Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Reveal, Correct, Then Pay: Encrypted Mempools and Perpetual Funding Security

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Encrypted mempools can increase manipulation when correction lags

desk verdict A formal and honest model of how encrypted mempools can amplify self-authored perp-funding manipulation; the exact numbers rest on a constant-rate correction assumption the paper itself flags, but the mechanism and design rule are solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13832 v1 pith:XWC4QIID submitted 2026-07-15 cs.CR cs.GT

Benjamin Marsh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.GT
keywords encryptedmempoolsMEVperpetualfuturesfundingreactiongaporderingbarrierself-authoredmanipulationtwo-ledgersecurityindex
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

The paper claims that commit-then-reveal encrypted mempools, while protecting against victim-dependent MEV, can create a reaction gap that amplifies self-authored state manipulation. Because a corrective transaction cannot enter an already committed batch, a distortion persists into a perpetual-futures funding window, multiplying expected attack value. The paper derives explicit formulas for this amplification and shows that encryption is helpful only when the attacker's loss of targeting information outweighs the increased persistence of distortion. It also proposes a protocol rule—reveal, correct, measure, then pay—that can bound the extra extraction.

What carries the argument

The ordering barrier—no post-commit admission and no precommitted contingent program—produces the reaction gap δ. Correction is microfounded as Poisson arrivals of executable opportunities with per-type intensity νi and removal fraction θi = ℓ/(ℓ + ki), giving exponential correction rates ρc and ρp. The response factor g(δ; ρc, ρp, W) = [A(ρc, δ) + e^(−ρcδ)A(ρp, W−δ)]/W with A(ρ,s) = (1−e^(−ρs))/ρ quantifies the distortion entering a funding window. The two-ledger security index Γ = (1−ζ)²m²τ²g²/(4ab) separates attacker blindness, correction shielding, and capitalization shielding.

What would settle it

In a deployed commit-then-reveal mempool, measure the residual distortion of a manipulated funding signal over time after reveal. If the decay is not exponential (for example, it stalls at small distortions due to fixed correction costs) or if the response factor g does not actually increase with the observed reaction gap, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a commit-then-reveal encrypted mempool, the ordering barrier (Lemma 1) prevents any adaptive corrective transaction from executing in the committed batch, creating a discrete reaction gap δ even when decryption is fast. Modeling correction as Poisson-arriving executable arbitrage opportunities, the expected residual distortion decays exponentially at rate ρc during the closed stage and at a higher rate ρp after reveal. The expected distortion entering a funding window is multiplied by the response factor g(δ; ρc, ρp, W), which is strictly increasing in δ whenever ρp > ρc (Prop 2). For an attacker with endowed receiving notional, the expected attack value is V0 = m²N₀²τ²g²/(4a) (Prop 3). E

