Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Towards Decentralized Searcher Competition in MEV Markets

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Winner-take-all MEV auctions centralize searcher rewards; a Shapley-capped auction restores fairness and decentralization while defending against Sybil and collusion attacks.

desk verdict The SCA is a genuine new mechanism for searcher reward sharing, but it rests on an undefined 'canonical simulation rule' for certified values; send it to review with that as the key demand. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05011 v1 pith:MEPWSBQ2 submitted 2026-08-05 cs.GT cs.CR

Roozbeh Sarenche , Yunwen Liu This is my paper
classification cs.GTcs.CR MSC 91A1291B2691A80
keywords MEVsearchercompetitionauctiondesignShapleyvalueSybilresistancerewarddecentralizationblockchainpermissionlessmechanisms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies whether the auction that selects which searcher captures a maximal-extractable-value (MEV) opportunity is itself a source of centralization. It models searchers as differing in opportunity coverage and execution quality, and evaluates mechanisms with two new metrics: a Shapley-weighted Jain index for contribution-adjusted fairness and an expected-reward Herfindahl-Hirschman index for reward concentration. Against these metrics, the standard first-price, winner-take-all auction is shown to be secure against copied-code Sybil deviations but economically centralizing under heterogeneity, because it rewards rank dominance rather than marginal contribution. The paper proposes an entry-filtered Shapley-capped auction that executes the highest certified-value submission but shares retained surplus among admitted submissions according to the Shapley value of a validator-dependent max game, with cap-and-burn parameters calibrated to Bayesian security constraints against copied-code Sybil identities and validator-searcher coalitions. Numerical and Ethereum-data benchmarks suggest the mechanism improves contribution-adjusted fairness and the effective number of rewarded searchers, especially in concentrated opportunity classes.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the entry-filtered Shapley-capped auction (SCA$_{\theta}$), which executes the highest certified normalized net-value submission $b^{\theta}_{(1)}$ while paying admitted submissions their Shapley value in the realized max game $W^{\theta}_{o}(A)=V_o\max_{b\in A\setminus\{\mathrm{val}\}} z_b$ when the number of admitted submissions $t_\theta\le H$, and switching to a fallback branch that pays only the top submission and burns the residual when $t_\theta>H$. The retention factors $\eta^{S}_{t_\theta}=e^{-\kappa_S(\min\{t_\theta,H\}-1)}$ and $\eta^{V}_{t_\theta}=e^{-\kappa_V(\min\{t_\theta,H\}-1)}$ scale the Shapley payments and are calibrated together with the cap $H$ so that no copied-code Sybil deviation of size $q=2,\dots,H+1$ and no validator-searcher coalition deviation raises interim expected payoff. The economic metrics are the Shapley-weighted Jain index $J^{M}_{\mathrm{Sh}}$ and the expected-reward HHI, whose reciprocal is the effective number of rewarded searchers $N^{M}_{\mathrm{eff}}$; these metrics carry the comparison between the first-price benchmark and the proposed mechanism.

