MEV

neosBentSpoon

Of course it's not a good file storage system, but we as a community need to find a solution to a growing problem: mining pools funding these fee-pumping mechanisms. There's a concept called "miner extractable value" or MEV for short. It states that if a miner can do something to increase its earnings then it will. One way to pump their earnings is to fund projects that boost fee rates. As they collect more fees they'll have a bigger budget to influence the community via propaganda ("marketing"). It's up to us as a community to educate people on why shitcoin stuff doesn't belong on the base layer. We need to continue teaching about the early culture of bitcoiners that got us this far.

MaximumStudent1839

I am going to go against the grain of this thread and say OP is not correct. Fundamental and tech do matter. That is why ppl moved from ETH to SOL to trade shitcoin. The tech on SOL just provides a better trading experience. Yes, SOL has outages. Yes, SOL has tx fails. But for 99% of users, these drawbacks are easily outweighed by other SOL's benefits. What the space often gets wrong is they use their bag bias to overestimate how much their bag chain's tech and fundamentals are actually worth. Take the easy example of ETH overhyping its validator set size. Yes, ETH has the largest PoS validator set size. But the fact is, if you pick 99% of the top 50 chains, the average Joe Shmoe is just not important enough for validators to take note and censor him/her. I am sorry, they might want to MEV attack you, but don't give a fuck about who you are to care about censoring you - unless you are entity listed criminal or live in an unfortunate country like Iran. The fact is, the ETH large validator set is just an unnecessary expense, compared to other chains' much smaller validator sets. I can come up with many more examples of other ecosystems too of ppl overrating the worth of their tech design. The core problem is, the space's design choices are very ivory towerish, not guided by market forces. It sounds ok, but it is true. The source of the problem lies in 99% of buyers never interact on the chain and use products on the chain. So chain's design decisions are primarily driven by legacy holders and historical dependency on price action. Why am I going this grain? I sense fuckers like OP want to spin the narrative of getting ppl to buy gaming/AI vaporwares. These vaporwares are pure greater fool games, with the end narrative of passing the bag to retail. Trust me. "Retailers" are smarter than 99% of you imbeciles here, thinking trash mobile derivatives are worth paying 1K or more for an NFT access just to play. They aren't going to buy your bag. Memes maybe, because it is a crypto invention and makes it hard for outsiders to evaluate. When it comes to gaming, the space is a dumb sack of shit compared to what outsiders understand about the product.

Playful_Stand6721

I understand what you're saying... however arbitrary data on bitcoin CAN come at a cost to decentralization, can cause MEV (which is generally not good on a blockchain), and can make bitcoin more expensive to use. Arbitrary data has always been possible on bitcoin... just fairly limited and a hassle to add to a transaction. OP\_RETURN has been on bitcoin for something like 10 years... and is the 'least harmful' way to add data. Witness data is more harmful - and has only been possible for something like a year.

M4cHiin360

Yeah but do we really need that much scale? Do you actually know people that use blockchain. I'm talking like IRL people. Solana is like 99.99% mev bot gambling on shitcoins and doing MEV

TTOVpodcast

I host the Kiwi Bitcoin Builders monthly catchup for April 2024 (Recorded 7 April). This is a way to bring together people working on awesome Bitcoin businesses and projects in New Zealand. We share what we have been working on and what has been happening in the space. We hear about the Bitcoin Alive conference that was held over in Sydney, follow up on the success of the Lightning Pay beta, as well as hear from Satflow, a new Kiwi Bitcoin business exploring MEV on Bitcoin. If you would like to share a Bitcoin project or business that you are working on in New Zealand do please reach out to me and we can connect, just send me an email me at hello@thetransformationofvalue.com [Episode Details](https://www.thetransformationofvalue.com/episodes/kiwi-bitcoin-builders-satflow-bitcoin-alive-lightning-pay-and-fedimint) [Follow The Transformation of Value on X](https://twitter.com/TTOVpodcast)

United-Blackberry-77

If I could build it I would just use it myself and get rich instead of getting paid a fraction of what I could get selling to you and potentially lowering my profit because now there are more people using a MEV bot.

Donieguy

And it’s F2pool… could be MEV related.

One_Boot_5662

"permissionless matters" yes I couldn't agree more strongly, but it matters in all things. Solana has demonstrated the ease with which central actors can stop and restart the network; hate to break it to you, but that doesn't give you the attribute of permissionlessness. You basically require permission of some central actors to be able to transact. Yes speed and throughput matter, but only if you are also achieving permissionless and trustless disintermediation. MEV bots sandwich attacking users en masse isn't achieving that goal, as just one example of why Solana isn't very valuable. The problem is the cryptocurrency community has got flooded with people who have forgotten the trilemma exists. Around 2017 it was pretty clear security and decentralisation could be done, it was just speed that was really needed too. The space went crazy inventing fast chains like Solana, to capture the speed narrative, but glossed over the other two prongs of the trilemma.

TabletopThirteen

Already did that and more. Done all the tricks. The chain just sucks right now. There's too many bots and the chain can't handle it. The large majority of transactions aren't even from real people it's just bots. Go look at any new coin and there's dozens and dozens of bots buying immediately. Arb and MEV bots for days. Solana needs massive upgrades if it wants to overtake Ethereum

Critical-Win-4299

There was, this whole congeztion started cuz Jito removed the mempool and MEV bots have to spam instead of bribing validators like in eth

kaydyonis

For context, this guy is explaining how you can create MEV on ethereum contract, when you create the contract and send funds to the contract address, the funds will go to his wallet. he is running Youtube ads also.

ClassicMain

More than 95% of solanas transactions are from bots. Solana enables MEV and frontrunning. In fact encourages it. Solana can not reach a self sustainability through fees because the fees are artificially set to an uneconomic low level. Inflation is required. Solana uses fucking super computers as nodes and yet cannot handle a few thousand transactions per second (out of which 99% don't even reach the network OR fail during execution). Firedancer will make things speedier but even the main devs admitted that firedancer will not make solana more stable or more consistent in terms of transaction success ratio OR in terms of "licenses issues" aka the entire network going offline. In fact they stated that firedancer will likely increase the liveness issues because they had to make some (more) compromises (on top of all compromises that solana already made) just to make firedancer faster. And no. Resending a transction 2-3 times will not make it go through. At least not at the moment. Most transactions aren't even reaching the endpoints and those that do fail with a >80% probability. If you sum both things up (reaching the endpoint and then getting executed successfully) we are at a ~99% probability of the transaction failing. Furthermore because of solanas artificially low and unsustainable fees and the ability to frontrun, they are encouraging and incentivizing spamming the chain with more transactions. Just as you said "just resent it a few times and it will work" except that it will not work and you are not helping the issues by spamming the network even further. --- To summarize Solana is a totally shit architecture, firedancer doesn't fix shit and y'all trying to defend it. There are other networks with much superior architectures but nobody cares about them.of course because the TVL and the degen is happening on Solana.

croissant_auxamandes

Not everytime; just use MEV protection RPC, or Cowswap and such. As far as I know, I don't even think there's MEV on Solana.

c94

Bots follow where there are users to suck liquidity from. Stock market is filled with bots too. Ethereum has tons, every time you use Uniswap you’re dealing with MEV.

