MEV

MinimalGravitas

So you're pivoting from the risk of an attack to just MEV? There is no specific point that makes 1/3rd more powerful for MEV, there is nothing you can do related to MEV at 34% that you couldn't do at 32%. If you had over 50% of the stake then you could potentially start benefitting from multi-slot MEV (where an arbitrage is spread over 2 blocks), but that's only useful for a very limited set of MEV opportunities... and MEV is only a small fraction of validator rewards anyway. At the moment an average validator earns about 1.4 ether per year. Of that the majority (0.9 ether) comes from issuance (rewards for attestations and proposals), 0.3 ether is from the tips part of transaction fees, and only 0.2 ether comes from MEV. But again, we were talking about attacks and security of the chain, are you completely conceding that topic to now go into MEV?

One_Boot_5662

MEV opportunity is greater for an entity with more than 1/3 of active stake, they win more fees, which if actors are rational will mean validation switches to it in greater and greater numbers. Look this isnt me saying it, this comes from senior Ethereum core consensus wonks, it's a real risk and stems from the fact that the account model has ingrained MEV into the L1.

MaximumStudent1839

> Yet people on this sub celebrate financial institutions joining the cryptocurrency space. And the loudest voice is the "Bankless'' crew. Think the space has completely lost its way and really only cares about the number going up at any cost. The problem is, crypto has made many early adopters incredibly rich. Now they are part of the elite. They have their new egos and desire to establish their legacy of oligarchs. What they want is to just get more incredibly rich by waving the old banner and spiels. Felt the vibe completely off when all the ETH maxis were celebrating MEV against small retail traders. They became what Citadel is to Robinhood.

nishinoran

And importantly, will eliminate MEV and front running to a large degree.

DingDongWhoDis

No downtime. Instant finality. No failed transactions, and a user would NOT pay a tx fee if it actually encountered one. It's proven under sustained load. Solana is proven to crater under anything comparable to said load. Algorand is spam resistant. It doesn't fork. It isn't friendly to MEV front loading. The list goes on. Solana can't compete. At all. But it has shit meme tokens, yaaaay!

blinkOneEightyBewb

I would how this will affect MEV frontrunners

Rossa774Tezos

Tezos has just implemented its 16th Forkless Protocol Upgrade last month. So if you lost hope a long time ago for whatever reason , now is probably a good time to start taking a peek back inside. With Tezos now being EVM compatible through Etherlink, an L2 rollup built on Tezos except this L2 benefits from all the security of Tezos L1. So speed , Near Zero fees and MEV protection, making it secure af compared to your typical L2 . Thing is, there is so much more coming .!!! Throw the thoughts of past out the window because barriers are being broken.

seb7mad

Or even worse, it gets front-runned by another patient who can afford MEV bot

lewrien

What are the incentives for developers to build on your chain? Do you have a grant program? What are you doing to combat MEV?

Competitive-Clerk-97

No, not a MEV. It's a whale's wallet for sure. They have a list of tokens. Nearly 500 million in USDT alone. Their transaction history is something else. It's crazy how I can see all their linked wallets as well. Nothing can be hidden in today's age.

Aerocryptic

Probably a MEV bot

Mr_Hodlerr

OEV network to prevent MEV leakage. Millions are lost by protocols due to this.

Sebastiao_Pereira

I'm already X10 from my initial investment, and it's still so early... Almost 6k holders, telegram and discord are very active, almost a family. Token distribution is wide, the top 1 whale doesn't hold too much. Liquidity is strong, it holds the dips. You can invest with 0.5 slippage, safe from MEV bots, and sleep safely at night mowing it won't lose value in 1 second. Join now, still 7m of market cap!