What would settle it

If, in a testnet deployment of the entry-filtered SCA with a trusted certified-value oracle, a searcher can profitably submit two exact copies of its code at the admission threshold, or if the measured effective number of rewarded searchers fails to rise above the first-price benchmark in a centralized opportunity class, the paper's central claims would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the winner-take-all structure of first-price searcher auctions, not just infrastructure or order-flow access, is a driver of MEV centralization. Under the paper's heterogeneous model, a searcher's expected reward in the first-price auction is governed by its rank-dominance score, the probability that it submits the highest-bidding active code, rather than its marginal contribution to the opportunity's value. When one execution-quality class is dominant, the effective number of rewarded searchers collapses to the size of that class, and to one for a single elite searcher. The proposed entry-filtered Shapley-capped auction selects the highest certified-value submission for execution, then distributes retained surplus among admitted submissions using the Shapley value of the validator-dependent max game, subject to an entry threshold, a cap on the number of rewarded submissions, and exponential retention parameters. The paper proves budget feasibility and shows that Bayesian copied-code Sybil resistance and validator-searcher coalition resistance reduce to a finite set of constraints on copy sizes up to the cap plus one, yielding a feasible parameter region; numerical and Ethereum-data calibrations indicate substantial gains in contribution-adjusted fairness (for example, the Jain index rising from 0.175 to 0.983 in one empirical setting) and in the effective number of rewarded searchers.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism requires every submitted execution code to have a certified normalized net value computed under a canonical simulation rule that is objective and enforceable on-chain; if that certification cannot be made reliable, neither the entry filter, the Shapley allocation, nor the security constraints can be implemented.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model and calibrations hold, searcher auctions need not be winner-take-all: a Shapley-based sharing rule can raise the effective number of rewarded searchers even in a single-elite-searcher environment, from about 1.04 under first-price to above 3 under the capped mechanism.
  • The cap-and-burn design shows that Sybil resistance and validator-searcher coalition resistance are compatible with broader reward distribution, provided the entry filter, cap, and retention parameters are chosen jointly.
  • In empirically calibrated Ethereum data, the proposed mechanism's gains are largest where first-price concentration is worst (margin-oriented arbitrage), while in already diffuse opportunity classes it mainly preserves a broad reward base under an explicit searcher-side security calibration.
  • The analysis shifts the centralization debate from builders and order flow to the searcher layer, implying that mechanism design for searcher competition is a separate intervention point for blockchain decentralization.
  • The Bayesian security characterization implies that checking copy sizes up to $H+1$ suffices, making the security constraints computationally tractable and yielding a concrete feasible parameter region.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The mechanism's reliance on a certified normalized net value under a canonical simulation rule suggests that practical viability hinges on the feasibility of objective, on-chain code evaluation; if certification becomes a trusted third party, some decentralization benefits could shift to that certifier.
  • The same Shapley-capped logic could be applied to other multi-party reward-sharing settings in permissionless systems, such as MEV-Share redistribution or proposer-builder revenue sharing, where Sybil and collusion constraints bind similarly.
  • The empirical observation that the binding deviation is often a two-copy exact copy at the admission boundary suggests a simple heuristic for future designs: calibrate thresholds and caps to make boundary copies unprofitable, then check larger copy counts as a safety margin.
  • The fairness metric of rewards proportional to Shapley contribution could be adopted as a standard for auditing searcher markets, but doing so requires estimating Shapley contributions from data, which may be nontrivial when searcher identities are hidden behind multiple contracts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies searcher-side centralization in MEV markets. It introduces a heterogeneous model in which searchers differ in opportunity coverage (Bernoulli participation) and execution quality (truncated lognormal costs), and defines two economic metrics: a Shapley-weighted Jain fairness index and an expected-reward HHI. It analyzes the first-price auction (FPA) benchmark, showing that under heterogeneity FPA rewards rank dominance and can concentrate on a dominant class. It then proposes the entry-filtered Shapley-capped auction (SCA) that executes the highest certified-value submission but shares retained surplus via Shapley values among admitted submissions, with cap and burn parameters to deter Sybil and validator-searcher coalition deviations. The paper provides a Bayesian security characterization (Lemma 1), economic bounds (Prop. 4, Thm. 1), numerical benchmarks for four asymmetric scenarios, and an empirical calibration from Ethereum arbitrage data.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and timely issue—searcher-side concentration in MEV markets—and proposes a concrete alternative mechanism with formal security analysis. The formal propositions appear mathematically correct under the stated assumptions, and the paper ships numerical calibrations plus an empirical component, which are valuable assets. The theoretical framework cleanly separates coverage and execution-quality heterogeneity, and the security analysis of the SCA is more thorough than typical for this literature. However, the practical significance is currently limited by two gaps: the unspecified 'canonical simulation rule' for certified values, on which every theorem depends, and an extra assumption in the FPA security proof that is not part of the deviation definition. If these gaps are addressed, the paper would be a useful contribution to MEV mechanism design.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (1)-(2); Prop. 3; Lemma 1; Prop. 4; Thm. 1] The model relies on a 'canonical simulation rule' to certify gross realized value and execution cost for arbitrary permissionless submission code, yet the rule is never specified. All subsequent results—FPA security (Appendix A), SCA budget feasibility (Prop. 3), the Bayesian security characterization (Lemma 1), and the economic bounds (Prop. 4, Thm. 1)—treat the certified normalized net value z_b as a well-defined, mechanism-observable primitive. For arbitrary EVM code, the realized value generally depends on the state at inclusion, on the rival bundle selected, and on off-chain information; without an objective, enforceable simulation rule, a searcher can submit code whose certified value exceeds any realizable value, and the budget identity V_o z_(1) = payments + burn can fail on the realized opportunity. I recommend that the authors either specify a concrete canonical simulation rule (including the state snapshot and the treatment of external calls and time-dependent values) or explicitly state that such a rule is a modeling assumption and discuss the implementation challenges and the resulting limitations.