CorneliusFudgem

Cow swap protects against MEV to an extent

AltExplainer

Lets take an example. There are 2 DEX's on Algorand, dexA and dexB and a random token TOK. What happens if the price of TOK on dexA is $10 but is $15 on dexB? Maybe thousands of users see an opportunity to buy TOK on dexA and sell on dexB. How does Algorand choose which user gets to take advantage of this opportunity? Even if there's no way in the protocol to pay higher fees to a validator, an out of protocol market like Flash bots will appear. Validators that sign up to this out of protocol market will receive the extra fees that users are willing to pay to be at the top of a block. You then have an off chain market where most transactions occur. This off chain market then may censor which validators are allowed to participate and receive the extra fees. This means validators approved by the off chain market have a competitive advantage and make more Algo than censored validators potentially leading to centralisation. MEV is unavoidable. It's simply the result of markets being imperfect. Algorand doesn't have anything in particular that makes markets perfect so any claim that they have solved MEV is unjustified.

DA_Maverick_AD

Addressing specifically MEV on Algorand: There is no Maximum Extractable Value ("MEV") or frontrunning opportunity on Algorand which is one of the amazing parts of the chain. Algo tx fees are fixed; no reason for a node to pick any one tx over another to include in the next block so they are processed FIFO.  Front running requires planning right, like in this example: You manage to find an NFT \[non-fungible token\] ticket for the Taylor Swift concert for $500 on an auction dapp. When you try to buy it, a bot sees your transaction and front-runs it for the same price. But, don’t worry, in the same block they’ve sold it back to you for your maximum bid of $1000. But if you have NO IDEA when or if you will be chosen as a block proposer or validator, how are you going to plan anything? (FYI this is by design on the Algorand blockchain)

AltExplainer

You didn't answer anything about MEV... What techniques will users do to make sure they can take advantage of an arbitrage opportunity above other users who also want to do the same arbitrage? It will either be higher fees, spam or something we haven't seen yet but it will be outside of the normal transaction flow. There is not enough opportunity for MEV on Algorand yet so we don't know what will happen. It's not battle tested.

One_Boot_5662

Each time they restart it, how do you know chain history wasn't altered, the nodes don't even hold the history because it's so ridiculously large; insecure. The fact it's so easy to organise validators to restart, means it's not actually decentralised. Starting validators was so expensive the SF gave people SOL to startup, it's a sham; centralised. When I mean moderate activity, I mean actual people, not consensus voting or MEV bots defrauding the few real users.

One_Boot_5662

Actual user numbers seem to be quite low, most transactions are consensus votes, then MEV bots, then a handful of real users getting exploited by the sandwich attacks and high inflation. You clearly don't understand what decentralisation actually means, counts of validators is nonsense. I've been in crypto since 2014 kid.

AltExplainer

There's no MEV opportunities that people desperately fighting over on Algorand. High fees and spam are the result of many people wanting something but there being limited amounts of what they want. If there's an arbitrage opportunity that 1000 people want to do, what tactics can be used for you to get ahead of the 1000 other people to do the arbitrage? With Ethereum, it's pay higher fees to be at the top of the block. With Solana it seems like you can spam the validators with your transactions for a higher chance. There will be something on Algorand that breaks when everyone is fighting for the same thing but we don't know what this is yet because the MEV is so low on Algo that no one really cares yet. It's not battle tested.

yc_n

Solana's volume mainly comes from MEV bots, no thanks. The only other thing making this shitcoin thrive is the memecoins built on it, fitting for a clown chain.

Perfect_Ability_1190

MEV bots & high gas fees are ok though 👍

ApeShallNeverKillApe

Presumably you're trying to use Coinbase wallet's inbuilt swap feature? It generally does not work well with shitcoins. Your best bet would be to check if a liquid Uniswap pool exists on a low cost L2 like Base / Arbitrum / Optimism and if it does, withdraw your xyz tokens and a small amount of ETH to cover gas to that network and swap there. Also, unless you know what you're doing (and it's clear that you don't yet from your post) do not play around with slippage tolerance unless you're happy to gift your tokens to a MEV bot. This is less of a problem on L2's as they mostly send txs directly to a centralized sequencer and not via a mempool but if you tried to do a swap on Ethereum with 50% slippage you would be very unhappy with the result.

HSuke

They're failing because they haven't "solved" MEV yet. All the degen traders are attempting multiple swap transactions using a napalm-bombing-a-forest-to-strike-a-single-target approach and hoping one of them will go through. Though both vote and failed transactions are one of the main reasons much of Solana's throughput metrics are misleading.

kogmaa

Yeah, stay away from eth unless you invest tens of thousands dollars _and_ know exactly what you do. Look up MEV and jaredfromsubway. The same stunt on another chain would have cost less than 50 cent and be resolved in minutes.

HariSeldon23

I recall Gun from Ava labs famously saying that MeV couldn’t occur on Avalanche, before you guessed it, MEV became rampant. While I like Radix, saying hacks are impossible seems likely to cause a lot of push back if a big one ever happens. There’s always the possibility of hacks and rug pulls. While Radix can eliminate some of the more common ones, if liquidity continues to grow on Radix, I’m sure someone creative enough will figure something out

Django_McFly

> I was asking what liquid staking was, how a DEX operates, as well as the problems surrounding MEV. All things I’ve heard of but never fully understood. I was mocked by a few guys from a trading platform called Trader Joe because I tried handing them a business card. To be fair, how do you have a crypto business but you have no clue what liquid staking is? I wouldn't take you seriously either. Especially when it's 2024. You could just go to Google or ChatGPT, type in "what is liquid staking" and get an answer in seconds. Typing 4 words into Google can't be "too much work" and if it is, you can't be upset that people don't take you seriously.

Tlux0

Nerds always tend to include narcissists and dumb power dynamics. Conferences tend to have degens and all that who live on Crypto Twitter 24/7 and in discords and so on. That’s why… Of course, I don’t use farcaster, but I’ve at least heard of it. Same for liquid staking, MEV, basic DEX principles… other than MEV that’s beginner level DeFi. MEV is either intermediate or advanced. Point is it’s okay to not know this stuff, but it’s also not that common to not know it either especially at a crypto conference meant for degens. Regardless, they could/should show decency in how they treat you. This space needs a lot more professionalism. Honestly speaking though, based on you not knowing those concepts, you do sound a bit ignorant about the space… (which is okay!)

Adventurous-Ad-101

>he highest possible version of security, formally proven with math proofs, and all transactions are fairly ordered (no MEV frontrunning). Algorand cannot complete. Algorand also doesn't suffer from re-ordering or falsely front running.

HBAR_10_DOLLARS

> Algorand has the best L1 tech Factually incorrect. Hedera offers fully leaderless aBFT security with no frontrunning (no MEV). Algorand cannot complete.