deshe

> Ah, what I meant is that the attacker would use a withholding attack, and then other honest miners would join in their efforts due to selfish mining. The attacker itself isn't doing the selfish mining. While "withholding attacks" are technically more general than "selfish mining", afaik all known withholding attacks are selfish mining attacks (ignoring MEV). > Isn't GHOST just heaviest weight, but uncle blocks are included in the weight calculations? Not exactly but pretty much yes. > Isn't GHOSTDAG just GHOST, but uncle blocks and their transactions are included in the chain? Very much not, despite the confusing names. If you try to DAGify GHOST you would probably end up with something similar GHAST (Conflux) or Tangle 1 (Iota). GHOSTDAG is actually a DAGified version of Nakamoto's heaviest chain rule, making it inherently different than the approaches above. You can roughly say that Nakamoto Consensus looks at the past and GHOST looks at the future. But looking at the future is not really suitable for DAGs because am attacker can piggyback honest work while maintaining a double-spend attack, which is why all attempts to DAGify GHOST have liveness issues.

deshe

> Is block confirmation defined as the amount of time it takes for another block to be added linearly behind the block? Tbh I didn't understand the question > And what is the relationship between k and block rate? For example if block rate goes up 10x, what happens to k? The relationship between k, D (latency), the block rate and a security parameter delta is that k is chosen the smallest possible such that the probability that the network produces more than k blocks in a 2D time interval is at most delta. The explicit expression appears as formulas 1) and 2) in section 4.2 of the GHOSTDAG paper. > Is there sufficient benefit to increasing block rate instead of just letting more more transactions pack into each block? Actually, high TPS is not at all the motivation to having high BPS. That is, 100BPS with 10 tx/block is better than 10BPS with 100 tx/block. High BPS creates high parallelism, which has many nice properties and applications. For a start, it is a prerequisite to instant confirmations. Your block rate must be smaller than the network latency. There is also a cool effect on the fee market: if there are on average P parallel blocks than users are incentivized to pay fees when the network is 1/P congested, which is highly relevant to security budget. High parallelism also provides new approaches to combating MEV. > Wouldn't increasing block rate increase complexity and bloat? That's why we don't shoot it through the roof. But we've managed to churn out very decent performance from accessible hardware. Testnet 11 chugs 3000 TPS over 10 BPS running on 100$ hardware and less than 100 GB of storage.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The Tezos Foundation has integrated Etherlink support into Subsquid's decentralized data lake, offering developers free access to on-chain data for building decentralized applications (dapps) on Etherlink, a new Layer 2 solution. This integration utilizes the Subsquid SDK for efficient data access, aiming to enhance dapp development with features like low transaction fees, standardized communication between Tezos Layer 1 and various rollups, and enhanced security including MEV protection. This collaboration marks a significant advancement for the Tezos ecosystem, providing developers with advanced tools for innovation. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; IOTA has launched its EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) as a Layer 2 solution on the IOTA network, following extensive testing and audits since its initial launch on Shimmer in September 2023. The IOTA EVM introduces smart contracts, cross-chain functionality, parallel processing, and enhanced security against Miner Extractable Value (MEV), marking a significant step towards integrating decentralized finance (DeFi) with real-world assets. Users can connect via MetaMask and explore the network through the Firefly wallet. The launch aims to empower innovators to build a more accessible ecosystem and bridge traditional sectors with crypto-native applications. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

AnneCodeX

The MEV Cashback feature offered by OMNIA caught my eye. How does this feature work, and how much can it potentially save DeFi traders on their transactions?

DingDongWhoDis

Good to keep in mind it's an analogy, indeed. So grocery store line aside, and since you think it makes sense to compare Bitcoin's L2 to Algorand, a L1, what's the time to finality using Lightning? I know it's fast, but how fast and what is the TTF? Honest question, because I'm not up to date. But, again, it's an analogy in a quick minute. It doesn't get to address the many strengths of Algorand or go into detail of its competitors' problems. For instance, it doesn't mention Algo's speed is the same for smart contract throughput while the depicted competitors can handle a fraction. It doesn't discuss competitors with MEV front running or forking, etc. It's just a funny promotion for Algorand aka a trigger for most everyone else.

moo9001

This is not true, [as Bitcoin is UTXO based chain has MEV too](https://blockspace.media/insight/everyones-talking-about-mev-on-bitcoin/). Adam Back [proposed encrypted mempool for Bitcon as far as back 2013](https://x.com/adam3us/status/1727389371593261148).

