MEV is a tax on users. Every arbitrage, sandwich, and liquidation extracted from public mempools is a direct transfer of value from end-users to a concentrated set of searchers and validators. This creates a regressive economic system that undermines the core promise of decentralized finance.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
MEV Smoothing is a Moral Imperative for Blockchain Sustainability
Without MEV redistribution, extractive arbitrage concentrates wealth and power in Proof-of-Stake, eroding its egalitarian promise and threatening long-term social consensus. This is a systemic risk analysis.
introduction
THE MORAL IMPERATIVE
Introduction
MEV smoothing is not an optimization; it is a structural requirement for sustainable, equitable blockchain networks.
Smoothing redistributes this tax. Protocols like Flashbots' SUAVE, CowSwap, and MEV-Share transform MEV from a winner-take-all race into a public good. They achieve this by internalizing value capture and redistributing proceeds back to users or the protocol treasury.
The alternative is centralization. Unchecked MEV creates perverse validator incentives that lead to cartel formation and geographic centralization, as seen in the rise of dominant relay operators. This directly threatens the censorship-resistance and liveness guarantees of the base layer.
Evidence: Ethereum's PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) and the ~$675M in MEV extracted in 2023 demonstrate the scale of the problem. Solutions are now a prerequisite for scaling, not an afterthought.
key-trends
ECONOMIC & SECURITY FAILURE
The MEV Concentration Crisis
The extraction of Maximum Extractable Value has evolved from a niche edge-case into a systemic threat, concentrating power and undermining blockchain's foundational promises.
01
The Problem: Sealed-Bid Auctions Breed Oligopolies
Current block-building markets are winner-take-all, opaque auctions. This creates a natural monopoly for the top 3-5 builders who control >80% of blocks on Ethereum. The result is vertical integration, where searchers, builders, and validators merge into a single, unassailable entity, replicating the centralized finance we aimed to disrupt.
>80%
Builder Control
3-5
Dominant Entities
02
The Solution: Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) & MEV Smoothing
PBS is a forced market split, preventing validator-builder collusion. MEV Smoothing, like EigenLayer's model, takes this further by distributing block rewards from many blocks across all validators over time. This disincentivizes centralized, high-frequency extraction and aligns validator rewards with long-term network health, not short-term predatory arbitrage.
~30 Days
Smoothing Window
95%+
Validator Participation
03
The Problem: User Experience as a Security Liability
Every user's failed transaction or front-run sandwich is a direct tax that funds the very entities threatening chain decentralization. This creates a perverse cycle: worse UX drives more MEV, which funds more centralization, which enables worse exploitation. It's a regressive tax that alienates retail and erodes trust in the system's fairness.
$1B+
Annual Sandwich Loss
~5%
Slippage Tax
04
The Solution: Intents & Encrypted Mempools
Shift from transaction-based to intent-based systems (see UniswapX, CowSwap). Users declare what they want, not how to do it. Solvers compete privately in an encrypted mempool (like Flashbots SUAVE or EigenLayer's DVT), finding optimal execution paths. This removes the toxic, public bidding war, returning value to users and breaking the front-running feedback loop.
90%+
MEV Recaptured
0ms
Front-run Window
05
The Problem: L2s Export, Don't Solve, MEV
Most rollups inherit Ethereum's execution model, replicating its MEV problems at a smaller scale. Worse, they often lack sophisticated PBS, leading to even higher concentration among a handful of sequencers. The cross-rollup future risks creating a fractal of MEV oligopolies, each extracting value from their siloed liquidity pools.
1-2
Dominant Sequencers
$10B+
Cross-Chain MEV
06
The Solution: Shared Sequencing & Interoperable Auctions
A neutral, decentralized sequencer set (like Espresso, Astria, EigenDA) processes transactions for multiple rollups. This creates a larger, more competitive block-building market and enables atomic cross-rollup arbitrage to be resolved efficiently within a single block. It turns a fragmentation problem into a composability solution, reducing rent-seeking and improving capital efficiency.
10x+
Auction Competition
-70%
Cross-Chain Latency
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISALIGNMENT
The Slippery Slope: From MEV Extraction to Centralization
Unchecked MEV creates a self-reinforcing cycle where extractors gain the capital and data advantages necessary to dominate future blocks, undermining decentralization.
MEV begets more MEV. Successful searchers and builders like Flashbots and Jito Labs reinvest profits into more sophisticated infrastructure. This creates a capital moat that centralizes block-building expertise and access to exclusive order flow.