HSuke

I'm the one who raised the Solana alarms on its transaction failures last week. Despite that, I'm still a Solana user (though I use Ethereum more). I'm a bit of an anomaly because I know blockchain very well. Most users do not care about tech, and only a small portion care about decentralization. Most users only want things to be fast and cheap. Solana fees are cheap on non-congested days (cheaper than Polygon PoS). It's effortless to send transactions fee-wise. Solana is not as fast as it claims, but it's still faster than most blockchains. 1000 TPS is fast enough for most. The transaction failures are bad, but they're mainly degens just trying out every possible combination of swaps until one of them goes through. If you're just sending tokens, they won't likely fail. Realistically, people have a moderately-high tolerance for outages. Traditional systems typically have 99.5% to 99.9% of uptime SLA. It's extremely rare to have higher SLA than that because there are multiple parts that can go wrong: server, network, routing, DNS. Five 9s of uptime ~~~~for a complete system does not exist outside of SCADA and military. Solana is up about 99.9% of the time, which is on the upper-end. If Solana is down for 10 hours, most users are probably not going to notice it unless they're active day traders. According to popular narrative, validator decentralization is bad on Solana. In reality, it's more decentralized (by Nakamoto coefficient) than nearly every blockchain that is not Cardano. It's also the only other network besides Ethereum to attempt client diversification. That's a good thing because current node development for most blockchains is very centralized, and that's something very few people talks about but should be discussed. ------------- On the other hand, Solana is getting worse and slower. They need a better solution for MEV, which has been solved on EVM years ago. Priority fees are causing transactions to get in the $0.01 to $0.10 range. The delayed transactions in the mempool are a huge problem when it gets congested. I'm also worried about Archive Nodes. Solana is a monolithic blockchain and can't segment its network and data like Ethereum + L2s. Normal Solana nodes prune everything and track the minimum state. Solana produces petabytes of data. Only archive nodes store history and full account state, and they're expensive to maintain. It only has 1 decent blockchain explorer: Solscan. The rest are slow, unstable, and provide a horrible UX. It's extremely expensive to run a Solana RPC or Archive node. RPCs are in the $10-25k/yr range. Archive nodes are in the $100k-500k range depending on how much they're tracking and what services they provide. This is going to be hard to scale years from now. There are rumors that Firedancer will fix things, but who knows until it's battle-tested.

ske66

The community sucks and is super toxic. I was at an event a couple weeks ago where I was talking to people deep into the crypto space. I’m into crypto, I have a fairly decent understanding of it but I don’t live and breathe it 24/7 like some of these guys do. A lot of the people I talked to were massive narcissists. I was asking what liquid staking was, how a DEX operates, as well as the problems surrounding MEV. All things I’ve heard of but never fully understood. I was mocked by a few guys from a trading platform called Trader Joe because I tried handing them a business card. That moment will probably stick with me for a while. I was also asked why I even bothered coming to one of the events after I said I didn’t know what Farcaster was. That really sucked, and would have been a complete turn off had my company not asked that I go to these events to learn more about the crypto sphere. There was a guy at the event that was really cool though. He kinda took me under his wing and said if I had any questions, I could ask him. That was nice, and a lot more people should do that if they want people to adopt crypto. Not everyone is toxic. But a lot of people are

Capital_Distance545

Yes, for real. There is a simple "ndapp" (Neo Decentralized APP) called "gas-calculator" that shows the current APR based on your votes. For me it is 16.50% This will result around 18% APY. March will be around that because NEO started to go up a little so the GAS/NEO ratio is went up as well from 2 to 2.3. And if this ratio goes up the APY goes down obviously. And I am talking about NEO N3 version of course. (NEO was one of the 1st blockchian to do a seemless blockhain upgrade, half year before ETH in 2021 August.) The beauty is that NEO and GAS usually stay together (pump together and dump together), and this 20% APY can be achieved when their ratio is around 2. My strategy is to buy NEO (preferably low during crypto winter, so not now), and hold and reinvest generated GAS to NEO. And even if I sell NEO for the same price (which can be a safe speculation), I got a good APY reward... Why "selling for the same price is possible in the future" is a safe specualtion? NEO has the proof of time, its an old project, I think that has a bigger value than hypes in new projects, and they never stoped working on it. (In fact their consensus mechanism, which is not PoW or PoS, but dBFT, is the only one that can support MEV resistancy currently). So I doubt this project will be abandoned in the near nd mid future. And as always, this is not, financial advise...

zztopsthetop

We need common decentralized sequencers, but that would require L2s to adopt them and while there are incentives for them to, they'll lose MEV and control while doing so. That would at the same time solve the fragmentation of liquidity across chains. So, here's hoping this get worked out in the next few years.

MinimalGravitas

Yes, it's a scam. All the clever looking code is going to do is obfuscate an address, which all funds you send to the contract will get forwarded to. Smart contracts can't 'see' the mempool and they can't do anything automatically based on any external triggers except transactions, so there is no possible way that any 'MEV bot' which is just a smart contract could work.

ajnsd619

You're not an Eth Maxi, but I respect your position no less. Even used aggressively it shouldn't fail. Solana's promoted as crypto's fastest and most advanced chain. We constantly hear about its TPS. Right now is when it should shine. Showcase its strengths. Even at this moment 36% error fail rate. Ethereum's never - not once - performed this badly. Solana users report delays taking up to hours. Solana pulls retail. I concede that. But there's an underlying issue that needs attention. As retail jammed Solana, so have the MEV bots who feed on them. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that under the guise of consumer protection, heats going to fall on the entire space over that business with MEV bots, front-running and sandwich attacks.

ajnsd619

Nobody but you can decide on those matters. Everything I posted is doc-supported. Crypto investing is about information symmetry. Those with an asymmetrical advantage win vs the rest of us. Right now, Solana network is being overwhelmed by MEV bots that * front-run * sandwich attack Regulaar users. There's so much money being extracted that its impacting the chain's ability to effectively finalize transactions. [The failure rate is out of control](https://i.imgur.com/2r92xco.png). Jito-Labs and others are working to protect Solana users, but their response is too slow or ineffective. Still, I hope they bring it under control. Its best to know these things because the people who usually tilt the crypto market are intimately aware of all these facts.

GoodSamoSamo

Yeah, again, there are a multitude of reasons as to why transactions fail. It could be bad transaction settings, bots spamming, MEV, etc. You chart you referenced just tells me that the fail tx rate is relatively the same over the past month - which is indicative of outsized network support when compared with network uptime, true/non-vote TPS, and Solana ping time. Grats, you found a couple of ppl who are complaining about their failed transaction... DOES tell us anything. Is it a user error issue? Ledger issuer? Wallet issue? Did they not set good enough slippage? Have they tried adding 1 cent as a priority fee? [https://explorer.solana.com/](https://explorer.solana.com/)

MinimalGravitas

> failed transactions = bots trying to MEV and arb, doesn’t mean ppl can’t get a tx through. Cope and lies. About 2/3 transactions are failing at the moment: https://dune.com/scarn_eth/solana-tx-fail-rate Plenty of Solana users are complaining about it on Twitter - so it's obviously not just impacting bots: https://twitter.com/0xnouveau/status/1769687133894148451 https://twitter.com/retiredchaddev/status/1769315743383134452

GoodSamoSamo

Wow, 50 IQ analysis by someone who doesn’t know shit about the tech - failed transactions = bots trying to MEV and arb, doesn’t mean ppl can’t get a tx through. Try it yourself you dummy. - outages have been resolved thanks to MAJOR network upgrades over past few years, like QUIC and local fee market. Bet you didn’t know that, right? 99.94% uptime over past year… what about Base going down last fall? Blast outage last month? Avalanche outage a few months ago? What about Dymension failing to reach consensus at launch? All chains have their challenges. - idk where you’re getting your inflation figures, but inflation schedule is damn near identical to ETH and it took ETH 7 years to become deflationary. SOL on that same path, but will hit it sooner at this rate. - comparing SOL fees vs ETH fees is dumb as fuck, ETH had a 6 year head start. But whatever, evidence shows SOL fees ramping up and prob will hit ETH levels at some point. DEX activity also continues to be greater on SOL vs. ETH - and for good reason… people don’t wanna have to pay $100 tx fee to settle 20 min later on ETH, nor do they want to pay to bridge to a centralized L2 that is also still too expensive and slow vs. SOL. https://x.com/tokenterminal/status/1769524928246677936?s=46&t=-TC-K012Jd7K3_3hHF-GCg Honestly, incredibly dumb analysis and feel bad for anyone who just blindly follows this. Clear you either don’t know what you’re talking about or want to mislead ppl to pump your bags. In either case, sad.