  2. [Appendix A, Theorem 2 and Theorem 3] The FPA security proofs assume that 'all submissions controlled by i for opportunities of class τ(o), including copied-code submissions, use the same searcher-specific bidding function β_i,τ(o).' However, Definition 1 does not restrict the mechanism-specific messages (transfer offers) of copied-code submissions. Under the FPA as defined in Section 3.1, a searcher with original certified value z = 0.8 and bid β(0.8) = 0.4 can submit a degraded copy with certified value z' = 0.7 and a transfer offer of 0.51; against a rival bid of 0.5, the copy wins and yields payoff 0.19 whereas the original yields 0, violating ex-post copied-code Sybil resistance (Definition 4). The proof's extra assumption is therefore not a consequence of the deviation definition, and the FPA's claimed copied-code security is not established for the mechanism as specified. Please either extend the security analysis to handle arbitrary bids, or explicitly restrict Definition 1 and state the resulting limitation.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Definition 2] The SCA's payment rule is the Shapley value of the admitted max game, while the fairness metric J_Sh measures proportionality of rewards to the Shapley value φ^VS_i of the unfiltered validator–searcher game. Because the mechanism is built around the same cooperative solution concept, the high J_Sh values reported for the SCA in Tables 2 and 6 are to a large extent a direct consequence of the design rather than an independent finding. For θ = 0, κ_S = 0, and no cap, an honest SCA achieves J_Sh = 1 by construction, up to the difference between the realized admitted-game Shapley value and the ex-ante unfiltered φ^VS_i. The paper should explicitly acknowledge this circularity and temper the claim that SCA 'improves contribution-adjusted fairness' relative to FPA, or compare against a fairness benchmark not derived from the Shapley value.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] The proportional-bidding parameter ρ is introduced but never assigned a numeric value. The reported metrics J_Sh and N_eff are invariant to a common ρ across searchers; the paper should state this invariance explicitly to avoid the impression that an undisclosed parameter drives the numerical results.
  2. [Section 2.2.1] The notation N is used both for the set of players S ∪ {val} and later for the number of active searchers N_o and the effective number N_eff; consider renaming the player set to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Appendix C] The validator-side security region [0.0618379, 0.0665793] is reported to six decimal places, but no sensitivity analysis is provided; since the upper and lower bounds are quite close, the authors should discuss how sensitive the existence of a feasible κ_V is to the distributional assumptions and to the numerical grids used.
  4. [Tables 2 and 6] The computational method behind the reported J_Sh and N_eff values is not described; please state whether these are obtained by numerical integration, Monte Carlo simulation, or another procedure, as this affects reproducibility.
  5. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'the mechanism places a cap H≥2 on the number of admitted submissions that can be handled in the decentralized Shapley-sharing branch' is slightly misleading because the cap is on the number of admitted submissions, not on the number that can be handled; consider rewording.
  6. [Footnote 3] The footnote stating that identification of the active set S_act(o) is 'outside the formal model' outsources a nontrivial part of the empirical implementation; a brief discussion of how the active set could be empirically detected would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity is present: the SCA's fairness result follows from nontrivial bounds on a realized-game Shapley allocation relative to an ex-ante Shapley benchmark, not from an identity; the only co-author self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not, at any load-bearing step, reduce to its own inputs. The FPA security analysis (Appendix A) is self-contained: it proves ex-post copied-code Sybil resistance and validator-searcher coalition resistance directly from monotone bidding and the fixed tie-breaking rule, without using the fairness metrics or any fitted quantity. The FPA concentration results (Prop. 2, Cor. 1) are analytic consequences of the participation and value distribution assumptions, and are not circular. The main candidate for circularity is the alignment between the SCA's Shapley-based payment rule and the Shapley-weighted Jain fairness metric. But the paper does not equate the two objects. The fairness benchmark phi_i^VS is the ex-ante Shapley value of the unfiltered validator-searcher game W_VS, whereas the SCA pays retained Shapley values of the realized admitted-max game W^theta_o, with an entry filter, a cap, and burn parameters. Proposition 4 and Theorem 1 give bounds on reward-to-contribution ratios and on J_Sh and Neff in terms of lambda and Lambda; these are nontrivial inequalities, not identities. The numerical J_Sh values in Table 2 vary widely (0.288 to 0.996) across thresholds and scenarios, which would not occur if the result were true by construction. Thus the high fairness scores are a derived property of the mechanism under the calibrated model, not a restatement of the definitions. The empirical section is explicitly calibrated with stated limitations: the dataset contains only successful transactions, the participation parameters alpha are treated as proxies, and the authors disclaim structural identification. This is honest calibration rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The most serious gap is the undefined 'canonical simulation rule' that underlies certified normalized net values; this threatens implementability and is a correctness risk, but it is not a circularity, because the mechanism's theorems condition on those certified values as given primitives. The only co-author self-citation is reference [30], which appears in the reference list and is not used as a load-bearing premise of the paper's theorems or calibration. It is at most a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained against the model assumptions, and no specific reduction of a conclusion to an input can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical or market entities. It introduces a new auction mechanism and security concepts, which are design artifacts rather than invented entities. The free parameters are the calibration levers of the mechanism and the benchmark; they are fitted to satisfy security constraints or chosen for the scenarios, so they are central to the quantitative claims.