The builder market consolidates. The competitive advantage shifts from pure hardware to exclusive transaction data. Entities with proprietary order flow from applications or wallets, like Coinbase or MetaMask, become dominant builders, sidelining permissionless participants.
Proof-of-stake exacerbates this. Validators with the highest returns from MEV can afford to stake more, increasing their weight in consensus. This economic feedback loop directly threatens the Nakamoto Coefficient of the network.
Evidence: On Ethereum post-merge, the top three builders by mev-boost relay consistently produce over 80% of blocks. This is not a bug of a specific client, but a structural outcome of profit-maximizing rational actors.
THE INCUMBENT VS. THE ENTRANT
MEV's Skewed Reward Distribution: A Tale of Two Validators
A comparison of validator economics under the current winner-take-all MEV model versus a smoothed, redistributive model.
| Key Economic Metric | Top 10% Validator (Incumbent) | Bottom 50% Validator (Entrant) | Ideal Smoothed State |
|---|---|---|---|
Annualized MEV Revenue | $1.2M - $5M | $0 - $200 | $50k - $150k |
Proposer Payment Share of Total Rewards |
| < 15% | ~50% |
Time to Recoup 32 ETH Stake (Est.) | 3 - 8 months | 8+ years | 18 - 24 months |
Reliable Access to Private Orderflow | |||
Capital Efficiency (APR from MEV) | 15% - 40% | 0.1% - 2% | 5% - 10% |
Risk of Proposal Slot Censorship | Low (Self-Selecting) | High (Reliant on Relay) | Negligible |
Protocol Sustainability Impact | ❌ Centralizes stake, creates systemic risk | ❌ Drives attrition, reduces decentralization | ✅ Stabilizes returns, preserves Nakamoto Coefficient |
counter-argument
THE EFFICIENCY ARGUMENT
Steelmanning the Opposition: "MEV is Just Efficient Markets"
A steelman of the view that MEV is a natural, beneficial market force for blockchain efficiency.
MEV is market efficiency. The core argument is that searchers and builders like Flashbots and Jito Labs provide a vital service. They identify and capture latent value in the mempool, which is the blockchain equivalent of arbitrage in traditional finance.
This activity optimizes state. By front-running DEX trades, these agents correct price discrepancies across pools on Uniswap and Curve. This creates tighter spreads and more accurate pricing for all users, mirroring the function of HFT firms.
It subsidizes network security. MEV revenue, especially via proposer-builder separation (PBS), creates a powerful economic incentive for validators. This revenue stream directly funds block production and staking yields, strengthening the chain's cryptoeconomic security.
Evidence: Ethereum's PBS flow via Flashbots MEV-Boost redirects over 90% of extractable value to validators. This has become a foundational component of post-Merge staking economics, demonstrating its systemic integration.
protocol-spotlight
MEV SMOOTHING
The Builder's Toolkit: Protocols Engineering Fairness
Extractive MEV is a tax on users and a centralizing force; smoothing it is a prerequisite for sustainable, credibly neutral blockchains.
01
The Problem: Sealed-Bid Auctions Breed Centralization
The current PBS model funnels ~90% of block rewards to a handful of dominant builders. This creates a feedback loop where capital advantages (like exclusive orderflow) create unbeatable economies of scale, cementing oligopolies.
- Result: Top 3 builders consistently control >60% of Ethereum blocks.
- Risk: Single points of failure and censorship vectors become systemic.
>60%
Blocks Controlled
~90%
Rewards Extracted
02
The Solution: Commit-Reveal Schemes & Fair Ordering
Protocols like Flashbots SUAVE and Astria separate transaction inclusion from execution. Builders commit to a block hash before seeing its contents, forcing competition on execution quality, not information asymmetry.
- Mechanism: Enforce a delay between commit and reveal to prevent frontrunning.
- Outcome: Redistributes MEV from builders back to validators/users via fairer auctions.
~500ms
Reveal Delay
10-100x
More Builder Entrants
03
The Enforcer: In-Protocol Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
Ethereum's core roadmap bakes PBS into the consensus layer. This moves the auction on-chain, making it permissionless and verifiable, unlike today's off-chain cartels.
- Key Feature: Credibly neutral block building via cryptographic commitments.
- Long-term Vision: Enables MEV smoothing where rewards are distributed across all validators, not just builders.