One_Boot_5662

Or just use a UTxO based chain where transactions are not ordered inside a block and reliable MEV is impossible

HSuke

> There is no evidence or data from any of these make believe side deals. It's impossible to detect a side deal, but it's trivially easy to create one. Everyone uses MEV bots on Ethereum. There's no reason to believe something similar isn't completely widespread on Solana with side deals. It's the obvious choice for big spenders.

moo9001

The solution to MEV is encrypted mempool/shielded transactions, like one [Project Shutter](https://shutter.network) is working with. This is the mathematical way to ensure validators cannot tamper with transactions and solves malicious MEV. There is not really economic or trust-based solutions.

HSuke

It's actually a pretty reasonable proposal if you read WHY this is needed needed. OP is bullshitting that this only benefits validators. **The main purpose is to fix a prisoner's dilemma situation, and avoid off-chain side-deals.** The problem with Solana is that it doesn't use a public mempool and doesn't have a strong separation between block builders and proposers. And it hasn't solved MEV. Any rational Solana user would purposely pay less fees by side-dealing with the validators directly. And that's a huge issue after the recent 1.18.11 and related updates. Of course, there are probably better solutions for fixing the economic incentives through other means. I see this as a temporary workaround for a broken situation.

Algotography

Google MEV, transaction ordering, & sandwich attacks. The validators who produce the ethereum blocks can order transactions in a certain way that allows them to profit from the upfront knowledge of incoming transactions & the inefficiencies of the market. This happens in just about every block and in just about every blockchain that has enough activity. They ordered transactions in a way that completed the user requests and at the same time allowed them to profit off of the transactions. For example, buying things before others knowing they want them and then selling to them at a higher price. So it’s not really stealing. It is allowable on-chain and even a core product for some protocols (although debated whether it’s good or not), but by the SEC’s standards is sandwiching and not allowed in order to protect users.

Algotography

This is so misleading. It was done through MEV which up until this, has just been a part of the on-chain economy, and noone has every been prosecuted for it. It wasn’t fraudulent, anyone is able to do this as the chain permits it. But technically sandwiching is something the SEC does go after. Wait until they find out about all the others that have been doing it, continue to do it, and the protocols that have this as a core feature/product.

Hookahista

If we look at it with hindsight i'm not sure if the "desired node decentralization" was actually achieved. The decisions from back then to value decentralization kinda backfired considering we're pushing people towards Lightning and other rather centralized and less censorship resistant L2 solutions to save fees. I never expected to say this but i just compared L1 transaction fees on BTC and ETH and after EIP 4844 transaction fee's on Ethereum are cheaper than on BTC's L1. Funny thing is right now BTC is having a discussion about miner capitulation and Ethereum started one about MEV's. The Knapsack Problem is indeed hard to solve.

Boring_Equipment_946

Hes right. This MEV bullshit is pretty much exactly how the traditional stock market works where the big players fuck the retail investors.

gigabyteIO

Algorand doesn't allow MEV and has the same smart contract through put as normal transactions. 

Still_Theory179

Same point, it's on main net but test transactions. IE not real users interacting with hundreds of smart contracts with spam trying to steal MEV

filenotfounderror

I dont know not a lawyer and we may not have all the details. It also possible they did something illegal with the money after they scammed the MEV bots.

Astramie

Ethereum is the worst example of a project keeping its core principles. It's getting worse and they don't know how to fix it without major overhauls to the system which would be very disruptive to stuff built on the network. So what's plan B? Embrace it and reshape narratives to support it like how high fees is important, MEV is important, staking derivatives are needed, etc. Unfortunately, Ethereum will stay on the same path because it takes a humongous amount of effort to get everyone to agree to change the architecture. Decentralization is a blessing and a curse.

Needsupgrade

So they tricked the bots that have been skimming off everyone else and skimmed the bots at their own game. Someone should give these kids an award by letting them keep the money and thank them. This is a travesty of justice if these kids get in trouble. Someone explain to me how they did something unethical ? Looks like someone elses autobots traded bad and these kids took that trade and won. Fault isn't on the kids it's on the mev scheme bots for being dumb and taking risks they weren't fully competent in. Attacking these kids is like a bail out for dipshit MEV scam bot owners

Needsupgrade

So they tricked the bots that have been skimming off everyone else and skimmed the bots at their own game. Someone should give these kids an award by letting them keep the money and thank them. This is a travesty of justice if these kids get in trouble. Someone explain to me how they did something unethical ? Looks like someone elses autobots traded bad and these kids took that trade and won. Fault isn't on the kids it's on the mev scheme bots for being dumb and taking risks they weren't fully competent in. Attacking these kids is like a bail out for dipshit MEV scam bot owners

Needsupgrade

So they tricked the bots that have been skimming off everyone else and skimmed the bots at their own game. Someone should give these kids an award by letting them keep the money and thank them. This is a travesty of justice if these kids get in trouble. Someone explain to me how they did something unethical ? Looks like someone elses autobots traded bad and these kids took that trade and won. Fault isn't on the kids it's on the mev scheme bots for being dumb and taking risks they weren't fully competent in. Attacking these kids is like a bail out for dipshit MEV scam bot owners

filenotfounderror

I think that explanation really depends on if you understand how MEV bots work already. Byt there's not much to explain. MeV bots front run pending tansactions that have high slippage in order to capture the arbitrage / delta on your transaction. They figured out how a few of the bots were trading, which allowed them to lure the bots to try and front run unfavorable transactions (for the bot).

filenotfounderror

They didn't akte4 anyone's transactions as far as I can tell, it's just bad reporting. They figured out how a few MEV bots were trading, and with that knowledge tricked them into usimg a specific validtor and then executing unfavorable trades. There's nothing more or less ethical here then what the MEV bots themselves are doing.

FoolHooligan

What do you mean by MEV?

KonoDioDa10

MEV isnt stealing. let them cook

ShionEU

Not too sure. I kinda learned along as I went in the wild west of DeFI, through telegram channels, discord and twitter. There are a bunch of good articles on Medium about these topics, but they are spread out. I would google on MEV and go from there.

MinimalGravitas

MEV isn't built into the Ethereum platform though... it's a symptom of having financial applications running on an open, permissionless network. Anyone can see what transactions have been submitted, and anyone can build anything they like on top of Ethereum, allowing 3rd party protocols like Flashbots to spot and make use of MEV opportunities. The long term solution will probably take the form of an [encrypted mempool](https://joncharbonneau.substack.com/p/encrypted-mempools), which hides the details of transactions until they are included in a block. This will not only completely remove the possibility for harmful MEV like frontrunning/sandwiching etc, but as an additional benefit will make censorship by block builders/proposers literally impossible.

diskowmoskow

I support scamming MEV bots.

Mothrahlurker

One of the key arguments here is that they accessed private information to make this work and submitted falsified information themselves Therefore putting this into fraud territory. MEV bots only use publicly available information to execute trades. What they do is a consequence of design intents. What they do is scully, but in terms of legality these are quite far apart.

One_Boot_5662

Absolutely it's safe, just don't try to actually use it for anything. Unfortunately Ethereum design means things like MEV are unavoidable, it's unlikely to ever see mainstream adoption.

One_Boot_5662

The Ethereum platform just accepted centralised control when it built MEV into it's design. What was once an unintended side effect became a core part of how it works. MEV is fraud, I cannot see any serious enterprise wanting to deliberately expose it's customers to such practices. Unfortunately all account balance style chains have similar problems, it's just a weakness of those design choices.

nightyx14

> The brothers allegedly stole from Ethereum traders by fraudulently gaining access to pending private transactions and then altering the transactions to obtain their victims' cryptocurrency. As far as I know it’s not possible to modify Ethereum transaction. So they basically wrong and MEV bot that front runs? How is this any different from what anyone else in the market does? This is a complete BS and injustice. They should not be charged with anything.

jventura1110

Yes, and these guys are the ones who are punishing these MEV bots by simply making them do something they were programmed to do. The owners of these bots should be more careful with their own money-- instead they believe they have free reign on MEV and can front-run even tiny market cap tokens with tiny liquidity pools without risk?