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on correction opportunities arriving as independent Poisson processes with constant intensity and no fixed execution cost, so that expected distortion decays exponentially; the paper's Remark 1 notes that with fixed costs the closed-form response factor need not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, an encrypted mempool can raise the expected value of self-authored manipulation even when decryption is cryptographically fast, because the economic reaction gap depends on batch admission rules, not just decryption overhead.
  • Applications that expose a post-reveal correction stage (a reveal-then-clear subround or a protocol-native arbitrage module) can reduce the response factor g and restore some of the security that encryption removes.
  • The two-ledger structure implies that protecting only the signal ledger or only the tax base ledger leaves a channel open: an eligibility lag alone does not stop endowed notional, and a correction buffer alone does not stop timestamp entrants.
  • Longer funding windows do not automatically neutralize the gap; in the fast-correction regime the relevant quantity is approximately ρδ, so even a small δ/W can matter materially.
  • Dollar security limits (caps on receiving notional) reduce attack value quadratically in N₀ and can substitute for part of the correction buffer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct empirical test of the model would be to measure the time from plaintext reveal to the first successful corrective transaction in an existing commit-then-reveal mempool, and to check whether the residual distortion decays exponentially; if fixed costs create thresholds, the response factor may be state-dependent and the closed-form comparative statics may fail.
  • The two-ledger decomposition likely extends beyond perpetual funding to any state-contingent transfer with a measurable signal and an open-interest base, such as liquidation bonuses, AMM fee adjustments, or oracle-based rebates—treating each as a local reaction-gap problem.
  • The buffer bound in Theorem 2 requires a lower bound on the post-reveal correction rate ρ; in practice a protocol would need to estimate this from on-chain data or adopt a conservative minimum, which could make the required buffer larger than the idealized formula suggests.
  • If real correction markets exhibit strategic substitutes (correctors waiting for others to act), the Poisson independence assumption may understate the reaction gap's effect; a game-theoretic extension could yield even larger amplification.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether encrypted mempools can increase, rather than decrease, certain forms of economic manipulation. It focuses on self-authored state manipulation in perpetual futures funding. In a commit-then-reveal batch, adaptive corrective transactions cannot be admitted after the plaintext is revealed (Lemma 1), creating a reaction gap δ. Corrective arbitrage is modeled as Poisson opportunities with linear impact and quadratic inventory cost, yielding constant correction rates ρc (closed stage) and ρp (public) and an expected distortion multiplier g (Eq. 16). The paper derives a response factor monotonic in δ, an optimal attack value V0 for endowed notional (Prop. 3), a two-ledger security index Γ combining attacker blindness, correction shielding, and capitalization shielding (Thm. 1), an exact condition under which encryption is harmful (Eq. 38), and a 'reveal, correct, measure, then pay' rule with an explicit buffer bound (Thm. 2).

Significance. If the model is taken at face value, this is a valuable cross-layer composition result: it identifies a mechanism by which encryption can hurt market integrity even with negligible cryptographic overhead, and it gives a crisp decomposition of the effect into three channels. The internal derivations are self-contained and check out: Proposition 1's Poisson thinning, Proposition 2's derivative, Proposition 3's quadratic maximum, Theorem 1's Hessian and closed forms, and Theorem 2's buffer bound are algebraically consistent with the stated primitives. The paper is also honest about some limitations, notably Remark 1. The main caveat is that the quantitative conclusions are tied to the constant-rate, no-fixed-cost correction model; this limits the applicability of the exact thresholds and bounds.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1, Remark 1; Eqs. (13), (16), (17), (38), (40)] The load-bearing assumption is that correction opportunities arrive as independent Poisson processes with constant intensity and no fixed execution cost, giving E[Z_t]=y e^{-ρ_s t}. Remark 1 concedes that with fixed costs f_i>0 the rate becomes state-dependent, ρ_s(Z)=Σ_i ν_i α_i,s θ_i 1{|Z|≥√(2f_i(ℓ+k_i))}, and that 'the closed form response factor below need not survive.' Since the response factor g in (16) enters Proposition 2's monotonicity, Proposition 3's V0, the threshold (38), and Theorem 2's buffer bound (40), all exact quantitative claims are restricted to the no-fixed-cost region. The paper does not provide a robustness check or a version of Proposition 2/Theorem 2 under the pointwise rate dominance ρp(Z)≥ρc(Z). Please either extend the analysis (e.g., bounds on g that survive fixed costs) or explicitly state in the abstract and conclusion that the exact thresholds are model-s
  2. [§6.2, Theorem 2] The buffer bound (40) is derived from the same exponential-decay assumption. The theorem assumes 'conditional mean distortion after reveal decays at exponential rate at least ρ,' but under the fixed-cost model (13) this assumption fails when the residual is below the threshold of every corrector. Thus (40) is not a robust dollar bound for the general correction sector described in Section 4.1. The proof invokes Proposition 3, which itself depends on g being the constant-rate response factor. Please either add a robustness version that assumes a uniform decay rate as a separate condition, making the limitation explicit, or state that Theorem 2 is a model-level bound that does not cover fixed-cost correction sectors.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The indicator notation 1{|Z|≥...} is typeset without a separating space; since the model works on the favorable sign branch Z≥0, it may be clearer to write 1{Z≥...} throughout.
  2. [§2, reference [29]] The name 'V0L VER' in the text should be 'VOLVER' to match the referenced paper and avoid confusing readers.
  3. [§3.1 and abstract] δ is called the 'first adaptive reaction gap' in the abstract but defined in §3.1 as 'the time from the attack's state effect to the first execution opportunity.' If δ is a duration, call it a gap; if an instant, call it a time. Harmonize the terminology.
  4. [Figure 1] The y-axis label g(δ)/g(0) can be confused with the ratio in Eq. (19). For the ρc=0 case, consider labeling it R_g as in Eq. (22), or add a clarifying note in the caption.
  5. [§7, Table 2] The synthetic nature of the numerical illustrations is stated in the text, but a brief caption note such as 'dimensionless model parameters, not venue calibrations' would help prevent readers from interpreting the numbers as empirical estimates.
  6. [§7, final paragraph of 'Long funding windows'] Minor typo: 'disappear mechanically .A small' should read 'disappear mechanically. A small'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; all quantitative results are explicit algebraic consequences of the stated model, with no fitted predictions and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

