Local Fee Markets Fragment Priority. Solana's architecture uses separate fee markets for compute and state access, unlike Ethereum's unified global auction. This allows bots to cheaply spam transactions targeting specific accounts, creating artificial congestion that honest users must overpay to bypass.
solana-and-the-rise-of-high-performance-chains
Blog
The Architectural Flaw in Solana's MEV Mitigation
Solana's relentless optimization for throughput has baked in a structural advantage for sophisticated MEV actors. This analysis dissects why its design principles make fair ordering a secondary concern, creating a permanent edge for those who can predict and race for state.
introduction
THE FEE MARKET FLAW
Introduction
Solana's local fee market creates a systemic vulnerability that front-running bots exploit, undermining its core performance guarantees.
Jito's Bundles Expose the Flaw. The success of Jito's MEV-Boost equivalent demonstrates the protocol's vulnerability. While it extracts value, it also highlights that Solana's priority fee mechanism is gameable at the protocol layer, not just an application-layer concern.
Evidence: The Pump.fun Incident. In February 2024, a bot spammed the memo program with 1.7 million transactions, driving local fees for that program to 10,000,000 lamports. This proved targeted congestion is a viable, low-cost attack vector against specific applications.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRADE-OFF
The Core Argument: Throughput Trumps Fairness
Solana's design prioritizes raw transaction processing speed over sophisticated MEV fairness, creating a fundamental architectural tension.
Solana's priority is throughput, not MEV fairness. Its single global state and parallel execution model are optimized for speed, not for constructing fair ordering protocols like Ethereum's PBS or MEV-Boost.
Fair ordering requires consensus overhead that directly conflicts with Solana's core value proposition. Implementing a proposer-builder separation (PBS) layer would introduce latency and complexity that the network's architecture is designed to eliminate.
The result is a predictable, high-volume MEV market. This creates a liquid, efficient extractable value environment for searchers and validators, similar to a high-frequency trading venue, which is a feature for network participants, not a bug.
Evidence: Jito's dominance as the leading client, processing over 90% of Solana blocks, proves that the market has organically selected for MEV-capturing infrastructure over fairness-preserving alternatives.
key-trends
ARCHITECTURAL FLAWS
The MEV Landscape on Solana: Three Structural Trends
Solana's performance-first design creates unique MEV vectors that its current mitigation strategies fail to address.
01
The Problem: Jito's Dominance is a Symptom, Not a Cure
Jito's ~90% market share in Solana MEV extraction reveals a centralized choke point. Its auction model optimizes for searcher profit, not user outcomes, creating a single point of failure and regulatory risk.
- Centralized Sequencing: A single entity controls transaction ordering for the majority of blocks.
- Value Leakage: Users pay for sandwich protection and priority fees, but value accrues to JTO holders, not the core protocol.
~90%
Market Share
1
Choke Point
02
The Solution: Native Order Flow Auctions (OFAs) at the RPC Layer
MEV resistance must be baked into the client infrastructure. Projects like Solana Labs' Agave client and Triton's RPC are exploring in-protocol order flow auctions to decentralize block building.
- First-Price Auctions: Move the auction from a centralized service to a permissionless network of block builders.
- RPC Integration: User clients (like Phantom) can bundle transactions and submit bids directly, bypassing centralized extractors.
0
Trusted Intermediary
100%
Permissionless
03
The Limitation: Parallel Execution is a Double-Edged Sword
Solana's parallel execution via Sealevel increases throughput but creates non-deterministic MEV. Schedulers can front-run by predicting which transactions will execute in parallel slots, a problem Ethereum's serial execution doesn't have.
- State Contention Races: Searchers profit by identifying and exploiting concurrent transaction conflicts.
- Mitigation Gap: Existing tools like Jito's bundle auction don't solve this; they monetize it. True fixes require local fee markets or deterministic scheduling.
~50k
TPS Complexity
New Vector
MEV Type
THE CORE FLAW
Architectural Comparison: Ethereum vs. Solana MEV
A first-principles comparison of MEV extraction and mitigation architectures, highlighting Solana's systemic vulnerability to generalized frontrunning.
| Architectural Feature | Ethereum (Post-Merge) | Solana |
|---|---|---|
Consensus Finality Model | Slot & Epoch-based (32 slots/epoch) | Optimistic Confirmation (400ms slots) |
Block Producer Selection | Randomized, Single Proposer per Slot (PBS) | Leader Schedule, Deterministic Rotations |
Transaction Ordering Authority | Builder (via MEV-Boost) > Proposer | Leader (Scheduled Validator) |
Native MEV Redistribution | Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) | None (Leader captures 100% of MEV) |
Frontrunning Surface | Limited to Builder's Bundle (1 per block) | Entire Public Mempool (Leader's view) |
Arbitrage Latency Floor | ~12 seconds (Block Time) | < 400 milliseconds (Slot Time) |
Dominant MEV Strategy | Backrunning & Sandwich (via Flashbots) | Generalized Jito-style Frontrunning |
User Cost of MEV Protection | Included in Priority Fee (Base + Tip) | Required to Bid in Auction (Tip-Only) |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURE
The Mechanics of the Flaw: Local Fee Markets & The Race for State
Solana's local fee markets create a predictable, winner-take-all competition for state access that MEV bots exploit.