100%
On-Chain
Post-Dencun
Roadmap Target
04
The Application Layer: Intents & SUAVE
Frameworks like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract execution to solvers, reducing user exposure to harmful MEV. SUAVE aims to be a decentralized mempool and executor, creating a competitive market for block space.
- User Benefit: Better prices via MEV-aware routing and protection.
- Ecosystem Benefit: Fragments the monolithic builder market into specialized solvers.
$1B+
Volume Protected
-99%
Sandwich Risk
05
The Metric: Gini Coefficient for Validator Rewards
Fairness must be measured. Tracking the Gini coefficient of validator rewards post-MEV provides a hard metric for decentralization. A lower Gini means MEV is being smoothed effectively across the validator set.
- Current State: Extremely high inequality (>0.8) in extractable value distribution.
- Target: Drive this coefficient below 0.3 through protocol and market design.
>0.8
Current Gini
<0.3
Target Gini
06
The Non-Solution: Ignoring It
Pretending MEV will 'be arbed away' is negligent. Without proactive smoothing, the wealth gap between validators will explode, leading to stake consolidation, reduced slashing resilience, and eventual regulatory scrutiny as a financial cartel.
- Consequence: Proof-of-Stake becomes Proof-of-Capital-Access.
- Action Required: Protocol designers must treat MEV distribution as a first-order consensus parameter.
0
Margin for Error
Existential
Risk Level
takeaways
MEV SMOOTHING
TL;DR: The Imperative for Architects and Investors
Ignoring MEV's extractive nature is a direct threat to chain security, user trust, and protocol longevity. Here's what to build and back.
01
The Problem: MEV is a Hidden Tax on Every Transaction
Block builders and searchers currently extract ~$1B+ annually from users via frontrunning, sandwich attacks, and arbitrage. This is not a fee; it's a systemic leak that distorts incentives and erodes the base layer's credibility.
- Cost: Adds 5-100+ bps to effective swap costs.
- Impact: Creates a two-tiered system where sophisticated players profit at the expense of retail.
$1B+
Annual Extract
5-100+ bps
Hidden Tax
02
The Solution: Protocol-Enforced Fair Ordering (e.g., SUAVE, Shutter)
Move ordering logic into a cryptographically sealed environment. This prevents searchers from seeing the content of transactions before committing to include them, neutralizing frontrunning.
- Mechanism: Uses Threshold Encryption or Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs).
- Result: Transforms MEV from a predatory game into a public good revenue stream for the protocol.
~0 bps
Frontrun Tax
Protocol
Revenue Shift
03
The Architecture: Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) is Non-Negotiable
Ethereum's PBS roadmap is the blueprint. It formally separates the role of block proposal from block building, creating a competitive market for block space that can be designed for fairness.
- Outcome: Enables credible commitment to MEV smoothing and redistribution.
- Mandate: Architects must design for PBS-native execution from day one; it's the only scalable path to sustainable decentralization.
Mandatory
For L1s/L2s
Market-Based
Execution
04
The Incentive: Redistribute Extracted Value via MEV-Burn or MEV-Refunding
Captured MEV should not enrich a cartel. Follow EIP-1559's lead: burn it to benefit all token holders, or refund it directly to users via mechanisms like MEV-Refund auctions.
- Model: Ethereum's MEV-Burn post-PBS aims to neutralize this negative externality.
- Metric: Success is measured by net-negative extractable MEV for adversarial actors.
Net-Negative
Adversarial MEV
Token Holders/Users
Value Recipient
05
The Imperative: L2s That Ignore MEV Design Are Liability Magnets
Sequencers on optimistic or ZK rollups currently have total control over transaction ordering. Without proactive design, they become centralized MEV extraction hubs, creating a single point of failure and corruption.
- Risk: Centralized sequencer profit maximization directly conflicts with chain security and user experience.
- Requirement: Architect for decentralized sequencer sets with enforceable fair ordering rules.
Centralized
Single Point of Failure
Critical
L2 Design Flaw
06
The Investment Thesis: Back Infra That Obfuscates, Not Extracts
VCs must shift capital from extractive MEV searchers/builders to infrastructure that suppresses and socializes MEV. The long-term value is in protocols that maximize user surplus, not private gain.
- Targets: Fair ordering networks, encrypted mempools, PBS infrastructure, MEV redistribution mechanisms.
- Avoid: Tools that solely increase extraction efficiency for a privileged few.
User Surplus
Maximized
Extractive Tools
Avoid
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall