Ha, Flash Boys 2.0 was from 2019. This blog post is literally "I read a thing from three years ago and have lost faith in something that I never believed in in the first place".
As someone who knows and has worked with all the people involved with the write-ups referenced in this blog post, I can pretty confidently say that the author is way way behind here. There have been some insane advancements in recent years that would blow his mind.
MEV harvesting is actually an insanely fascinating field of study, and it comes down to consensus in a world where information can only move as fast as the speed of light.
Front-running is a general problem where, if you can find out that someone wants to buy something, and can buy it first and sell it to the person who actually want it at a premium. This gets really interesting in the blockchain space, because Miners (Validators) decide the order of transactions, and in some cases validators can be incentivized/coerced to move around transactions in a way that might be beneficial for certain users. This is what is referred to as "Miner Extractable Value".
Yes it's a problem, yes there are mitigations, yes there are fun and weird ways around those mitigations, etc.
This is what happens when people are incentivized to take a really good hard look at what global consensus really means. At a high level, most users don't really need to know or care about any of it, but it exists as a parasitic force constantly extracting value from the network. Still, IMO the parasites that feed off MEV are at a significant disadvantage compared with those who feed of legacy financial networks (for more on that, you can read the actual Flash Boys book https://www.amazon.com/Flash-Boys-Wall-Street-Revolt/dp/0393...).
> As someone who knows and has worked with all the people involved with the write-ups referenced in this blog post, I can pretty confidently say that the author is way way behind here. There have been some insane advancements in recent years that would blow his mind.
Looks like they link a lot of stuff from the past month.
Examples of links in the article from within the last month:
>it comes down to consensus in a world where information can only move as fast as the speed of light.
Yes and now you're circling back around to the usual problems with algorithmic high-frequency trading talked about in Flash Boys, which has nothing to do with blockchains or cryptocurrency. Unless you can cite some "insane advancement" in consensus algorithms that solves these problems everywhere then I doubt there is much more that can be said here. Because AFAICT everything you're talking about is just piling more mitigations and edge cases on top of an existing consensus algorithm. That work is important and it needs to happen on any distributed system. It's not some kind of world-changing thing, it's just necessary maintenance (and cost) to keep the system going.
>This is what happens when people are incentivized to take a really good hard look at what global consensus really means.
They were already incentivized to do that without blockchains. This sentence could be more accurately stated: This is what happens when people deploy an experimental solution that claims to solve global consensus, but as we find out from experience that it actually doesn't, in some ways it actually makes it worse, and generally speaking those problems are still just as hard as ever.
There are actually some insane advancements coming out in the form of zero-knowledge order books, Dusk Network being the most well known. It essentially removes frontrunning as a possibility because buyers and sellers are matched using ZK proofs, but are not able to see any orders before they are matched.
The entire story of crypto is that it’s a somewhat volatile new form of security (I know I said it) that has two disadvantages vs. traditional securities.
1) It lacks the sophisticated financial tools and derivatives that have been developed over the past century
2) It does not have enough volume to keep up with the new sources of arbitrage that come with every new DeFi product (looking at you DEX’s and synthetic stocks!).
Every time a crypto asset “solves” one of those two problems (almost always incompletely) the crypto verse acts like they’ve proven p=np.
Dark pools rely on the operator being trustworthy. Distributed encryption relies only on cryptography and the validator set being too large, and costly to join, to allow cooption, and both assumptions are highly trustworthy.
Even if this is true, it is still just a dark pool, which is trivial to game. One ping is all you need.
I think the race to put order books on blockchain is misguided. Constant-product DEXes can offer way less gameable best-execution by simply trading more cautiously for the swapper.
Problem is, on Ethereum, gas makes it too expensive _not to trade_ once you get to the blockchain. MEV is a problem that can be managed effectively if the blockchain is scalable (thus avoiding gas problems).
>>Even if this is true, it is still just a dark pool, which is trivial to game. One ping is all you need.
If that's true, then you're right. Assuming an effective decentralized dark pool, that is not vulnerable to side-channel attacks, is possible, it is preferrable to the centralized variety that traditional finance uses.
> it is preferrable to the centralized variety that traditional finance uses
Citation needed :) . Seriously, crypto needs to do better than just assert that ownerless decentralization is instantly better. Traditional dark pools work just fine once you accept that with the right model, a single fill can tell you loads about the order book.
> What is a constant-product DEX?
That's the model used by Uniswap and almost every other major swap-based DEX. MEV as described in the TFA is preying largely on these DEXes and people conclude that it's the fault of the constant product model, or of being transparent. It's not: it's the fault of gas making it impossibly expensive to use the most basic tool in execution, splitting your order into smaller trades and applying logic to when you choose to trade.
I'm actually kind of a constant-product maximalist because it shows you CAN have a public, transparent market, which is something genuinely new to finance. IMO the last thing the world needs are old-fashioned order books and dark pools on blockchain.
On the basis that the cryptography remaining unbroken and the protocol-genetated incentives creating a validator set too large to coopt are more reliable trust assumptions than the trusted third party controlling a traditional dark pool being competent and trustworthy.
>>It's not: it's the fault of gas making it impossibly expensive to use the most basic tool in execution, splitting your order into smaller trades and applying logic to when you choose to trade.
The real question here is not whether one can design a market that prevents bad behavior, but whether any of the major players will ever bother using it. If the “little guy” is always on the losing end of market shenanigans, then market makers will never have an incentive to move their liquidity to the “fair” market.
The "little guy" is always at a disadvantage in capitalism (or small business, or mom & pop shop)
I suspect there's a disconnect between people talking about democratization of access, and people pointing out crypto doesn't actually make things fair.
Crypto doesn't make things fair for the little guy.
It does add additional transparency to financial markets though, as well as things like open, verifiable, non-custodial, programmable financial contracts (as long as all the inputs can be verified reliably on-chain)
This gives people equal access (with some limitations on what that means)
>It does add additional transparency to financial markets though
No, not really. This comment is more crypto myth-building. There's nothing technical about blockchains that adds transparency. Any company that wants to publish all its financial statements publicly can technically already do so and could always do so. They don't for many reasons, the most important ones being that customers overwhelmingly want financial privacy, and financial companies are required by law to provide a certain level of privacy for customers.
No, smart contracts are technically not "contracts" in the legal sense and are also not "non-custodial" because they require middlemen to run the blockchain. There is also nothing more open or verifiable about smart contracts compared to any other program. They're just programs. I absolutely hate that they used the name "smart contract" for this because it's so misleading.
>as long as all the inputs can be verified reliably on-chain
This will never happen because the only reason they're useful is because they take inputs from off the chain. The marketing is that users will be able to actually use these things to perform services. Of course that is self-contradictory because of the previous reason.
>This gives people equal access
No it doesn't, because only a small fraction of people are going to become smart contract programmers or are going to become skilled in auditing smart contracts. You might as well say all finance gives people equal access because anyone can become a CPA.
1. Saying that transparency isn’t desired does not refuse his point. Not only that but the off topic declaration where you imply privacy is impossible on blockchain is incorrect.
2. Miners and block verifiers are not middle men. They have negligible control where as a middle man has full control.
3. The verifiably of smart contracts is not exceptional for its own sake, but for the fact that it prevents cheating in a system where cheating is heavily incentivized.
4. Auditing smart contracts will generally be much easier than auditing EVM bytecode. Ethereum isn’t the only game in town and the most sophisticated layer 1 smart contract languages converge toward functional, locked down languages which lend themselves to automated and manual auditing. The same way open source increases user security even though 99% percent of users won’t build or read its code.