jventura1110

Sir, MEV bots like the ones tricked by these guys are literally created to front-run-- that is how they make their owners profit. Everyone has access to the mempool. Front-running in tradfi is illegal because it is usually done with privileged information. In this case, the owners of these bots took on inherent risk by allowing them to trade on pools with tiny liquidity, which is what happened here.

drewster23

Pretty light coverage on such a concerning piece of information eh. I went searching for other articles and found this. "The indictment alleged that for months, the Peraire-Bueno brothers plotted to manipulate and tamper with the protocols used to validate transactions for inclusion on the Ethereum blockchain, a public ledger that records each cryptocurrency transaction. **Prosecutors said they did so by exploiting a vulnerability in the code of software called MEV-boost that is used by most Ethereum network “validators,” who are responsible for checking that new transactions are valid before they are added to the blockchain."** >Doesnt that undermine the technology? OPs article or one I just quoted also quoted the DA, basically saying what their alleging does call into question exactly this For those like me who didn't know who Le fuck mev boost is/does. I looked it up. "MEV-Boost is an implementation of proposer-builder separation (PBS) built by Flashbots for proof of stake Ethereum. Validators running MEV-Boost maximize their staking reward by selling blockspace to an open market of builders. MEV-Boost is free, open-source, neutral software built with love, for the community. For information on MEV-Boost software and roadmap, see the MEV-Boost Repository."

0x0000001B

$SOL MEV just beat $ETH for the first time. Fact is, $ETH is more expensive to run and now this new exploit which puts the whole chain at risk.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Two former MIT students, Anton Peraire-Bueno, 24, and James Peraire-Bueno, 28, were arrested for stealing $25 million in cryptocurrency by exploiting the Ethereum blockchain. This novel scheme involved fraudulently accessing and altering pending transactions in just 12 seconds. Charged with wire fraud and money laundering, their actions have raised concerns about the integrity of the blockchain. The brothers utilized their computer science and math education from MIT to manipulate Ethereum's transaction validation protocols, exploiting a vulnerability in the MEV-boost software used by network validators. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

px403

Yeah, sure, but the victims of MEV bots are just regular people who have basically zero chance of doing anything about it, especially the ones who don't know enough about it to set a reasonable slippage.

One_Boot_5662

Precious metals aren't issued by governments, they occur naturally, but stealing them is still punishable by the laws of the land in which the theft occurs. A crypto that bases it's whole model around MEV is basically dealing in fraud, that's not why cryptocurrency was created.

LargeSnorlax

You're still subject to the laws of whatever country you live in, just like every other currency. If you're living in the US, you use your knowledge and skills to do a MEV hit on a trader bot and exploit a vulnerability, then steal 25 million in assets, what do you think is going to happen? Then they tried to offshore the money (all in public view, blockchain baby) and got caught. Just like if you live in the US, but you hit a school system and get a whole bunch of valuable private data, you can't go *"Haha baby, no government oversight for me!"* and expect to not get railed. You could (in theory) do something like that if you were in a country with no extradition treaty to the US - How is anyone going to track you down? But these dudes were MIT students with a very visible paper trail, committing very obvious wire fraud. "Code is law" ain't going to save you here.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Péter Szilágyi, an Ethereum developer and team lead, has raised concerns about the project's development direction, criticizing the prioritization of short-term fixes over long-term health. Szilágyi is particularly worried about the constant adjustments to core protocol rules to satisfy regulators, fearing it could transform Ethereum into a traditional finance clone, compromising its decentralization and censorship resistance. He also highlighted issues with Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) and the rise of liquid staking solutions like Lido Finance, which he believes could centralize control and destabilize the network. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Waddamagonnadooo

So in this case, wouldn’t MEV bots be illegal too since they exploit dumb humans who use too much slippage?

smellybarbiefeet

MEV bots don’t steal money, it’s called front running so they can get the better trade.