GoodSamoSamo

Wow, 50 IQ analysis by someone who doesn’t know shit about the tech - failed transactions = bots trying to MEV and arb, doesn’t mean ppl can’t get a tx through. Try it yourself you dummy.

Sensualities

Solana fee market is currently not optimized Jito had a mempool created which allowed for public MEV, and everything was fine but then people were getting sandwich attacked left and right A lot of MEVers were making tons of money, and because of this MEV though people could put in a priority fee and get an instant transaction through. Jito did not like how everyone was getting sandwich'd so they removed the mempool. Once they did that instead of being able to get your transaction sorted by an MEV'r, now you simply have to put a priority fee and hope it goes through. If not, you have to do it again. This dynamic incentivizes spamming the network with transactions because the way the priority fee works is PROBABILITY based. So even if you put a 50% higher priority fee, that does not equate to being 50% higher chance to get your tx through. This fee dynamic / spam mechanic is being fixed very soon, but I wish Jito would have left the mempool up.

ajnsd619

Hey sorry, just saw this. No worries. You didn't have to apologize, but I thank you all the same. Staking on Ethereum differs in many ways to staking on other chains. Solana is a perfect example of an extractive staking model. [Over the last 3 years, SOL coin has inflated a staggering 70%.](https://i.imgur.com/DGqEIss.png) Solana Foundation deliberately inflates its coin to pay stakers. By rewarding those coins to stakers, non-stakers absorb the full impact of inflation. Solana Foundation refers to non-stakers as [hodlers yield.](https://i.imgur.com/v2pkhDp.png) See the blue-highlighted line. [They make no effort to hide it.](https://i.imgur.com/RmzFYfe.png) Ethereum doesn't practice extractive staking. Stakers DO NOT extract value from non-stakers. Ethereum is a deflationary currency. [Its total supply has reduced](https://i.imgur.com/BpNiUlW.png) for nearly two years now. [It has no net issuance.](https://i.imgur.com/5veYZOb.png) [Ethereum burn rate ensures value is preserved for all holders](https://i.imgur.com/q845PVP.png). Staking yields are drawn from: * block rewards * transaction fees * MEV But the overall supply is in constant decline. Non-stakers holdings are not diluted by Ethereum.

0xNLY

MetaMask needs to die 😂 But Solana does have specific issues with transaction inclusion at the moment due to apps and wallets not handling fee priority, as well as MEV capture still being an outstanding question that Jito are tackling. The EVM has just had longer to smooth out dApp and wallet standards. It takes time. Solana will catch up quickly. Better wallets like Backpack help here too.

RBarron24

[MEV](https://www.theblock.co/learn/245701/what-is-maximal-extractable-value-mev) is exactly how all these well established centralized validators front run to make a profit. One group can pivot and change the entire project when it’s not going their way. Don’t you see how fucked up that is.

Kike328

nope, you’re wrong. First of all, the base fee is burnt so is not sent to the validators. Second, the tip doesn’t do almost anything with transaction speed. It’s just for making MEV work Third, it’s like a 10% of fees paid of the original system, why the hell devs would have pushed such change if is going to affect according to their super intrincate staking scheme

croissant_auxamandes

Ethereum will never have censorship, as long as there is 1 validator building the blocks locally without using MEV-Boost connected to regulated relays/builders - it would just take some time for the transactions to go through. Also, with Shutterized Beacon Chain (which seems to already exist on Gnosis Chain) and Inclusion Lists, Ethereum will be increasingly censorship-resistant. ICOs, EF, Vitalik have nothing to do with the classification of ETH as a security - ETH the asset will always remain a non-security as SEC Hinman in 2018 said in his speech, and like CFTC has said many times. Selling ETH to participants in the ICO could've been considered as securities, but the statute of limitations has already past so nothing will happen. XRP ruling also said that underlying assets like XRP can't be securities, but the contracts of selling them could be securities.

kogmaa

Summary: great for MEV bots, shitty for users who pay them. And no, it’s not doing that great vs other chains.

singularity87

Great question. Soloneum is actually a full EVM, meaning all transactions can access the global state. No off-chain operators needed. The keyframe chains are used to create a DAG ordering of transactions *like* UTXO, but it is not actually a UTXO system. The DAG is an extra constraint on the EVM and is what unlocks the scaling benefits, and stops MEV and front-running.

singularity87

Great question. Soloneum is a full EVM. No off-chain operators needed. Keyframe chains associate transactions to each other in a DAG structure but every transaction still has access to global state. The DAG structure is just used for ordering. The DAG is an extra constraint on the EVM system, but this extra constraint is what unlocks the scaling potential by enforcing ordering at creation instead in the block. This is why front-running and MEV is now impossible.

MinimalGravitas

That's not a link to any research or testing or specs or anything... it's just more marketing saying 'trust us - it's on the roadmap'... Can I give you an example of what it looks like when something is really being worked on? You are clearly interested in the problem of MEV: > and NO FRONTRUNNING Which is something Ethereum is currently working on solving. But you don't need to just believe me when I say that, or just trust that it will happen because it's on [the roadmap](https://notes.ethereum.org/@domothy/roadmap#MEV-track)... you can very easily find the work that is being done, e.g.: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/pull/7943 https://ethresear.ch/t/execution-tickets/17944 https://gist.github.com/michaelneuder/ba32e608c75d48719a7ecba29ec3d64b https://ethresear.ch/t/mev-burn-a-simple-design/15590 https://ethresear.ch/t/burning-mev-through-block-proposer-auctions/14029 https://joncharbonneau.substack.com/p/encrypted-mempools https://efdn.notion.site/e57d2e4d207a43c4abdaef71456e59ae?v=3aa44b30109a40aa90f2119d60c4d075&p=7def9d354f8a4ed5a0722f4eb04ca73b&pm=s If permissionless clients are being worked on, you should be able to easily check the progress by looking at what is being developed, what decisions are being made, who is working on it, what problems still need to be solved etc etc. Otherwise you shouldn't just believe that it will happen - the first rule of crypto was **"Don't trust, verify"**, it's sad to see corporate scams sucking in victims who don't follow that simple piece of advice.

olduvai_man

To be fair, as is evidenced on this subreddit everyday, all communities have some weirdos in it lol. I do think it can be a viable long-term hold, particularly as they work to implement DAGKNIGHT and smart contracts. It's an equitably distributed L1 PoW that can actually scale without centralization or vulnerabilities in security. The founder is one of the OGs of crypto, whose work was implemented in ETH, ADA and numerous other projects in this space. This subreddit absolutely hates it though, probably because of the hype community. Personally, I think it's going to continue to one of the best performing assest in the entire space through the bull-run and beyond. Security/hardness of BTC, with significantly improved scalability and possibility for SC that can be MEV-resitant and avoid a lot of the things that have plagued ETH.

olduvai_man

It's the fastest Layer-1 PoW in the space, created by Yonatan Sompolinksy who (with Aviv Zohar) created the GHOST protocol which is used in numerous projects in the space for consensus (such as Ethereum and Ada). Kaspa uses a version of that called GHOSTDAG (the first GHOSTDAG protocol) and a new implementation called DAGKNIGHT. What makes DAGKNIGHT so transformative is it's ability to scale the Nakamoto consensus to the latency of the speed of the internet rather than setting an upper bound value explicitly which all other projects in crypto have done. This allows Kaspa to scale, with Bitcoin's security, to 100 BPS and able to transact faster than Visa and Mastercard. Additionally, this allows Kaspa to be MEV resistant and will be the fastest, decentralized, Layer 1 that allows smart contracts (this part is still in development as they complete DAGKNIGHT implementation into Kaspa). There was no pre-mine or founding authority, and the coin was fair-launched without any investors/pre-sale/etc. All coins have been minted through mining like Bitcoin. The halving schedule is yearly rather than every four years like Bitcoin. Additionally, since launch, it has been the highest performing asset in the entire crypto space. Literally no project since it's inception has grown in price more than Kaspa. It's the hardness, security and fairness of Bitcoin with smart contracts and throughput of 100 blocks per second. Top-25 crypto project without a single major US listing.