You are so off base on all of your point I seriously doubt you don’t have an emotional stake in your position. Perhaps the classic “I’m a smart tech person yet I missed out, so really it’s always been bad and I’ll be proven right someday,” syndrome. You know other people that missed out simply developed some grace, and others still that identified problems went to work on them rather than pretending they were unsolvable.
The dogmatic crypto skeptic is as bad as the crypto shill.
>Saying that transparency isn’t desired does not refuse his point.
That's not what I was saying, at all.
>Not only that but the off topic declaration where you imply privacy is impossible on blockchain is incorrect.
Please do not argue straw men. I never implied privacy is impossible. I know about things like privacycoins. Some have even been mentioned in this comment chain. My actual implication here is that blockchains cannot promise either privacy or transparency. Those who want to use mixers and privacycoins will do so and you won't have any transparency into their activities. Those who want to insist you use KYC exchanges and traceable coins will do so and you won't be able to have privacy there if you want to transact with them. So basically, an ordinary person has no control over how much transparency or privacy there actually is on the network. Unless you have an outsized level of control on the network (and therefore the network is not decentralized) then you're completely dependent on the other more powerful party. So basically blockchains are providing nothing of value here compared to an ordinary financial service.
>2. Miners and block verifiers are not middle men. They have negligible control where as a middle man has full control.
No, they have full control. Like actual full control over the network. Individually they don't, but as a whole they do, that's literally how the network functions.
>3. The verifiably of smart contracts is not exceptional for its own sake, but for the fact that it prevents cheating in a system where cheating is heavily incentivized.
No, this is wrong. Verifying a smart contract does not prevent cheating. Even if you verify that the smart contract technically has no bugs, it could still do the wrong thing, or the other party could just commit good old-fashioned normal fraud and never hold up their end of the bargain. Smart contracts are not actually smart not are they contracts.
>4. Auditing smart contracts will generally be much easier than auditing EVM bytecode. Ethereum isn’t the only game in town and the most sophisticated layer 1 smart contract languages converge toward functional, locked down languages which lend themselves to automated and manual auditing. The same way open source increases user security even though 99% percent of users won’t build or read its code.
This whole paragraph is based on a falsehood. Open source does not increase user security, go look at the recent log4j disaster. What actually increases security is having security engineers being paid to look for and fix security issues, the cost of which is not significantly different between open or closed source. I have seen no reason to believe it's any different in smart contracts. Functional languages can be good for proving certain types of code with fixed requirement, but the same thing also applies to any of that category of software, financial or otherwise. It's again not related to blockchains at all.
>I seriously doubt you don’t have an emotional stake in your position. Perhaps the classic “I’m a smart tech person yet I missed out, so really it’s always been bad and I’ll be proven right someday,” syndrome.
This is a totally wrong, nonsensical and completely rude comment, please never say anything like this again. Never even let the words cross your mind. Your intelligence is capable of much better things.
>and others still that identified problems went to work on them rather than pretending they were unsolvable
This also makes no sense. I've been looking at this for 10 years. The problems aren't unsolvable. There are plenty of problems to solve, the reason why you shouldn't bother solving them is because all of those problems are intentionally caused by the bad design of blockchains. Our work is hard enough without purposefully making it harder, but that's the only thing blockchains do.
>The dogmatic crypto skeptic is as bad as the crypto shill.
I'm not a "crypto skeptic" and I don't care to discuss dogma. This is about the facts. Please avoid making these ridiculous accusations, please stop trying to psychoanalyze me, and just stick to the facts. That will help both of us.
> There's nothing technical about blockchains that adds transparency
False. On a public chain like Ethereum, every single historical operation and its outcome events and state can be traced and verified. If the source code is published, the running bytecode can be verified to match the source code.
> smart contracts are [...] not "non-custodial" because they require middlemen to run the blockchain
Also false - miners/validators have no opportunity to seize or freeze assets
> There is also nothing more open or verifiable about smart contracts compared to any other program
See above. You can verify what code was running when and with what input.
