, but 0.5-0.8% daily adds up to insane APYs that scream unsustainable or straight ponzi. Do your own digging before throwing money in, especially with the 180-day lockup

00roast00

I get what you’re saying, raw speed and cheap fees alone aren’t special anymore. Hedera isn’t interesting because it’s fast and cheap, it’s interesting because it stays fast and cheap **at scale, under load, with guarantees**. Most chains have low fees until congestion hits, then fees spike and finality becomes probabilistic. Hedera’s fees are fixed in USD and its finality is true aBFT, not “wait a few blocks and hope”. That matters for real businesses, not just retail users. Speed and cost are table stakes now. Hedera’s edge is predictable fees, provable finality, fair ordering with no MEV, and enterprise grade governance. That combination still isn’t solved by most chains.

Maximum-Exam4445

I haven't tried or used any other bots, simply because the TG bots offer me exactly what I need. So I have never looked into it much further. I use TG bots for the Solana chain and BSC chain for example (for more established utility coins or the bigger memecoins) instead of their (decentralized) exchanges, because they protect me from MEV attacks and offer many other trading options to choose from such as copy trading, DCA, limit orders and super fast notifications.

00roast00

Quantum safe. Low, predictable fees. Fast finality. Secure using aBFT. Energy efficient. Fair, decentralised governance. High throughput. Carbon negative. Enterprise grade reliability. No MEV. True timestamping. Built for real world scale.

HBAR_10_DOLLARS

The Hedera network is highly decentralized - more so than the blockchains on the market, which are controlled by anonymous whale validators who consolidate power over time. In Hedera, we have (up to 39) transparently known collusion-resistant validators in different countries, under different governments, in different industries, ran on different hardware, building different use cases, term limited, with meeting minutes and meeting attendees made public, treasury reports all public, with no node ever being able to control more than 2.5% of the network, every node participating in every transaction, all transactions fairly ordered with valid timestamps (no MEV), and with the network's entire open-source code donated to a 3rd party for decentralized meritocracy-based development (Linux Foundation). Please define decentralization and explain to me specifically why Hedera is not decentralized.

ProfitableCheetah

Yup. Builders keep trying to patch the issue with off-chain order books or MEV mitigation strategies, but the root cause is that everything is visible.

CriticalCobraz

This hack is involving "sandwich bots" on the Ethereum blockchain, which exploit transaction ordering to make profits (known as MEV). These bots place transactions before and after a user's transaction to profit from price changes. In this case, two individuals discovered a vulnerability in a block-building service, allowing them to view the contents of a block before it was added to the blockchain. They rearranged the transactions, sandwiched a sandwich bot, and made $25 million. This incident is referred to as an "unbundling attack" and highlights issues in the "code is law" debate.

chubs66

Your knowledge of chain ink is significantly stale. It's true that it isn't a Blockchain, but it's not just an oracle anymore. Core Services of Chainlink (Oracle-Related) 1. Decentralized Oracle Services (Data Feeds) Provides smart contracts with tamper-proof, real-world data (e.g., price feeds, weather, sports results, stock/forex data). Aggregates data from multiple independent sources for consensus and reliability. 2. Cross-Chain Interoperability (CCIP) Enables smart contracts to send data and value across different blockchains, acting like an “Internet-of-Blockchains” protocol. 3. Off-Chain Computation Runs calculations, logic, or business workflows off-chain and returns results on-chain securely (part of “hybrid smart contracts”). Additional Specialized Services 4. Verifiable Random Function (VRF) Provides cryptographically-secure randomness, useful for decentralized gaming, NFT minting, lotteries, etc. 5. Proof of Reserve Verifies the off-chain reserves backing tokenized assets or stablecoins, ensuring transparency and trust. 6. Smart Value Recapture (SVR) Helps DeFi protocols recapture value lost to MEV and optimize liquidations or protocol revenue. 7. Automated Compliance Engine (ACE) Enforces dynamic regulatory compliance rules (KYC/AML, jurisdiction rules) for tokenized assets and financial instruments. 🌉 Additional Capabilities & Use Cases 8. Access to Off-Chain APIs and Legacy Systems Bridges smart contracts with traditional systems like: Financial market APIs Payment gateways Enterprise ERPs IoT or sensor data sources. 9. Data Streams & Real-Time Event Triggers Supports continuous or real-time data streams (for DeFi automation, payroll stablecoins, insurance triggers, etc.). 10. Cross-Chain Token Transfers CCIP includes tools for transferring tokens across chains securely (cross-chain swaps or multi-chain token standards).