SirBuscus

I'm less worried about SOL inflation and more worried about network outages, centralization, and a platform that's miserable to develop on. The only thing SOL sacrifices security for speed and price. It has a shelf life and will be eclipsed by an ETH L2 that can bring fast and cheap transactions that integrate with existing dAPPS and maintains decentralization and security. An EVM chain with built in MEV protection is going to be the winner this cycle. Being able to quickly and safely swap between popular coins on one network without an exchange in the middle is what will bring the most adoption.

99Beers

Yeah, surprise, you can't run massive data throughput on a toaster. At least with ETH you can run the node on a network and then have millions stolen in every ETH transaction ala MEV sandwich attacks between it's so fking slow.

Mattie_Kadlec

Only if they are MEV bots

WingChungGuruKhabib

Thats a sandwich bot you're looking at, everybody saying arbitrage but thats just wrong in this case. These sandwich bots will become a thing of the past as DEXs will slowly start to use MEV resistant tech to counter this frontrunning.

noncognitive

MEV covers a lot of chain activity, so the answer might not be as dreadful as you put it. There are ways for amateurs to profit from MEV, but it's not the same-block front-running txs that you are referring to. Many protocols are designed to have some of their actions automated by incentivizing gas costs to MEVs. Things such as harvesting rewards from an extended protocol. So, the person creating the tx may receive let's say 0.01% of the rewards as their "fee", but it ensures that the function gets called by somebody at an acceptable frequency, as the reward grows the longer it goes uncalled. It usually takes a while before MEV bots will watch for these, and either the dev team or community members will call the functions- but usually only if they notice something is falling behind.

Itslittlealexhorn

I think you're exaggerating calling it more insidious than HFT. At least with the EVM it's all out there. Sure a lot of users are clueless about the inner workings, but that applies to both HFT and MEV. It's a flaw for sure and ETH devs have always called it that, but as long as you allow block proposers to build their own blocks you simply cannot prevent it. Flashbots et al themselves are more of a solution than part of the problem, they're doing the heavy lifting of MEV and thus allow node operators with limited resources to stay in the game, preserving decentralization. I don't see any evidence that Flashbot is bribing eth development to preserve MEV. If that was actually happening it would be a huge deal.

noncognitive

MEV isn't monstrous chaos. Literally just use slippage tolerances and MEV should never cost you anything. And protocols do care about their users. Most dexs include slippage warnings and make the user take some action to acknowledge that they are making a potentially dangerous tx. And it's not just arbitrage. MEV is the vehicle of automation. Txs can't write themselves.

krakrakra

Just because something is profitable for someone else, it doesn't mean it's not a bug. If the protocol developers care about their users, they should try to protect them from getting abused due to their lack on knowledge. Also, many protocol that are using arbitrage incentives to function, have been doing so long before MEV became this monstrous chaos.

noncognitive

front-running is an issue on every chain. That's what slippage tolerances are for. The vast majority of MEV is arbitrage and bounty-paid actions like compounding a staking pool.

krakrakra

It's a systemic bug by a flawed design that causes every month $ millions of damages to unsuspecting users, usually newcomers and it seems that devs don't care about protecting them at all. I still occasionally bump into heavy multi-year ETH users that don't know what is MEV and what's the issue.

noncognitive

MEV is a feature, not a bug. You can fix *unwanted* MEV by using better slippage settings on DEXs.

krakrakra

Does it fix MEV?

infratexture

The main price driver in cryptocurrency at present is narratives with the main narrative for XRP being: payment routing, liquidity pathfinding and tokenization. Most chains nowadays seem to be more focused around the integration of turing-complete smart contracts and the XRP narratives seem to have been sidelined for the most part by retail. There were talks early on in the development of the chain, when Vitalik was an intern at Ripple as to whether or not to include smart contracts on chain. Stefan Thomas, the CTO at the time argued that off-chain smart contracts would be more robust and that the on-chain token should only serve as a value transfer mechanism being low friction for the sake of payments. With an off chain service that would process smart contracts (codius). After Vitalik left, he decided to stick with the on-chain solution for smart contacts when he went onto develop Ethereum (which sacrificed monolithic scaling for programmability) This approach had more obvious use cases for retail, creating dapps which would initially parallel some of the use cases in tradfi markets (lending/borrowing markets/ on chain exchanges) and eventually some more experimental financial instruments like Ampleforth, OHM, Curve, Frax, DAO's, liquid staking derivatives etc. Leading to more TVL for the chain / greater price appreciation. DEFI on XRP in comparison has been garbage compared to the rest of the space (despite it being the first project with an integrated DEX prior to ETH). Any wallet could issue assets to the ledger but without smart contract functionality or codius there was only so much that you could do to spur interest. I suspect that, despite retail being able to develop to a limited extent on the XRPL, it is not the ultimate target for its use which pertains to liquidity sourcing for cross-currency / cross-asset remittance. Having two formally obscure trading pairs (with conventionally low liquidity) of assets tokenized on ledger like swapping a milk derivative for a uranium CFD and being able to do so with the same liquidity as cash instead of having to wait for T+2 settlement or operational market hours. XRP is able to do this because the liquidity is sourced from the protocol level and not silo'd inside different DEX's and L2's like it is in ETH and due to the way in which validators process transactions, there is no MEV /frontrunning/sandwich attacks to contend with. The narrative that XRP is vying for isn't to be another bitcoin, litecoin or ethereum, its trying to be something else entirely. (A bancor perhaps?) Thing is that most of the parties that would use XRP for said remittance are generally heavily regulated and won't touch anything crypto with a 10 foot pole until it has received regulatory clarity, hence the flaccid price action (which is mostly just retail speculating).

krakrakra

ETH of the 50%+ OFAC compliance? ETH of the 72 million ETH premine? ETH of ConsenSys and Infura RPC? ETH of MEV milking uneducated and unsuspecting retail users? This is what classic WallStreet drools over, a cash machine milking the masses. If you goal was more power to the plutocracy you certainly accomplished it. Congrats on this, seriously.

