The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering

Bruce Mizrach; Nathaniel Yoshida

arxiv: 2508.04003 · v2 · pith:MJ7CJZ5Knew · submitted 2025-08-06 · 💱 q-fin.TR

The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering

Bruce Mizrach , Nathaniel Yoshida This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 23:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💱 q-fin.TR

keywords MEVEthereumtransaction reorderingsandwich attacksblock buildersgas feeswillingness to payvalidator payments

0 comments

The pith

Two dominant MEV builders on Ethereum would pay nearly $14 million per month to keep their transactions in the first quartile of each block.

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

The paper quantifies the economic value that major block builders place on controlling the order of transactions in Ethereum blocks. It finds that these builders, who produce most blocks, have a high willingness to pay to secure advantageous positions that enable profitable reordering. This matters because such practices can harm other network participants through front-running like sandwich attacks. The estimates are derived from observed patterns in reordering and attack frequencies.

Core claim

The authors estimate that the two leading MEV builders would pay in aggregate nearly $14 million per month to ensure they remained in the first quartile of the block. Sandwich attacks average more than one per block, and the gas fees on these transactions account for nearly 15% of the MEV payments to the validator. These attacks exhibit especially large marginal effects and skew the overall distribution of outcomes.

What carries the argument

The marginal effects estimation of re-ordering positions and sandwich attacks to derive willingness-to-pay for quartile positions in the block.

If this is right

MEV builders have strong incentives to maintain early positions due to high valuation.
Sandwich attacks are frequent, occurring more than once per block on average.
Gas fees from attacked transactions contribute significantly to validator MEV rewards.
Reforms such as gas fee priority or private transaction pools could reduce harmful effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the valuation holds, it highlights the need for changes in block building to protect users.
The concentration in two builders could amplify the impact of any policy changes.
Similar analyses on other networks might reveal comparable willingness-to-pay patterns.
Implementing reforms might lower the estimated monthly payment figure over time.

Load-bearing premise

Observed re-ordering and sandwich attack patterns directly reflect builders' valuation of quartile position without major confounding from unmodeled market conditions or selection effects.

What would settle it

A natural experiment from a major Ethereum protocol change that alters block ordering incentives, followed by measurement of shifts in re-ordering frequency and builder behavior.

read the original abstract

Two MEV builders now produce nearly 80\% of Ethereum blocks. Block builders have the ability to reorder transactions on the blockchain in a way that can be harmful to participants. We estimate they would pay in the aggregate nearly \$14 million per month to ensure that they remained in the first quartile of the block. Sandwich attacks, in which a transaction is front-run, are frequent, averaging more than one per block. Gas fees on these transactions pay for nearly 15\% of the MEV payments to the validator. These attacks have especially large marginal effects and skew the distribution. Reforms such as gas fee priority or private transaction pools might be helpful.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The $14M monthly WTP figure and 15% gas fee share are the concrete new numbers, but they rest on an untested mapping from observed re-ordering to builder valuations.

read the letter

The main things to take away are the specific estimates: builders would pay nearly $14 million a month in aggregate to stay in the first quartile of blocks, and gas fees from sandwich attacks cover about 15% of MEV payments to validators. The paper also notes two builders now handle 80% of Ethereum blocks and that sandwiches happen more than once per block on average, with large marginal effects that skew things. It closes with suggestions for gas fee priority or private pools as possible fixes. These dollar figures and the gas fee breakdown are the freshest parts. Earlier MEV work has already covered builder concentration and sandwich attacks, so the contribution is mainly in scaling them up with these aggregates. The paper does a decent job laying out the economic stakes in transaction ordering for people who care about Ethereum design and user costs. The soft spot is the step from observed re-ordering and attack patterns to the willingness-to-pay numbers. That step assumes the patterns directly reflect builders' marginal valuations without big biases from market conditions, volatility, or selection into which blocks get built. The abstract gives no data sources, model details, fixed effects, or robustness checks, so it is difficult to judge whether the $14 million holds once those factors are accounted for. If the full paper has on-chain data and a clear identification approach that addresses the confounders, the estimates become more usable. This is aimed at readers who follow MEV, blockchain economics, or Ethereum upgrades. Someone working on transaction ordering or network reforms could pull useful context from the numbers, though they would want to check the methods section first. I would send it to peer review. The topic is relevant and the claims are specific enough that referees could usefully press on the data and identification.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper examines MEV transaction re-ordering on the Ethereum network. It claims that two MEV builders now produce nearly 80% of blocks, estimates that these builders would pay nearly $14 million per month in aggregate to remain in the first quartile of the block, reports that sandwich attacks average more than one per block with gas fees on these transactions accounting for nearly 15% of MEV payments to validators, notes that such attacks have especially large marginal effects, and suggests that reforms such as gas fee priority or private transaction pools might mitigate harms.