Walked the derivation chain. Lemma 1 is a direct scheduling fact (a transaction computed after admission cannot enter the already-fixed batch), not a conclusion imported from the target. Proposition 1 derives the exponential correction rates ρ_s = Σ_i ν_i α_{i,s} ℓ/(ℓ+k_i) from Poisson thinning of opportunity arrivals; the comparison ρ_p ≥ ρ_c follows termwise from α_{i,p} ≥ α_{i,c}, i.e. from the model's actionability ordering, not from a parameter fitted to the result. The response factor g, the attack values V0, the tax-base index Γ, and the buffer bound (40) are explicit closed-form algebraic consequences of (5), (16), (25), (33), and (40). No constants are calibrated to reproduce the 'privacy can hurt' threshold; Eq. (38) is a condition on free parameters (m_enc/m_pub, g ratios, ζ), and the paper explicitly labels its numbers as 'a model illustration rather than a venue estimate.' There are no load-bearing self-citations: all references are to external prior work, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz from the author's own papers is invoked. Remark 1 does flag the fixed-cost limitation: for f_i>0 the rate becomes state-dependent and 'the closed form response factor below need not survive.' That is a stated modeling boundary, not a circular reduction — the paper openly identifies where its equations stop applying rather than defining the conclusion into the assumptions. No step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims are parametric theorems; the price of admission is a set of modeling choices (Poisson correction, quadratic costs, linear capitalization, risk-neutral attacker). These are transparently stated and are primitives rather than fitted values, but they are not grounded in venue data. The model does not postulate new physical mechanisms; the reaction gap and security index are analytic constructs.

free parameters (7)
  • m (targeting ability retained under privacy)
    Central to the harm threshold; the paper gives synthetic critical ratios (e.g. 0.556) but no empirical estimate.
  • a (distortion creation cost coefficient)
    All-in cost of creating the state distortion; enters every attack value; no calibration.
  • b (created notional cost coefficient)
    Cost of created receiving notional; determines Γ and tax-base scalability; uncalibrated.
  • τ (signal-to-payment pass-through)
    Scales funding transfer; venue-specific; implied to be 1 in illustrations.
  • ρc, ρp (closed-stage and public correction rates)
    Derived from νiαi,sθi but treated as free comparative statics; the qualitative result requires ρp>ρc.
  • ζ (capitalization coefficient, from v, κ_M, κ_L)
    ζ=vκM/(vκM+κL); figures use ζpub=0.8, ζenc=0 as illustrations.
  • δ and W (reaction gap and funding window)
    Time parameters; δ is the key reaction gap; W is protocol window; no real venue values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Commit-then-reveal batch fixes its admission and order before plaintext is revealed, with no post-commit admission and no precommitted contingent program (Lemma 1).
    Defines the protocol class under study; if a protocol allows precommitted intents, the ordering barrier does not bind.
  • domain assumption Perpetual funding transfer is linear in a measured premium and scales with receiving open interest (local transfer structure, Section 3.2).
    The paper uses only this local structure; non-linear or exogenous signals are out of scope.
  • domain assumption Correction opportunities arrive as independent Poisson processes with constant intensities and no fixed costs (Section 4.1).
    Yields exact exponential decay and the closed form g; Remark 1 notes the closed form may fail with fixed costs.
  • domain assumption Attacker is risk-neutral and works on one favorable sign branch inside any rate cap (Section 3.2).
    Simplifies to concave quadratic; caps would bound scale but change comparative statics at the boundary.
  • domain assumption Entry market clears with linear demand/supply, so e*=ζ p (Section 5.1).
    Simple capitalization model; other market microstructures would change ζ.
  • standard math Standard background math: Poisson probability generating functions, concavity of quadratics, differentiation of A(ρ,s).
    Unproved background used in Propositions 1-3 and Theorems 1-2.
invented entities (2)
  • Reaction gap δ
    purpose: Quantifies the interval after a state-changing concealed transaction executes before an adaptive corrective transaction can be included; is the driver of the amplification factor g.
    A model construct defined as a time interval; the paper treats it as a parameter and does not measure it in a live system.
  • Local security index Γ
    purpose: One-number summary of two-ledger attack scalability; decomposes encryption's effect into attacker blindness, correction shielding, and capitalization shielding.
    Defined as q²/(4ab) from model primitives; no independent empirical calibration is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reveal, Correct, Then Pay: Encrypted Mempools and Perpetual Funding Security." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWC4QIID