MaximumStudent1839

>Quite the opposite, they are just value-added resellers of blockspace, and their tokens do not have an economic game, so are just governance tokens. Wrong. They do have an economic game when they decentralize sequencers. Sequencers can reorg txs and extract MEV. There are different models to decentralize sequencers. Some advocate for permissioned sequencers via governance vote and other advocate a PoS model to decentralize sequencers. In both cases, their governance shitcoin decides who are the sequencers. >EVM chains have the most of this because they were the first to have the prerequisite expressivity to make more of these errors. Wrong again. EVM have these hacks because of bad design devs obstinately refuse to fix in time. The amount of hacks coming from the approval paradigm is insane. Devs resort to this paradigm partially to improve ETH bad UX experience from high gas. And there is also re-entrancy attacks. It is not about being first. It is about having bad design. > I once sent what is now $200k of bitcoin to the wrong address instead of Mt.Gox to sell. Now you are just grasping at straws. This is barely an attack vector. >Consensus attacks are not rare, at least in PoW, I was a professional bitcoin miner for 6 years and I myself participated in attempted attacks on low security chains that could be merge mined. In PoS, it is more expensive to conduct these attacks if the chain has slashing, which is the primary method in which the native asset distribution mattering for consensus in PoS is mitigated They are rare now days because most new chains launch as PoS. You are basically making an argument completely devoid of current market situation. >Not really, most have some level of permissioned or social authority prerequisite, e.g. needing some portion of total stake, or having large delegations from the foundation, or needing subsidies from a centralized party. If you define permissioned as "needing some level of stake to get into the active set", then no PoS chain satisfies it. Again, it becomes an useless metric because it fails to distinguish. > It doesn't need to "justify valuations", and it doesn't matter why most buy the asset, only that the game has enough incentives for enough players to play the game, and most importantly perpetuate the chain and state. This is always a moment to moment valuation of rewards/profits and opportunity cost of capital. You just changed your argument because I caught your pants down. You said: >(does the chain's economic game contribute value to the token) Now you are changing to it doesn't matter what reason the token has value. LOL! > Its almost like the model reflects reality and price of bitcoin at that time. The heuristic/metric's aim is to eliminate the long tail risk, if the asset proves itself by reaching $100m/day volume, there is plenty of upside to buy at that point with much lower risk because you don't take the true believer gamble of \[myBags\] maximalism and envisioned world domination. It is almost like you are rambling without a clue you are on about. You want to talk about metrics to assess if a token has potential to flip ETH. >...will "revolutionize" the industry and flip Bitcoin or Ethereum. But now you want to shift your talk to eliminating long tail risk. Lol, flipping the top 2 coins is a long tail risk. Wtf are you on about? >You need to learn to not restate the exact argument and act like its a counterpoint. The fact you don't understand flipping ETH is a long tail risk and you can't resolve that without price discovery is my point illustrating your incoherent post. >You estimate it, there are many heuristics on node count to estimate independent entities/humans involved like host, geographic location and on-chain history of capital if its PoS. That is so much nonsense. Are you going to count all AWS nodes as a single human/entity? >That's fine, value is value, thinking the denomination size matters is like thinking a 1 BTC transfer at $500/btc from Bob to Sally is more meaningful than a .1BTC transfer at $5000/btc. Its a dumb argument against the metric, the utility value to Bob and Sally is unchanged. Figure out some set of filters and heuristics to get to meaningful value transfers. Even if you don't it still works as a relative activity metric. Again, your post shows incoherency. You want your metric to talk about "how much" economic activity the chain can handle. Now you want switched over to talk about "value transfer". Using your metric, Mark Cuban moving funds around between his bank accounts would "represent" more "economic activities" than a lot of under developed countries. >so that non-custodial/centralized holding of BTC is possible at scale without a hobbled security budget. Funny how you are completely oblivious that all these L2 platforms using ZK proofs are basically centralized and custodial. Yeah, sounds like an ETH apologist than a BTC bagger. >Throughput only matters to low and mid curve IQ folks who think of blockchains as potential morning coffee payment replacements On one hand, you bitch about BTC can't scale. Then you say everyone thinking about scale is a low/midcurve IQ. Oh man, you are just an ETH bagger/apologetic desperately trying to hide your inconsistencies. >ETH leverager or alt-L1 bagholder who is projecting their insecurities on my model that itself says ETH will never flip BTC, and nothing will ever flip ETH, because lindy is what matters. Overall highly schizo criticisms with no central point or better model offered, D+, would not waste time reading this passive aggressive screeching again. If you read my history of posts, I always recommend newbies to buy BTC as their first crypto because alts are risky. You have no model because you have inconsistencies everywhere. I just like to have fun with poking holes at ETH baggers/apologists. They have pulled the industry backward.

MinimalGravitas

> revolutionizes DeFi with gasless swaps and MEV protection How is this different from CowSwap?

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; 0x Labs has launched a new trading API called Tx Relay, which enables gasless swaps and MEV protection on Ethereum and Polygon networks. This API allows users to execute swaps without paying ETH for gas fees upfront, as the cost is included in the token being swapped. It also protects against maximum extractable value (MEV) bots, securing trades. The feature has reduced failed trades and improved user experience, with plans to expand to the Arbitrum network in 2024. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

kogmaa

This right here is the rare occasion of the someone heavily invested in eth revealing their real way of thinking - most rich eth investors think along these lines, whether they openly admit it or not. To summarize: fees should be high, the higher the better, running several validators is profitable (MEV bots too these go hand in hand usually, which drives fees up additionally), users are unnecessary (but ok as long as they are paying high fees) and all they care is the money they can suck out of this setup (decentralization, usability, security etc are not even an afterthought) - it’s unchecked greed. Any small time DCAer, putting in 50 bucks a month, trying to earn a buck with deFi should read and understand this. In the eyes of these maxis small fish should use eth to get exploited to make the rich richer. That’s why this sub is recommending eth over everything, that’s why whenever someone points out a flaw it’s twisted and explained away as a feature. Sure MEV-bots are great, they create a fair, arbitraged market sure, lol …and all the while jaredfromsubway earns millions each day on the back of small guys trying to jump on the train because this sub says this is the way to earn money in cryptoland. Now let the downvotes roll in….

Agile-Director-4670

[https://ccdata.io/reports/stablecoins-cbdcs-report-january-2024](https://ccdata.io/reports/stablecoins-cbdcs-report-january-2024) Sorry its around $30B a day, not week, DefiLlama used to have a volume tracker by chain and type of txn but I cant find it now Either way, whatever the volume is, stablecoins + any coin volumes have an economic effect because they move value, which isn't even talking about fees to transfer that value or MEV from swaps. I am also not sure why 80% of all stables supposedly being on exchanges matter at all either, many people just transfer from exchange to exchange using Binance app or local crypto apps.

Agile-Director-4670

an economic game for producing blocks, e.g. is there an open, permissionless incentive to gossip with nodes and produce blocks and perpetuate/replicate a copy of the chain on a computer. In Bitcoin this is the block reward for mining a new block, paid in newly issued bitcoin. Mining is the game (hashing/using compute to win a chance to produce the next block), the bitcoin block reward + miner fees is the economic incentive in the game. In Solana, Ethereum etc. the game is validating new blocks and the reward is the staking reward + fees + MEV.

toastmalon3

MEV bots! Can confirm some of these are basically printing money. Look up “Mustache” and “Naseem” in the Solana community on Twitter, and track their wallets. You’re welcome

DC600A

An MEV bot is not good news for DeFi because it can exploit and ruin unsuspecting users through frontrunning and sandwich attacks. MEV isn't inherently bad and has positive connotations, but it can be used to do very bad things, so being alert is always advisable. Learn about [MEV protection](https://oasisprotocol.org/blog/web3-mev-protection) and stay safe.

RazorRreddit

>what the hell even is this? Some form of MEV and/or arbitrage bot. >how do humans even compete with this? They don't. It's the same reason you can't really compete with the biggest Wall Street offices in the *same* way - it's a different game with different rules. >Is trading without bots completely pointless and is your only option as a human to buy and hold? Lol, no. It means making smart trading decisions and avoiding slippage to a MEV bot, or, making your own(expert difficulty) No, the Twitter replies that advertise your own MEV bot aren't real lol

TheGreatMuffin

> This week’s newsletter discloses a past vulnerability affecting Core Lightning, announces two new soft fork proposals, provides an overview of the cluster mempool proposal, relays information about an updated specification and implementation of transaction compression, and summarizes a discussion about Miner Extractable Value (MEV) in non-zero ephemeral anchors. Also included are our regular sections with the announcements of new releases and descriptions of notable changes to popular Bitcoin infrastructure software

Drygan

Does anybody know if there's a rpc with MEV protection on chains other than ETH? i was using llamanodes but it's not working anymore

corn-potage

Node: free. Validator (to earn staking rewards, tips, and MEV): 32 ETH to run a validator directly with the beacon chain. 16 ETH + 1.6 ETH worth of RPL through Rocket Pool. 8 ETH + 3.2 ETH worth of RPL through Rocket Pool. 1 ETH with Diva. Any ETH with LSTs like rETH, stETH, cbETH.

kogmaa

ETH is crazy for these types of small-bag, high-frequency trading. You can only do that if you are eth-rich. These are also the people heavily promoting eth defi. If you want eth exposure, buy it but don’t use it. Just leave it on a cex until it’s time to sell. Yes, that’s totally against crypto principles but for small fish this is the way. If you want to do trades like these do them on other chains: cosmos, Solana, Cardano, algorand… From an economic mid- or long-term perspective: Cosmos and Solana have very low fees because the network operating costs are largely carried by inflation, so be mindful of that. Cardano is roughly breaking even with fees vs operating costs and additionally has a lower inflation in top that helps to incentivize staking and with that network security. Ethereum earns much more fees than the costs of operating the network - basically the validities get rich (also MEV bots working with them - google jaredfromsubway) and small fish are paying the bill.

dieselbaby1337

You are probably the single most ignorant person in this entire thread, parroting stuff you've heard other people say. GranPino actually knows what he is talking about. You highlight your ignorance when you say "all are on AWS or Azure" regarding validator nodes, this isn't true whatsoever. I know that this is not true, firsthand. Also, 90% of all traffic is sandwich attacks and bots? lmaoooooo, so what, all of the people who are using Solana are all just actually bots, attacking each other to try and arb/MEV each other's transactions? Yeah, that makes sense.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; A Solana-based MEV bot operated by 2fast made a profit of $1.7 million from a single trade involving the memecoin Dogwifhat (WIF). The bot executed a strategy where it converted 703 SOL into 490,000 WIF and then immediately traded the WIF for 19,035 SOL within the same transaction bundle. This was possible due to a trader purchasing $8.9 million worth of WIF at an inflated price in a low-liquidity pool, resulting in a 92% loss for the trader and a significant arbitrage opportunity for the MEV bot. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

BIobspace

My APR for ETH is probably a bit unusual since I'm not in a smoothing pool. I proposed a 4 ETH MEV block the first week after starting my validator, then nothing since in about a year. Statistically, I think I could go another 2 or 3 years without finding another block. So far I've earned about 12% APR after subtracting hardware costs. If I missed that one block I'd be at a loss. I think the market average is around 5% though, right now. I plan to opt into a smoothing pool if I don't find another block by Summer. Then I'd get around 5% APR paid out weekly (which I plan to roll into rETH for an APY). My rETH is yielding around 4-5% APY. Some weeks it's 7% and other weeks it's 3%--it's really dependant on gas prices. AFAIK rETH is taxed as capital gains and as not income tax like above (at least in my region. DYOR), which allows me to defer taxes for years so I'm not forced to sell my ETH prematurely. IMO the tax advantage (and the ability to restake in Aave or Eigenlayer) is well worth the ~1% commission paid to validators. Plus it's APY not APR. I'm always on the fence whether I should unwind my validator and go all into rETH just for liquidity's sake. The staking queue grew to months long when staking first went live, and if everyone unstakes at the same time the queue will take months to process again. The thought of a potentially months long queue *during a parabolic rally* makes my soul ache, but I probably couldn't hit sell anyway. Not related to your question but it got me thinking again. It is something everyone needs to consider before solo staking, or even before shorting a parabolic rally. IMO rETH is a fantastic product, don't have to worry about so much. Running a validator today is like 31 parts headache and 1 part fun. This 5% and 12% while the supply of ETH decreased by 0.2% last year, in a bear market. I'm stupidly excited to see what ETH as POS does in a bull! I think the deflation rate and APRs will triple if the market behaves anything like last time.

krakrakra

> What's the difference between MEV and BTC miners adding Taproot Wizard NFTs to BTC chain in order to force fees to $40/transaction? MEV is taking advantage of bad design of the protocol and milk any transaction at no cost, pure profit. While in the other case if that happens, then they are betting money for returns since it's not one miner that takes the mining rewards across a time period. > How are BTC conventions full of idiots running around preaching bizarre Michael Saylor pap not MLMs? They are pityful idiots and paid shills that Saylor users as PR to pump his stock, but that irrelevant of bitcoin. There have been a ton of actual MLMs in asia that used crypto projects and even bitcoin, to scam people of their money. > BTC price crashed from $19k to $3k in 2018. That was because fees went as high as $1k/transaction and all Greg Maxwell did was cheer. The whole cryptomarket didn't crash because of bitcoin's fees, it was a overly aggressive FOMO that wasn't sustainable and high leverage made it even worse. Maxwell was positive on the fees because the fee market started to develop for the first time, albeit it was mostly driven by Jihan et al. as a tactic to push for block increase, BCash etc. > Greg told us Segwit would fix everything and Lightning was God. I don't remember that, and doubt it, but there are no panaceas, in contrast to what shitcoiners pitch with their flawed short-term "solutions". Lightning works today albeit not ideally (see [this](https://stacker.news/items/379225) about critique on LN by actual bitcoin devs) and you will never hear that from a shitcoiner pitching his coins. There are issues, friction that needs to be addressed but there many people trying to solve these challenges. But at the same time you also have other L2s that try other paths. I'm not ignoring history at all, and I also aknowledge of the reorg non-standard TX double-spent bug CVE, and that's why I value sensible engineering and not the move fast, break things mentality. There is too much at stake. If Bitcoin fails, you think anything else of the current batch of coins will survive? It will obliterate the idea of cryptocurrencies and will take a long time until people give it another chance.

clash_is_a_scam

What's the difference between MEV and BTC miners adding Taproot Wizard NFTs to BTC chain in order to force fees to $40/transaction? How are BTC conventions full of idiots running around preaching bizarre Michael Saylor pap not MLMs? BTC price crashed from $19k to $3k in 2018. That was because fees went as high as $1k/transaction and all Greg Maxwell did was cheer. He was CFO of Blockstream at the time. He resigned soon after he was exposed for extorting and bullying people on the forums. Meanwhile thousands of big companies dropped BTC because their customers couldn't use Bitcoin. Greg told us Segwit would fix everything and Lightning was God. You believed it and now what happened? It's too bad you ignore the history of BTC.

krakrakra

> Swapping coins is dead simple now using many different technologies. Most coins can barely handle any real liquidity, if there was a mass exit from a coin, it would be an insta-rug and a ton of people would lose everything, LUNA-style. Also, all these coins are centralized, decentralization is a theater. Their use case is making the founders, investors and advisors richer. You have MEV a clear issue that causes all retail users to overpay on most transactions and yet because it's crazy profitable and those that milk MEV are well-networked and influencial people (Flashbots etc.) with close links to ETH devs, you have no material progress on fixing it. You have a ETH Dev-sanctioned frontrunning that would be Wall Street's wet dream. It's really a disgusting disgrace of the space that clueless people are losing money for no reason other than new age lobbying. The thing is that bitcoiners like myself are not here to make money, but to enable freedom, I may disagree heavily with the value of the altcoins and although I support your right to mess with them, I won't stop to call out that they are scams akin to classic MLMs.

kogmaa

So retail is burning eth to make MEV bots richer. Good system… for the validators at least ;)

kogmaa

MEV bots drive the fees up for everyone.

dads_joke

How decentralised your financial network will be on $20k/day? Wdym fees are 30%/50%? Of what? You can check if you’ve been frontrunned and MEV bots don’t pray upon small fish, it captures value on big volume transactions. Coz they would not cover the fees on transaction. Moreover, Ethereum has plans on burning the most of the MEV. So it makes a big sense to hold Ether coz it’s deflationary and a big sense to stake it coz it yields and will yield even more.

kogmaa

That’s true for most chains other than Ethereum. Cardano fees at least roughly cover the actual operating costs of the validators, which is more than you can say about many other chains (Solana for example). Conversely fees on Ethereum are 30%? 50%? MEV bots of big validators - often pricing out Joe Average on fees. The total fees on Ethereum exceed the operating costs by a big margin. That increases the security…. and makes rich eth holders even richer. No light without shadow, I guess.