>False. On a public chain like Ethereum, every single historical operation and its outcome events and state can be traced and verified. If the source code is published, the running bytecode can be verified to match the source code.
No it's not false. Ethereum doesn't matter, there are a ton of sidechains and mixers that obfuscate transactions and you can't stop people from using them, you also can't guarantee they will provide source code or provide any means to verify their own smart contracts which they don't have to build on top of Ethereum's platform. And many of them don't anyway, specifically because of deficiencies in Ethereum.
>Also false - miners/validators have no opportunity to seize or freeze assets
Actually they do, if they all decide they don't like you then they can blacklist your wallet address. For practical purposes it's the same as a frozen asset. The inability to seize assets is actually a bad thing because it means the network operators have no effective way to confiscate stolen money.
>See above. You can verify what code was running when and with what input.
And you can also do that with literally any other program regardless of whether it's on a blockchain or not.
Right... why do you think the perpetrators or ransomware attacks demand to be paid in crypto-currency, instead of via a plain old wire transfer which according to you is more opaque?
For one, accounts on it are pseudonymous. If by "transparency", you mean "every activity can be traced back to a meatspace individual or institution as recognized by a national government and/or law enforcement", that is a different level of "transparency".
It's not being compared to wire transfers but to server-side software (including those responsible for executing legacy wire transfers).
Because it's still less tracesble than a bank account, but unless one converts it in a dex to something truly untraceablr like monero or zcash, ones attempts to transact with it will be traced, so you won't be able to do much else with it. Coinbase and all other exchanges are known to freeze coins linked to illegal activity.
'Any company that wants to publish all its financial statements publicly can technically already do so and could always do so.'
What, in PDF? and store them on a website or FTP server? Totally discoverable and analysable?
And if two different companies publish statements (inevitsbly in slightly dofferent formats) you need a team of analysts working for 6 months to match up the transactions?
That sounds good for any kind of HFT platform matching buyers and sellers. I don't see how that is an "insane advancement" or has anything to do with blockchains.
Sure, if you care about HFT you probably want the same guarantee to apply to any market maker, not just ones who operate on blockchains. Unless I missed something here.
> This blog post is literally "I read a thing from three years ago and have lost faith in something that I never believed in in the first place".
No, this blog post is "Look, here, several papers from last month showing there are still massive problems (that were presaged accurately in papers from three years ago)."
(and it's not literally that, of course. Why do people use "literally" to mean not literally?)
> Still, IMO the parasites that feed off MEV are at a significant disadvantage compared with those who feed of legacy financial networks.
Well, fortunately one can regulate these financial networks, right? Well, the legacy ones at least.
And you can’t regulate crypto? How did China do it? Would it somehow be harder when it’s so transparent? Of course not. Anyways you have only a surface level understanding of the post and crypto currencies if you think the way forward is not a technological advancement. People outside the space seem to discover these issues and think that those in it aren’t acutely aware and working on them, which they are.
Saying insane a lot, pretty confident, and cherry picking some text to 'literally' dismiss the entire blog post with a single sentence that just serves to validate your flimsy reasoning doesn't make a good argument.
Do we have to accept that MEV is a problem? Just because it's been a tactic used in the shadows with traditional finance doesn't mean it's a problem in an open ecosystem where anyone willing to pay can play. There isn't some shadow elite funding a central government here lobbying for restrictive legislation to keep competition at arms length. In my opinion the crypto ecosystem in general is much more understanding and capable of finding ways to distribute information and trust, which prevents this from becoming a bad thing like we see in traditional finance.