free parameters (6)
  • proportional-bidding parameter rho = not reported
    Used for all FPA numerical comparisons in Tables 2 and 6; the value is not disclosed in the text.
  • entry threshold theta = 0.141 to 0.790 depending on scenario
    Controls the expected admitted population; chosen ex ante per scenario and reported in Tables 2 and 6.
  • cap H = 7 to 17
    Bound on the number of Shapley-branch admissions; set relative to the expected admitted population.
  • searcher-side burn parameter kappa_S = 0.165 to 0.527
    Calibrated as the smallest value satisfying Bayesian copied-code Sybil resistance in each benchmark.
  • validator-side burn parameter kappa_V = 0.0618379
    Calibrated in Appendix C to satisfy coalition resistance within a feasible interval; only reported for one environment.
  • coverage probabilities alpha_i and truncated-lognormal cost parameters = Tables 1 and 5
    Primitives for the theoretical and empirical benchmarks; selected by hand for scenarios or extracted from Ethereum data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Certified normalized net values z are observable and verifiable under a canonical simulation rule.
    Invoked in Sect. 2.1; all mechanism operations depend on this certification being objective and computable on-chain.
  • domain assumption Coverage events D_i,o are independent Bernoulli draws with class-specific probabilities, and conditional value draws are independent with distribution F_j,τ.
    Stated in Sect. 2.1; the Bayesian security analysis and the win-probability formulas rely on this independence.
  • standard math Pan et al. [15] impossibility result: any non-wasteful, symmetric, incentive-compatible, and ex-post Sybil-proof direct mechanism reduces to a second-price auction with symmetric tie-breaking.
    Cited in Sect. 4.1 to motivate the design space; the paper relies on this external theorem without proving it.
  • domain assumption The validator-searcher coalition value function W_VS(A) is well-defined and the Shapley value is the appropriate contribution benchmark.
    Introduced in Sect. 2.2.1; the fairness metric is built on this cooperative game model.
  • ad hoc to paper The FPA benchmark uses proportional bidding beta_i,τ(z) = rho z for all searchers.
    Assumed in Sect. 3.2 to obtain sharper comparisons; rho is not reported in the numerical sections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Decentralized Searcher Competition in MEV Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MEPWSBQ2