Critical-Tie-823

Authorities clearly picked these guys because they don't have an army of lawyers like corporate MEV bot runners do. They're easy pickings for a huge money seizure, simple as that.

hotfix-houdini

Ah, the out botted the algorithmic traders. That really shouldn't be illegal. So they got reported by the MEV bots operators lol.

filenotfounderror

There was no exploit really, they just figured out how the MEV bots were trading, then lured the MEV bots to use them as a validator.. then using the above knowledge, made them propose stupid trades and accepted them.

Odd_Biscotti_7513

These relays are basically escrow accounts. They identified a vulnerability in the MEV-Boost relay code that caused the relay to prematurely release the full content of a proposed block, then they had one of their ETH validators validate the transaction regardless. The crypto angle makes it all sound much sexier and more complicated than it sounds. It'd be like if a particular escrow account needed an accountant, or something, to validate a proposed movement of money. Then these guys dressed up as accountants to ok giving them the money.

tortleme

They legit just did to MEV bots what MEV bots do to normal users. Where's the crime here?

stumblinbear

The mempool being public gives you knowledge of pending transactions. Running an MEV is just watching this list of transactions, inserting your own transactions before/after with a higher fee to do some work before it is submitted

dennisvd

Thx. Gemini gave a clear explanation: "Sandwich the Ripper" refers to a type of exploit within the Ethereum network called a **MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) attack**, specifically a **transaction sandwich attack**. Here's how it works: 1. **Identifying a Pending Transaction:** The attacker (Sandwich the Ripper) monitors the Ethereum mempool, which is a temporary storage area for pending transactions waiting to be included in a block. 2. **Targeting Price-Impacting Transactions:** They look for specific transactions that might significantly impact the price of a particular token. For example, a large buy order for a token could potentially increase its price. 3. **Inserting Transactions:** The attacker then submits two transactions of their own, one **before** and one **after** the target transaction (the "sandwich"). 4. **Exploiting the Price Movement:** The attacker's first transaction (placed before the target) buys the same token at a lower price. Once the target transaction is processed, the price of the token increases due to the high buy order. 5. **Profiting from the Squeeze:** Finally, the attacker's second transaction (placed after the target) quickly sells the token at the inflated price, pocketing the difference between their buy and sell prices. **Essentially, the attacker "sandwiches" the target transaction, manipulating the price movement to their advantage.** **Why "Sandwich the Ripper"?** This specific nickname, "Sandwich the Ripper," refers to a notorious exploiter who employed this tactic in 2024 and managed to steal a significant amount of Ethereum (around $25 million according to news reports). **Impact and Prevention:** * Sandwich attacks can be frustrating for users who get caught in the price manipulation. * They highlight the challenges of front-running transactions in a congested network like Ethereum. * Techniques like "flashbots" are being explored to mitigate MEV attacks and create a fairer transaction processing environment. **It's important to note:** * Sandwich attacks are complex and require advanced knowledge of the Ethereum network. * They exploit existing network functionalities rather than security vulnerabilities. * Ongoing development efforts aim to minimize the impact of MEV attacks on the Ethereum network.

mikalismu

They exploited MEV bots which actively steals from people. Imagine being a bank robber and complaining to the authorities that someone stole your loot.

Gaping_llama

Front running is illegal in most financial markets, crypto is just relatively new so it isn’t covered by already existing financial regulations. The MEV traders are taking advantage of that void in legislation and doing something already illegal in almost every other market, fuck ‘em.

Boring_Equipment_946

How is this MEV bot stuff giving advantage to certain validators a feature of the blockchain? What the actual fuck

px403

Lots of MEV bots are being run by well connected wall street quant shops.

tobypassquarant

These MEV bots censor transactions. Ofc the government wants them there.

exmachinalibertas

These guys were apparently Sandwich The Ripper. Damn, that was a good hack too, kind of sad they are getting in trouble for it. Nobody is upset they hacked MEV bots.

jventura1110

No, it was a software used by validators to get MEV tips. And they used that software to target MEV bots. >According to Wednesday's indictment, the Pepaire-Bueno brothers exploited MEV-boost, an MEV software used by most of the validators that run the Ethereum blockchain. ... >The brothers created 16 Ethereum validators and targeted three specific traders who operated MEV bots, the indictment said. They used bait transactions to figure out how those bots traded, lured the bots to one of their validators which was validating a new block and basically tricked these bots into proposing certain transactions.