Significance. If the estimates prove robust, the work quantifies the economic incentives driving transaction re-ordering and the prevalence of sandwich attacks, providing concrete figures on builders' willingness-to-pay for favorable block positions. This could contribute to the literature on MEV extraction and inform protocol-level or regulatory discussions on blockchain transaction fairness.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central numerical claims, including the $14 million per month aggregate willingness-to-pay to remain in the first quartile and the statement that gas fees pay for nearly 15% of MEV payments, are presented without any description of the underlying data sources, statistical model, sample period, robustness checks, or standard errors. This omission makes it impossible to assess whether the observed re-ordering and sandwich patterns support the reported marginal effects.
[Abstract] Abstract / marginal effects estimation: The willingness-to-pay and marginal-effect estimates rest on the assumption that observed transaction re-ordering and sandwich-attack frequencies directly reveal builders' valuations of quartile position. No identification strategy is described to address confounding from selection effects (e.g., which builders win which blocks) or time-varying market conditions such as volatility, liquidity, or gas prices; without fixed effects, instruments, or matching, the coefficients may be biased.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central numerical claims, including the $14 million per month aggregate willingness-to-pay to remain in the first quartile and the statement that gas fees pay for nearly 15% of MEV payments, are presented without any description of the underlying data sources, statistical model, sample period, robustness checks, or standard errors. This omission makes it impossible to assess whether the observed re-ordering and sandwich patterns support the reported marginal effects.

Authors: We agree that the abstract's brevity limits the information provided on data and methods. The full manuscript details the use of public Ethereum blockchain data on block production, transaction ordering, and sandwich attacks over the recent sample period, along with the regression specifications for marginal effects and willingness-to-pay. Robustness checks and standard errors appear in the main text and appendix. In the revision we will expand the abstract with a concise clause noting the data source (Ethereum mainnet blocks) and the quartile-position regression framework, while retaining full technical details in the body of the paper. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract / marginal effects estimation: The willingness-to-pay and marginal-effect estimates rest on the assumption that observed transaction re-ordering and sandwich-attack frequencies directly reveal builders' valuations of quartile position. No identification strategy is described to address confounding from selection effects (e.g., which builders win which blocks) or time-varying market conditions such as volatility, liquidity, or gas prices; without fixed effects, instruments, or matching, the coefficients may be biased.

Authors: The estimates exploit both cross-builder and within-builder variation in realized block positions together with observed MEV activity. The methodology section includes controls for gas prices and broad market conditions; we also report specifications with builder fixed effects. We acknowledge that a fully exogenous source of variation in quartile position is difficult to obtain in this setting and that selection into block production may remain. In the revision we will add an explicit subsection discussing identification assumptions, the limits of the current controls, and the direction of potential bias, along with additional robustness tables that vary the set of covariates and sample restrictions. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in empirical estimation chain

full rationale

The paper estimates marginal effects and aggregate willingness-to-pay from observed Ethereum block re-ordering and sandwich attack data. No load-bearing derivations, self-definitions, or fitted inputs renamed as predictions appear in the provided abstract or description. The central claims rest on external network observations and statistical modeling rather than reducing to inputs by construction or self-citation chains. This is a standard empirical setup with no evidence of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are explicitly described or identifiable from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5627 in / 1085 out tokens · 60932 ms · 2026-05-21T23:57:28.151912+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We estimate they would pay in the aggregate nearly $14 million per month to ensure that they remained in the first quartile of the block... ordered probit model... Marginal Effecti = ∂F/∂xi
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Sandwich attacks... averaging more than one per block... gas fees... pay for nearly 15% of the MEV payments

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

The Viability of Blockchain Markets under Discrete Clearing and Paid Priority
q-fin.GN 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Blockchain markets with discrete clearing and paid priority fees experience endogenous trader selection that biases prices, impairs liquidity, and risks market shutdown as competition rises.