@misc{pith2026260713832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reveal, Correct, Then Pay: Encrypted Mempools and Perpetual Funding Security},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWC4QIID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13832}
}
read the original abstract

Encrypted mempools are designed to hide transaction contents until execution order is fixed, preventing many victim dependent forms of maximal extractable value. This paper studies a different class of attack in the form of self-authored state manipulation, in which the attacker knows its own transaction and owns a downstream claim on the state that transaction changes. Perpetual futures funding is a canonical example. The funding signal determines a transfer rate, while receiving side open interest is the transfer base. In a commit then reveal mempool, an adaptive corrective transaction cannot enter the already committed batch. Privacy can therefore create an economic reaction gap even when cryptographic decryption overhead is negligible. We microfound correction through executable arbitrage opportunities. Correctors choose order size against local price impact and inventory cost, while the protocol information schedule determines which opportunities are actionable. The ordering barrier removes ordinary adaptive searchers from the closed stage. It therefore yields a closed stage correction rate below the adaptive correction rate whenever positive adaptive capacity becomes available after reveal. The distortion entering a funding window is multiplied by an explicit response factor. Transaction privacy can also reduce capitalization of predictable funding into entry prices, producing a second amplification channel. The resulting local security index separates attacker blindness, correction shielding, and capitalization shielding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reaction gap amplification with no correction during the closed stage. A short gap has a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Critical attacker information retention for Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Perpetual futures pricing

    Damien Ackerer, Julien Hugonnier, and Urban Jermann. Perpetual futures pricing. arXiv:2310.11771, revised 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    A primer on perpetuals

    Guillermo Angeris, Tarun Chitra, Alex Evans, and Matthew Lorig. A primer on perpetuals. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 14(1):SC17–SC30, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Clockwork finance: Automated analysis of economic security in smart contracts

    Kushal Babel, Philip Daian, Mahimna Kelkar, and Ari Juels. Clockwork finance: Automated analysis of economic security in smart contracts. In2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 2499–2516. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Ferveo: Threshold decryption for mempool privacy in BFT networks

    Joseph Bebel and Dev Ojha. Ferveo: Threshold decryption for mempool privacy in BFT networks. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2022/898, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Accountability for misbehavior in threshold decryption via threshold traitor tracing

    Dan Boneh, Aditi Partap, and Lior Rotem. Accountability for misbehavior in threshold decryption via threshold traitor tracing. InAdvances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2024, volume 14926 ofLNCS, pages 317–351. Springer, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    BEAST-MEV: Batched threshold encryption with silent setup for MEV prevention

    Jan Bormet, Arka Rai Choudhuri, Sebastian Faust, Sanjam Garg, Hussien Othman, Guru-Vamsi Policharla, Ziyan Qu, and Mingyuan Wang. BEAST-MEV: Batched threshold encryption with silent setup for MEV prevention. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2025/1419, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    BEAT-MEV: Epochless approach to batched threshold encryption for MEV prevention