@misc{pith2026260805011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Decentralized Searcher Competition in MEV Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MEPWSBQ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05011}
}
read the original abstract

Centralization in maximal extractable value (MEV) markets is a significant concern for blockchain systems, as persistent concentration of economic power can weaken competition, reduce openness, and undermine the decentralization goals of permissionless protocols. While much of the existing analysis has focused on builders, validators, and block-building markets, this paper studies centralization from the perspective of searcher competition. We develop a heterogeneous model in which searchers differ in opportunity coverage and execution efficiency, and we analyze how auction design affects fairness, decentralization, and security among searchers competing for the same MEV opportunity. To evaluate searcher competition, we introduce two metrics: a Shapley-weighted Jain fairness index, which measures whether rewards are proportional to searchers' marginal contributions, and an expected-reward Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), which measures concentration in long-run searcher rewards. Using these metrics, we first analyze the standard first-price, winner-take-all auction as a benchmark. Our analysis shows that, under searcher heterogeneity, first-price competition can reward rank dominance rather than marginal contribution, leading to concentrated rewards and weaker contribution-adjusted fairness. Motivated by these limitations, we propose an entry-filtered Shapley-capped auction mechanism that distributes searcher rewards more fairly and broadly among admitted high-quality submissions. Designing such a mechanism in a permissionless blockchain environment is challenging: searchers may create Sybil identities by submitting copied or degraded versions of the same execution strategy, and validators may collude with searchers to increase joint payoff. We address these concerns through Bayesian security constraints for copied-code Sybil deviations and validator-searcher coalition deviations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05011 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effect of dominant-class participation on FPA fairness and reward decentralization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of increasing elite execution advantage on fairness and reward decentralization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Transaction distribution over profit-to-revenue ratio bins, grouped by profit tier. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aleksei Adadurov, Sergey Barseghyan, Anton Chtepine, Antero Eloranta, Andrei Sebyakin, and Arsenii Valitov. Open vs. sealed: Auction format choice for maximal extractable value. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16333, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Centralization in block- building and proposer-builder separation

    Maryam Bahrani, Pranav Garimidi, and Tim Roughgarden. Centralization in block- building and proposer-builder separation. In Jeremy Clark and Elaine Shi, editors,Finan- cial Cryptography and Data Security - 28th International Conference, FC 2024, Willem- stad, Cura¸ cao, March 4-8, 2024, Revised Selected Papers, Part I, Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science,...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78676-1 2024

  3. [3]

    Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability

    Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Bentov, Lorenz Breidenbach, and Ari Juels. Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability. In2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2020, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18-21, 2020, pages 910–927. IEEE, 2020.doi:10.11...

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Searching Post-Merge, 2022

    Flashbots. Searching Post-Merge, 2022. URL:https://writings.flashbots.net/ searching-post-merge

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Beyond winner-take-all pro- curement auctions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.27779, 2026

    Pranav Garimidi, Michael Neuder, and Tim Roughgarden. Beyond winner-take-all pro- curement auctions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.27779, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Cross-rollup MEV: Non-atomic arbitrage across L2 blockchains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02172, 2024

    Krzysztof Gogol, Johnnatan Messias, Deborah Miori, Claudio Tessone, and Benjamin Livshits. Cross-rollup MEV: Non-atomic arbitrage across L2 blockchains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02172, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Pai, and Max Resnick

    Tivas Gupta, Mallesh M. Pai, and Max Resnick. The centralizing effects of private order flow on proposer-builder separation. In Joseph Bonneau and S. Matthew Weinberg, editors, 5th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, AFT 2023, Princeton, NJ, USA, October 23-25, 2023, LIPIcs, pages 20:1–20:15. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ ur Informat...