Yes and no. On the one hand, one does have to accept that "MEV" in the "_Maximum_ extractable value" is always going to be potentially present on a public blockchain - but often times, this is a good thing. Liquidity pool arbitrage is also "MEV", but is MEV that is absolutely vital to efficient markets, and the more advanced the players in that game get, the more everybody gets to enjoy liquid and efficient markets. On the other hand, more and more DeFi projects take in to consideration possible MEV extraction vectors when designing applications, and some even use "MEV protection" as a USP (such as CoWswap)
The real problem with MEV is that it distorts the consensus mechanism in weird and unpredictable ways. MEV is essentially free money that could be considered part of the block reward, but it exists at the application layer so it really can’t be accounted for in the consensus protocol incentive design. Application layer logic (“smart contracts”) can move arbitrary value in arbitrary ways, which can create wild volatility from block to block.
A similar problem appears to emerge when Bitcoin’s block reward disappears, as high volatility in block rewards would cause rational miners to behave in suboptimal ways.
Something that rarely gets addressed in these discussions is why Ethereum even has fee market to begin with instead of a cheap FIFO model which ideally would be more fair.
To answer that I would invite anyone to try using a blockchain under heavy load without any way for users to prioritize transactions. What you will find is the network becomes vulnerable to transaction spamming; possibly to point of breaking consensus making it so nobody can transact at all.
MEV is a consequence of a design decision to address this. And that's not to say Ethereum has everything figured out and a better FIFO model can't solve this, but afaik this is the current state of things.
FIFO? First in first out? The blockchain is essentially the timestamping machine. The timestamp of a transaction are untrusted until mined into blocks, even then a fork can rid them.
The blockchain is essentially solving the ordering problem, one big timestamp machine. The solution you propose would require a timestamp machine in the first place lol.
To be fair, there isn't a ton of information widely available, because talking about Flashbots in public is considered "alpha leakage". You see glimpses on Twitter, Discord, Twitch, etc though. Every once in a while someone will dump their finder code to burn alpha when they get squeezed out of some opportunity set.
People have spent years fine tuning bots looking for MEV opportunities, and they have gotten really really good. It also plays a ton into cross-bridge arbitrage, taking advantage of quirks in the interchain ecosystem to squeeze out opportunities.
Like I said, the author has dipped their big toe into the MEV rabbit hole, but it goes so, so much deeper.
A unsolved problem from three years ago is still an unsolved problem. And you don't actually rebuke any of his claims, you just give a poor summary of MEV.
I think you’re over-exaggerating about the “insane advancements in recent years that would blow his mind.” There was a recent overview of different MEV preventive measures [0] which came to the conclusion that there is currently no silver bullet. This is still a large and unsolved issue with competing mitigations with large drawbacks, far from any “insane advancements.” You make a good point that these algorithmic trading techniques are not as big of a deal for everyday users though, and mostly bot wars.
> This gets really interesting in the blockchain space, because Miners (Validators) decide the order of transactions
Traders use exchanges. I always thought *coin transactions are too slow to execute at trading speeds, so exchanges somehow buffer transactions using their own pools without ever sending your request to the network at large.
As someone who knows and has worked with all the people involved with the write-ups referenced in this blog post, I can pretty confidently say that the author is way way behind here. There have been some insane advancements in recent years that would blow his mind.
MEV harvesting is actually an insanely fascinating field of study, and it comes down to consensus in a world where information can only move as fast as the speed of light.
Front-running is a general problem where, if you can find out that someone wants to buy something, and can buy it first and sell it to the person who actually want it at a premium. This gets really interesting in the blockchain space, because Miners (Validators) decide the order of transactions, and in some cases validators can be incentivized/coerced to move around transactions in a way that might be beneficial for certain users. This is what is referred to as "Miner Extractable Value".
Yes it's a problem, yes there are mitigations, yes there are fun and weird ways around those mitigations, etc.
This is what happens when people are incentivized to take a really good hard look at what global consensus really means. At a high level, most users don't really need to know or care about any of it, but it exists as a parasitic force constantly extracting value from the network. Still, IMO the parasites that feed off MEV are at a significant disadvantage compared with those who feed of legacy financial networks (for more on that, you can read the actual Flash Boys book https://www.amazon.com/Flash-Boys-Wall-Street-Revolt/dp/0393...).