    Jan Bormet, Sebastian Faust, Hussien Othman, and Ziyan Qu. BEAT-MEV: Epochless approach to batched threshold encryption for MEV prevention. In34th USENIX Security Symposium, pages 3457–3476, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(4):1547–1621, 2015

    Eric Budish, Peter Cramton, and John Shim. The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(4):1547–1621, 2015. 15

    2015

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Encryption to the future: A paradigm for sending secret messages to future anonymous committees

    Matteo Campanelli, Bernardo David, Hamidreza Khoshakhlagh, Anders Konring, and Jesper Buus Nielsen. Encryption to the future: A paradigm for sending secret messages to future anonymous committees. InAdvances in Cryptology – ASIACRYPT 2022, pages 151–180. Springer, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Batching trades on automated market makers

    Andrea Canidio and Robin Fritsch. Batching trades on automated market makers. In5th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, volume 282 ofLIPIcs, pages 24:1–24:17, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Mempool privacy via batched threshold encryption: Attacks and defenses

    Arka Rai Choudhuri, Sanjam Garg, Julien Piet, and Guru-Vamsi Policharla. Mempool privacy via batched threshold encryption: Attacks and defenses. In33rd USENIX Security Symposium, pages 3513–3529, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Practical mempool privacy via one-time setup batched threshold encryption

    Arka Rai Choudhuri, Sanjam Garg, Guru-Vamsi Policharla, and Mingyuan Wang. Practical mempool privacy via one-time setup batched threshold encryption. In34th USENIX Security Symposium, pages 3477–3495, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning, transaction reordering, and consensus instability in decentralized exchanges

    Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Bentov, Lorenz Breidenbach, and Ari Juels. Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning, transaction reordering, and consensus instability in decentralized exchanges. In2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages ...

    2020

  6. [14]

    McFly: Verifiable encryp- tion to the future made practical

    Nico D¨ ottling, Lucjan Hanzlik, Bernardo Magri, and Stella Wohnig. McFly: Verifiable encryp- tion to the future made practical. InFinancial Cryptography and Data Security, volume 13950 ofLNCS, pages 252–269. Springer, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    TrX: Encrypted mempools in high performance BFT protocols

    Rex Fernando, Guru-Vamsi Policharla, Andrei Tonkikh, and Zhuolun Xiang. TrX: Encrypted mempools in high performance BFT protocols. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2025/2032, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    The economics of automated market makers

    Robin Fritsch, Samuel K¨ aser, and Roger Wattenhofer. The economics of automated market makers. InProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, pages 102–110. ACM, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Threshold encryption with silent setup

    Sanjam Garg, Dimitris Kolonelos, Guru-Vamsi Policharla, and Mingyuan Wang. Threshold encryption with silent setup. InAdvances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2024, volume 14926 of LNCS, pages 352–386. Springer, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Pai, and Max Resnick

    Tivas Gupta, Mallesh M. Pai, and Max Resnick. The centralizing effects of private order flow on proposer-builder separation. In5th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, volume 282 ofLIPIcs, pages 20:1–20:15, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Fundamentals of perpetual futures

    Songrun He, Asaf Manela, Omri Ross, and Victor von Wachter. Fundamentals of perpetual futures. arXiv:2212.06888, revised 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    SoK: Preventing transaction reordering manipulations in decentralized finance

    Lioba Heimbach and Roger Wattenhofer. SoK: Preventing transaction reordering manipulations in decentralized finance. InProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, pages 47–60. ACM, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Le, Philipp Jovanovic, and George Danezis

    Alireza Kavousi, Duc V. Le, Philipp Jovanovic, and George Danezis. BlindPerm: Efficient MEV mitigation with an encrypted mempool and permutation. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2023/1061, revised 2025. 16

    2023

  14. [22]

    Order-fair consensus in the permissionless setting

    Mahimna Kelkar, Soubhik Deb, and Sreeram Kannan. Order-fair consensus in the permissionless setting. InProceedings of the 9th ACM ASIA Public-Key Cryptography Workshop, pages 3–14. ACM, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Themis: Fast, strong order-fairness in Byzantine consensus