    doi:10.4230/lipics.aft.2023.20 2023

  8. [8]

    Non-atomic arbitrage in decent- ralized finance

    Lioba Heimbach, Vabuk Pahari, and Eric Schertenleib. Non-atomic arbitrage in decent- ralized finance. InIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2024, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 19-23, 2024, pages 3866–3884. IEEE, 2024.doi:10.1109/SP54263.2024. 00256

    arXiv 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Light into darkness: Demystifying profit strategies throughout the MEV bot lifecycle

    Feng Luo, Zihao Li, Wenxuan Luo, Zheyuan He, Xiapu Luo, Zuchao Ma, Shuwei Song, and Ting Chen. Light into darkness: Demystifying profit strategies throughout the MEV bot lifecycle. In33rd Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2026, San Diego, Californi...

    2026

  2. [10]

    Searcher competition in block building

    Akaki Mamageishvili, Christoph Schlegel, and Benny Sudakov. Searcher competition in block building. In Rainer B¨ ohme and Lucianna Kiffer, editors,6th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, AFT 2024, Vienna, Austria, September 23-25, 2024, LIPIcs, pages 21:1–21:12. ...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Burak ¨Oz, Danning Sui, Thomas Thiery, and Florian Matthes. Who wins Ethereum block building auctions and why? In Rainer B¨ ohme and Lucianna Kiffer, editors,6th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, AFT 2024, Vienna, Austria, Septem- ber 23-25, 2024, LIPIcs, pages...

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Cross-chain arbitrage: The next frontier of MEV in decentralized finance.Proc

    Burak ¨Oz, Christof Ferreira Torres, Christoph Schlegel, Bruno Mazorra, Jonas Gebele, Filip Rezabek, and Florian Matthes. Cross-chain arbitrage: The next frontier of MEV in decentralized finance.Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., 9(3):51:1–51:33, 2025. doi:10.1145/3771566

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    How exclusive are Ethereum transactions? Evidence from non-winning blocks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16052, 2025

    Vabuk Pahari and Andrea Canidio. How exclusive are Ethereum transactions? Evidence from non-winning blocks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16052, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Pai and Max Resnick

    Mallesh M. Pai and Max Resnick. Structural advantages for integrated builders in mev-boost. In Jurlind Budurushi, Oksana Kulyk, Sarah Allen, Theo Diamandis, Ariah Klages-Mundt, Andrea Bracciali, Geoffrey Goodell, and Shin’ichiro Matsuo, editors, Financial Cryptography and Data...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    On sybil- proof mechanisms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14485, 2026

    Minghao Pan, Bruno Mazorra, Christoph Schlegel, and Akaki Mamageishvili. On sybil- proof mechanisms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14485, 2026

    2026

  8. [16]

    Quantifying blockchain extractable value: How dark is the forest? In43rd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2022, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 22-26, 2022, pages 198–214

    Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, and Arthur Gervais. Quantifying blockchain extractable value: How dark is the forest? In43rd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2022, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 22-26, 2022, pages 198–214. IEEE, 2022.doi:10.1109/ SP46214.2022.9833734

    2022

  9. [17]

    Rasheed, Pujan Desai, Yash Chaurasia, and Sujit P. Gujar. Shapley value-based approach for redistributing revenue of matchmaking of private transactions in blockchains, 2025. arXiv:2502.15420

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Transaction fee mechanism design.ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 19(1):52– 55, 2021

    Tim Roughgarden. Transaction fee mechanism design.ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 19(1):52– 55, 2021. 22

    2021

  11. [19]

    Lloyd S. Shapley. A value for n-person games. In Harold W. Kuhn and Albert W. Tucker, editors,Contributions to the Theory of Games II, volume 28 ofAnnals of Mathematics Studies, pages 307–317. Princeton University Press, 1953

    1953

  12. [20]