Local Fee Markets Fragment Priority: Solana's fee model prioritizes transactions per specific state account, not the global chain. This creates isolated, predictable bidding wars for hot spots like Jito's staking pool or Raydium's AMM.
Bots Predict and Frontrun State: The deterministic, parallel execution scheduler reveals which accounts a transaction will touch. Bots like those from Jito Labs analyze the mempool to identify and frontrun profitable sequences before they land on-chain.
The Race is for State, Not Blocks: Unlike Ethereum's block-building competition, Solana's race is for exclusive, temporary access to a specific state object. Winning this race guarantees execution priority for the subsequent transaction bundle.
Evidence: Over 90% of Solana's MEV is extracted via Jito's bundles, which explicitly exploit this local priority system to guarantee transaction ordering for searchers.
counter-argument
THE REALITY CHECK
Steelman: "But Jito Solves This, Right?"
Jito's searcher-builder model mitigates but does not eliminate the core architectural vulnerability to MEV.
Jito optimizes, not eliminates. The protocol's searcher-builder separation creates a competitive auction for block space, which reduces wasted compute but centralizes ordering power in a few professional builders. This is a market-based efficiency layer, not a protocol-level fix.
The architectural flaw remains. The deterministic, parallel execution engine is the root cause. Jito's builders exploit this by front-running and sandwiching transactions they observe in the public mempool, a vulnerability inherent to Solana's design, unlike Ethereum's PBS model which separates proposer and builder roles at the consensus layer.
Evidence from the chain. Jito's MEV revenue consistently exceeds $100k daily, demonstrating the persistent, extractable value. This is orders of magnitude higher than the MEV burned by protocols like Ethereum's PBS or Flashbots Protect, which integrate mitigation directly into the transaction flow.
takeaways
SOLANA MEV ARCHITECTURE
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
Solana's high-throughput, parallelized design creates unique MEV vulnerabilities that its current mitigation strategies fail to fully address.
01
The Jito Conundrum: Centralized MEV as a Systemic Risk
Jito's ~95% market share of Solana MEV extraction creates a single point of failure and censorship. Its bundling service is a centralized coordinator that can be gamed or exploited, undermining the network's credibly neutral base layer.
- Risk: A single entity controls transaction ordering for the majority of blocks.
- Reality: Builders must design assuming Jito's dominance, creating protocol dependencies.
~95%
Market Share
1
Critical Point of Failure
02
Parallel Execution is a Double-Edged Sword for Arbitrage
Solana's Sealevel runtime allows parallel transaction processing, but its global state creates massive atomic arbitrage opportunities. The lack of native PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) means these opportunities are captured off-chain, leading to inefficient price discovery and frontrunning risks.
- Problem: Large, cross-program arbitrage is opaque and centralized within a few searcher firms.
- Opportunity: Protocols that can batch or internalize liquidity (like a Solana-native CowSwap) could capture this value.
~50k
TPS Creates Arb Volume
Opaque
Auction Market
03
The Missing Layer: No Credible Commit-Reveal Scheme
Unlike Ethereum with PBS and mev-boost, Solana lacks a standardized, trust-minimized commit-reveal protocol for block building. This forces searchers to share full transaction bundles with Jito validators before inclusion, exposing strategy and enabling theft.
- Vulnerability: Searcher strategies are visible to validators, who can copy or frontrun.
- Builder Mandate: Infrastructure for encrypted mempools or secure enclaves (like FHE or SGX) is a critical gap.
Pre-Reveal
Strategy Exposure
High
Theft Risk
04
Economic Incentives Are Misaligned for Validators
Jito's tip-driven model prioritizes extractable value over network health. Validators are incentivized to reorder transactions for maximal tips, which can increase latency and user cost during congestion, contradicting Solana's low-fee branding.
- Result: User experience degrades under load as economic priority shifts to searchers.
- Solution Needed: Protocol-level slashing or reputation systems to penalize excessive reordering.
Tip-Driven
Validator Incentive
Degrades
UX Under Load
05
The Infrastructural Moat: Building the Next Jito
The technical complexity of building a competitive MEV infrastructure stack on Solana is immense. It requires low-latency (<100ms) node infrastructure, sophisticated bundle simulation, and validator relationships. This creates a high barrier to entry and a durable moat for incumbents.
- Opportunity: A decentralized, open-source alternative (like Flashbots SUAVE) could disrupt the market.
- Investment Thesis: MEV infra is a core, high-margin primitive, not a sidecar service.
<100ms
Latency Requirement
High
Barrier to Entry
06
Application-Layer Solutions Are a Stopgap, Not a Fix
DApps are implementing band-aids like transaction simulation warnings (Phantom) and private RPCs. These protect end-users but do not solve the systemic, L1 economic flaw. They add friction and centralize trust in RPC providers, creating a fragmented security model.
- Limitation: App-level fixes cannot prevent chain-level reordering or censorship.
- Builder Insight: Long-term value accrues to protocols that can operate credibly without these crutches.
Fragmented
Security Model
Stopgap
Not a Solution
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