TastyTaco217

Some of these MEV bots generate millions a year in revenue, with very little input past the initial set-up. Look up jaredfromsubway.eth on eth scanner, it’s widely renowned as the most profitable MEV bot on ETH and makes silly money.

AcceptableLab9729

Impressive. “The brothers created 16 Ethereum validators and targeted three specific traders who operated MEV bots, the indictment said. They used bait transactions to figure out how those bots traded, lured the bots to one of their validators which was validating a new block and basically tricked these bots into proposing certain transactions. The brothers allegedly frontran the bots on certain trades and also used their validator to "tamper with" the new block by sending a false digital signature that gave them access to the block's full contents and replaced "lure transactions" with "tampered transactions." In those tampered transactions, the brothers allegedly sold illiquid cryptocurrencies they had tricked the victims' trading bots into placing buy orders for.”

hotfix-houdini

Really curious about the actual exploit. If they're prosecuting MEV bots, sandwich attacks, or front running then that would be a monumental decision. Personally I'm not a fan of these anyways, though. My guess is that it's L2 related where a lot of pending get rolled up. Bridges / L2s are always going to be an attack vector.

One_Boot_5662

It is a vulnerability in Ethereum and every other global state account balance blockchain. The fact MEV has been marketed as some kind of legit revenue stream is BS, it's just fraud, the same type of fraud as in TradFi, just executed by different middle-men.

smoke4sanity

"The brothers allegedly frontran the bots on certain trades and also used their validator to "tamper with" the new block by sending a false digital signature that gave them access to the block's full contents and replaced "lure transactions" with "tampered transactions." If I read this right, these guys actually faked digital signatures , not just front running front runners. I'm seeing the take that they deserve it, but if the MEV bots are playing by the rules (despite how screwed up ethereum's rules are), vs actually faking signatures, then isn't that the crime? Sort of like "Robin hood's steal from the rich trope?

davidh888

They exploited people’s MEV bots into buying fake coins for millions. Pretty genius and no this isn’t really even considered a vulnerability. Except for MEVs I guess.

flarept1

These brothers basically baited MEV bots into buying useless tokens for millions. They created fake validators, studied the bots and lured them into giving away their stables for nothing pretty much.

uncapchad

More details here. MEV Exploit on ETH. [https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/05/15/brothers-accused-of-25m-ethereum-exploit-as-us-reveals-fraud-charges/](https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/05/15/brothers-accused-of-25m-ethereum-exploit-as-us-reveals-fraud-charges/)

jawni

>For the first time ever on May 12, Solana generated more Total Economic Value than Ethereum in a single day https://twitter.com/smyyguy/status/1790429003553165393 (Total Economic Value = txn fees and MEV)

yogofubi

No it's not directly related to fees no, but high fees come with high network demand, which comes with higher MEV earnings on average. I'm in the rocketpool smoothing pool and I absolutely see higher income during times of high network activity

Itslittlealexhorn

High priority fees and tips are the same thing and they've been very low for quite some time. Basically you can never fill a block completely anyway since the minimum fee is kept high enough to keep the average at half full. MEV is a fairly complex topic, but not directly related to fees either. If you check the size of current block rewards, they're around the same as a few months ago.

yogofubi

Validators do get the tips in a block, so high fees do translate into higher validator income, through priority tips/MEV

HBAR_10_DOLLARS

Ethereum can't be used for this, it doesn't scale and has other glaring issues like MEV and fluctuating transaction prices.

bytelines

I think the term is pre consensus list https://hedera.com/blog/hedera-technical-insights-latency-on-hedera Mempool is a very loaded term as it implies things like MEV, so I do think these terms are important

hotfix-houdini

There is no double spending problem on hashgraph. In fact, it processes all transactions in parallel and it has 100% transaction finality whereas blockchain is probabilistic and blocks can theoretically be undone in the future. Uh oh! You're touting mempools, which hedera does not have. Mempools are fucking corruption and collusion. Mempools let people pay to get their transactions ahead of others. They let algorithmic traders exploit the system and share the profits between them and validators - MEV bots! Mempools show the weakness of those networks - why the hell can't the network handle those transactions and they have to be throttled into this little pay-to-win queue? Do not defend mempools. You talk about transactions clashing on hedera causing double spend, but then you talk about hedera being good at creating immutable timestamps that cannot clash.