Themistokles42

big blocks is a flawed concept, period. The bells and whistles don't matter if it doesn't scale. RE the Asic debate, a lot of people get this wrong. First of all, any PoW has Asics, the only question is how distributed those asics are. Once the asics are optimized to the algo (as with BTC), the odds are actually even again for anyone with the money to invest in a single asic. And if you're dreaming of mining as a poor person with a laptop, that isn't possible even without asics for a popular coin, simply due to the sheer hashrate involved from how many miners there are. RE the DAG complaint, this extra algorithmic layer allows scaling to an actual currency AND fixes MEV (this narrative has not been understood by nearly anyone yet concerning Kaspa and will be a big deal in some years). So yes it is absolutely justified. BTC was once untested, if you don't want to take the risk that's fine.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Solana's total value locked (TVL) has nearly doubled from $671 million to $1.21 billion since December 2023, largely due to the Jito airdrop. Jito Labs developed a new infrastructure to efficiently extract Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) on the Solana blockchain, aiming to distribute it among stakers. The Jito Solana client and blockchain engine are expected to play a crucial role in Solana's future. Despite the surge in TVL and price, experts caution against overreliance on TVL as a metric. The future of Solana looks promising with potential to rival Ethereum, but it remains to be seen how it will develop. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

noncognitive

> MEV and market making of size MEV against *who* if nobody is using the chain? Keep burying yourself further.

_Stealthy

MEV and market making of size, mostly automated.

_Stealthy

When you think you're making an argument against but proving the point 🤷🏻 The top protocol on Cardanos is Cardano, as it should be. Everything else is application, utilization. You're comparing apples and pears where Ethereum is hacked and compromised in layers and a mess of supposed necessity and dependency. The result, OFAC and MEV, among other effects. Ethereum is has done well exploiting itself, that's all. End-users have no complaint at all, the wallets and dapps are practical and devs do love to work with it. In 2021 alone 3000 developers followed the education program.

Stinkpretzel

An early health and wealth happy new years to all (no internet where I'm going) I wish all players in the field health and wealth coming in 24'. There will be winners and losers on different scales, some heavy on spreads and some simple dollar value (fee and MEV chippers happy new year too) but the market is healthy on all levels in and outside of blockchain. Bring in prosperity to 24' and a somewhat equal amount of lossers because I'm trying really hard not to be the loser in the new year. Happy early new year! 🎉🍾🌽

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The Week in Solana News from December 24-30, 2023, highlights a quiet week with few announcements as teams prepare for the new year. Key metrics include a Total Value Locked (TVL) of $1.4B, a stablecoin supply of approximately $1.8B, daily fees around $400,000, and daily revenue about $200,000. The network saw roughly 30 million non-vote transactions, 800,000 active addresses, and 400,000 new addresses daily. Notable updates include Marinade Finance's higher staking rewards, Squads' year in review, SolBlaze.org's airdrop information, and Injective's IBC-compliant SVM. Other updates include AAVE V3's potential deployment to Neon EVM, Jupiter's DEX updates, Kamino Finance's teaser for the new year, and Thunder's MEV protected swaps with reduced fees. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

SporeDruidBray

Both PoS and PoW have some economies of scale, but in real world conditions both also have diseconomies of scale. For real-world PoS, the three major economies of scale are: - bandwidth savings via aggregating work just like mining pools do: you can run 1 node which verified all signatures and tx, and then have many consensus nodes do the final step of signing off on blocks. Same situation for block building (which also implies more efficient return on effort invested for MEV). - variance reduction: in a real world with positive interest rates, pooling resources for a reduction in variance will have some value. This applies just the same to mining pools. - time buying attacks and coordination around greater share of block production and block attestation (in chain-based PoS like Nakamoto consensus, building blocks on top of previous blocks to form a longer chain is a form of attestation). I'm not sure if it's perfectly analogous to selfish mining, but at a minimum both hashrate and validator share can encourage geographic centralisation. Advantages in block propagation might count here, I'm not sure. However both PoS and PoW have diseconomies of scale too, such as power prices and penalties for downtime (leakage and slashing are explicit in PoS, but loss of capital efficiency through underutilised hardware in Bitcoin is even more punishing than leakage in Ethereum). If block production is geographically centralised, then there can be superlinear damages from disruption to block production (for the whole network and for the specific block producers involved). A lot of these factors depend on your specific model or the specific conditions of the real world. I think in both cases, over the long run, the economies of scale outweigh the diseconomies of scale, but we don't live in the long run. We live in today.

MaximumStudent1839

>That's your definition for decentralisation though. In this space, people often confuse "decentralization" as an ***end in itself*** rather than a ***means to an end***. This is why the space get bogged down on debating decentralization on so many loose dimensions but end up losing the plot. The point is not about "egalitarianism". Crypto is an inherently capitalist system - egalitarianism has never been at its center. For PoS smart contract platform, decentralization's goal is to provide a credibly neutral platform to facilitate permissionless transactions and secure them as written in code. For sound money, decentralization in PoV I defined, is to ensure money production has real economic cost. Now there is also an added element to ensure transactions are secure against censorship and Byzantine fault tolerance. If you don't like it, that is fine. I gave you how the "sound money" market view this issue - for example see check out how Lyn Alden says something similar. > PoS systems cut out this middleman and centralization risk yet I don't see you including this argument. Does it though? We are now entering an era of Liquid Staking providers becoming dominant and practicing MEV extraction. Over time, validators have incentive to join LST cartel and pose risk to the chain. There is a reason why ETH community is sounding the alarm on Lido expansion. >Or that Bitcoin mining is centralized at geographical locations in the world where power is super cheap or almost free. You could say very similar things about PoS. Krake, Coinbase, Binance, etc. are big stakers of all PoS coins. PoS validators are often correlated with geographical locations that had early access to buying in at cheap. >Or the looming risk of the Bitcoin halving system that at some point the price to secure the chain exceeds the reward earned from the system. Ordinal seems to have changed the calculus of it. Think recently BTC Ordinal fees have exceeded block subsidies. >what prevents a super wealthy being of setting up a mining facility in china with fiat money. You see, you aren't following. Sound money isn't about a " perfect egalitarian" outcome. What it wants is money production costing real economic value. In POW case, it is energy consumption. BTC monetary policy doesn't have a passive money generator feature. You need to spend real resources, aka semiconductor chips, to actively compete against others. Holding BTC alone does jack squat on expanding your network control. POS does exactly that with staking. And it gets horribly worse with deflation, like ETH's model. These features are fine if you just want a credibly neutral smart contract platform. But they make horrible sound money because there is little real economic value generated from your share expansion by just staking.