    Mahimna Kelkar, Soubhik Deb, Sishan Long, Ari Juels, and Sreeram Kannan. Themis: Fast, strong order-fairness in Byzantine consensus. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 475–489. ACM, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Order-fairness for Byzantine consensus

    Mahimna Kelkar, Fan Zhang, Steven Goldfeder, and Ari Juels. Order-fairness for Byzantine consensus. InAdvances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2020, pages 451–480. Springer, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Wendy, the good little fairness widget: Achieving order fairness for blockchains

    Klaus Kursawe. Wendy, the good little fairness widget: Achieving order fairness for blockchains. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, pages 25–36. ACM, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Maximal extractable value protection on a DAG

    Dahlia Malkhi and Pawel Szalachowski. Maximal extractable value protection on a DAG. In 4th International Conference on Blockchain Economics, Security and Protocols, volume 110 of OASIcs, pages 6:1–6:17, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Searcher competition in block building

    Akaki Mamageishvili, Christoph Schlegel, and Benny Sudakov. Searcher competition in block building. In6th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, volume 316 ofLIPIcs, pages 21:1–21:12, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    A large scale study of the Ethereum arbitrage ecosystem

    Robert McLaughlin, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. A large scale study of the Ethereum arbitrage ecosystem. In32nd USENIX Security Symposium, pages 3295–3312, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    An AMM minimizing user-level extractable value and loss-versus-rebalancing

    Conor McMenamin and Vanesa Daza. An AMM minimizing user-level extractable value and loss-versus-rebalancing. arXiv:2301.13599, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    FairBlock: Preventing blockchain front-running with minimal overheads

    Peyman Momeni, Sergey Gorbunov, and Bohan Zhang. FairBlock: Preventing blockchain front-running with minimal overheads. InSecurity and Privacy in Communication Networks, pages 250–271. Springer, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    The blockchain imitation game

    Kaihua Qin, Stefanos Chaliasos, Liyi Zhou, Benjamin Livshits, Dawn Song, and Arthur Gervais. The blockchain imitation game. In32nd USENIX Security Symposium, pages 3961–3978, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Quantifying blockchain extractable value: How dark is the forest? In2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 198–214

    Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, and Arthur Gervais. Quantifying blockchain extractable value: How dark is the forest? In2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 198–214. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Attacking the DeFi ecosystem with flash loans for fun and profit

    Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, Benjamin Livshits, and Arthur Gervais. Attacking the DeFi ecosystem with flash loans for fun and profit. InFinancial Cryptography and Data Security, volume 12674 ofLNCS, pages 3–32. Springer, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Mempool privacy: An economic perspective

    Antoine Rondelet and Quintus Kilbourn. Mempool privacy: An economic perspective. arXiv:2307.10878, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Werner, Daniel Perez, Lewis Gudgeon, Ariah Klages-Mundt, Dominik Harz, and William J

    Sam M. Werner, Daniel Perez, Lewis Gudgeon, Ariah Klages-Mundt, Dominik Harz, and William J. Knottenbelt. SoK: Decentralized finance. InProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, pages 30–46. ACM, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    The latency price of threshold cryptosystem in blockchains

    Zhuolun Xiang, Sourav Das, Zekun Li, Zhoujun Ma, and Alexander Spiegelman. The latency price of threshold cryptosystem in blockchains. arXiv:2407.12172, 2024. 17

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    SoK: MEV countermeasures: Theory and practice

    Sen Yang, Fan Zhang, Ken Huang, Xi Chen, Youwei Yang, and Feng Zhu. SoK: MEV countermeasures: Theory and practice. arXiv:2212.05111, revised 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    F3B: A low-overhead blockchain architecture with per-transaction front- running protection

    Haoqian Zhang, Louis-Henri Merino, Ziyan Qu, Mahsa Bastankhah, Vero Estrada-Gali˜ nanes, and Bryan Ford. F3B: A low-overhead blockchain architecture with per-transaction front- running protection. In5th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, volume 282 of LIPIcs, pa...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.