    Rolling in the shadows: Analyzing the extraction of MEV across layer-2 rollups

    Christof Ferreira Torres, Albin Mamuti, Ben Weintraub, Cristina Nita-Rotaru, and Shweta Shinde. Rolling in the shadows: Analyzing the extraction of MEV across layer-2 rollups. In Bo Luo, Xiaojing Liao, Jun Xu, Engin Kirda, and David Lie, editors,Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM ...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Efficient rent seeking

    Gordon Tullock. Efficient rent seeking. In James M. Buchanan, Robert D. Tollison, and Gordon Tullock, editors,Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society, pages 97–112. Texas A&M University Press, 1980

    1980

  14. [22]

    Private order flows and builder bidding dynamics: The road to monopoly in Eth- ereum’s block building market

    Shuzheng Wang, Yue Huang, Wenqin Zhang, Yuming Huang, Xuechao Wang, and Jing Tang. Private order flows and builder bidding dynamics: The road to monopoly in Eth- ereum’s block building market. In Guodong Long, Michale Blumestein, Yi Chang, Liane Lewin-Eytan, Zi Helen Huang, an...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Blockspace under pressure: An analysis of spam MEV on high-throughput blockchains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00234, 2026

    Wenhao Wang, Aditya Saraf, Lioba Heimbach, Kushal Babel, and Fan Zhang. Blockspace under pressure: An analysis of spam MEV on high-throughput blockchains.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00234, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A flash(bot) in the pan: measuring maximal extractable value in private pools

    Ben Weintraub, Christof Ferreira Torres, Cristina Nita-Rotaru, and Radu State. A flash(bot) in the pan: measuring maximal extractable value in private pools. In Chadi Barakat, Cristel Pelsser, Theophilus A. Benson, and David R. Choffnes, editors,Proceed- ings of the 22nd ACM I...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Fei Wu, Danning Sui, Thomas Thiery, and Mallesh M. Pai. Measuring CEX-DEX extracted value and searcher profitability: The darkest of the MEV dark forest. In Zeta Avarikioti and Nicolas Christin, editors,7th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, AFT 2025, Pittsburgh...

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    Strategic bidding wars in on-chain auctions

    Fei Wu, Thomas Thiery, Stefanos Leonardos, and Carmine Ventre. Strategic bidding wars in on-chain auctions. InIEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency, ICBC 2024, Dublin, Ireland, May 27-31, 2024, pages 503–511. IEEE, 2024.doi:10.1109/ ICBC59979.2024.10634354

    2024

  19. [27]

    To compete or collude: Bidding incentives in Ethereum block building auctions

    Fei Wu, Thomas Thiery, Stefanos Leonardos, and Carmine Ventre. To compete or collude: Bidding incentives in Ethereum block building auctions. InProceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance, ICAIF 2024, Brooklyn, NY, USA, November 14-17, 2024, pages 813–...

    2024

  20. [28]

    From competition to centralization: The oligopoly in Ethereum block building auctions

    Fei Wu, Thomas Thiery, Stefanos Leonardos, and Carmine Ventre. From competition to centralization: The oligopoly in Ethereum block building auctions. In Inˆ es Lynce, Nello Murano, Mauro Vallati, Serena Villata, Federico Chesani, Michela Milano, Andrea Omicini, and Mehdi Dasta...

    2025

  21. [29]

    Decentralization of Ethereum’s builder market

    Sen Yang, Kartik Nayak, and Fan Zhang. Decentralization of Ethereum’s builder market. In Marina Blanton, William Enck, and Cristina Nita-Rotaru, editors,IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2025, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 12-15, 2025, pages 1512–1530. IEEE, 2025.doi:10...

    2025

  22. [30]

    Order flow exclusivity and value extraction mechanisms: An analysis of Ethereum builder centralization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.04471, 2026

    Ao Zhang, Yunwen Liu, Ren Zhang, Yingdi Shan, and Yongwei Wu. Order flow exclusivity and value extraction mechanisms: An analysis of Ethereum builder centralization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.04471, 2026. A Security Analysis of the FPA For this section, we impose the following ...

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.