bytelines

A mempool. Hashgraph doesn't have a mempool. Each node contains a graph of the network which is immediately gossiped out after a transaction is submitted to one node. You can't do things like MEV in hashgraph because of this.

WingChungGuruKhabib

Illuminex DEX does this and is currently live as well. Besides that it also: - removes MEV attacks - removes the possibility of sandwich attacks - allows users to wrap any token in a privacy wrapper (this means that the token will not appear in any wallet or explorer like etherscan even though its present in your wallet) - allows you to send tokens to & from any EVM and soon Solana and Bitcoin without the trade showing on any explorer. Current problems: - low volume - low liquidity (trades above say 4-5 eth cause 1-3% drop in value)

WoodenInformation730

It mitigates MEV and sandwich attacks.

WoodenInformation730

This is a MEV bot, which frontruns transactions and arbitrages their slippage setting. I'm unsure whether there are any tutorials on how to do that (there's many scam tutorials on YouTube which empty your wallet though!). Generally, I think what they do is, they watch the mempool (the pool of transactions which are to be included in the next block), they inspect the transactions for their slippage (for example >10%) and then construct their own transactions in a way so they are executed before the original transaction (typically with a higher gas fee) but still keep it valid by only pushing the price of a token so much that it still goes through per the accepted slippage.

imdabes

If profit is your goal you’d be better off building a MEV bot. Even better, if you built a Bot to combat predatory MEV bots.

CorneliusFudgem

It’s not quite just staking. Jito forked a software client for staking and pumped MEV rewards specifically because MEV is seen as a necessary evil on solana (the solana foundation’s words - not mine lol).

shadowdax

Combination of: - MNDE launched last cycle so is still down in the dumps and no longer hyped. - Jito aims to do more ambitious stuff than Marinade. Marinade just stakes your tokens and passes on the staking rewards in the value of the token. Jito have also written their own validator client that makes MEV, takes tips and bundles transactions, etc. And now working on a restaking protocol as well.

MaximumStudent1839

There are some VCs and funds thinking crypto's valuation comes from selling order flows to fuck users. Remember the Robinhood GameStop fiasco? I am talking about that kind of situation. In crypto, we call this value extraction, MEV, JITO validators run an MEV extraction program. So I think JITO buyers are expecting JITO to be more profitable than MNDE, that focus more on decentralization.

Zaitobu

The liquidity pool is very small relative to the MC and this in itself has little to do with upside potential. Volatility is wild with memes because one whale can cause a 10% price impact or more by eating loads of the LP in one transaction. This in turn creates lots of buying and selling opportunities and lots of volume. Plus, there is a lot of volume from MEV bots on 0% tax tokens.

kiefferbp

Forcing MEV boost isn't centralizing to you?

kiefferbp

>Jezus christ the things you people come up with just shows you have zero knowledge about how it all works. lmao. You have zero idea how Rocket Pool works. The oDAO can vote to apply penalties to your principal, which is applied in your minipool's delegate. This is currently only done in cases of MEV theft. However, MEV boost will eventually be required and penalties will be applied to those who don't use it.

0xSmartMoney

we were running a HFT prop shop then my quant said “there is this shit hole exchange, called UniSwap. I’ll test some arb there…” booom 💥there goes your 1st sandwich attack and all sorts of MEV… the story goes happily afterwards

Alexandeisme

Stacks will fix this. They just rolled out Nakamoto Protocol upgrade and will hit finality soon enough in a few weeks with major improvements. It's gonna be the leading Bitcoin layer two. Faster transactions target 5~ seconds, cheaper gas (although it's $0.9-$1 average) and MEV mitigations, in May.

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.