Execution-Level Reverts Cost More Than Expected

Failed transactions cost gas. Every EVM opcode executed before a revert consumes gas, and users pay for this computation even when the final state change is rolled back.

Complex logic is the primary driver. Interacting with protocols like Uniswap V3 or Aave involves multiple contract calls and state checks; a failed swap or liquidation still burns gas for the entire execution path up to the failure point.

The cost is not just gas. Failed transactions waste block space and increase network congestion, indirectly raising costs for all users by competing for limited computational resources per block.

Evidence: On Ethereum mainnet, a failed Compound liquidation can cost over 500,000 gas, translating to a multi-dollar fee for a transaction that provides zero economic outcome to the user.

Reverts waste computational gas. A failed transaction consumes all gas up to the point of failure, paying the validator for wasted work. This creates a perverse incentive for spam where validators profit from failed state transitions that congest the network.

Failed transactions degrade real TPS. Throughput metrics like Solana's 50k TPS are theoretical. Real-world throughput is lower because blocks contain a significant percentage of failed transactions that consume finite computational budgets.

Reverts create negative MEV. Validators can front-run or sandwich transactions they know will revert, extracting value from users who pay for failure. This is a direct extraction of user surplus with no productive outcome for the network.

Evidence: On Ethereum L1, failed transactions account for ~10-15% of total gas. On high-throughput chains like Solana, failed transaction rates can exceed 30% during congestion, making them a primary bottleneck.

Reverts are a resource leak. Failed transactions consume computational work and block space without producing state changes, directly reducing network throughput for all users.

MEV searchers exploit this waste. Bots front-run predictable reverts, submitting their own transactions to capture value from the failed execution path, creating a parasitic tax on user error.

Gas refunds are insufficient compensation. The 21000-gas base fee refund for out-of-gas reverts does not cover the opportunity cost of wasted block space that could have processed a successful transaction.

Evidence: On Ethereum, over 10% of transactions historically revert. Protocols like Uniswap and 1inch see high revert rates from arbitrage bots, congesting the mempool and inflating base fees for everyone.

Reverts enforce state finality. A transaction that fails to execute must pay for the computational work it consumed. This prevents denial-of-service attacks where users could spam the network with invalid operations at zero cost, a design principle fundamental to Ethereum and EVM chains.

The cost is resource pricing. The gas spent before a revert compensates validators for verifying the execution path and the opportunity cost of block space. This aligns with EIP-1559's base fee mechanism, which prices network congestion irrespective of transaction success.

Protocols optimize around this. Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap use intent-based architectures to shift revert risk off-chain to solvers. This externalizes the cost of failed execution simulations, creating a more predictable user experience while the base layer retains its economic security.

Evidence: On Ethereum mainnet, failed transactions consume over 5% of total gas daily. This represents billions in ETH burned, directly funding network security and proving the economic weight of the revert mechanism.

Reverts waste gas irrevocably. Every failed transaction consumes block space and burns gas for computation that produced no state change. This is a direct tax on protocol experimentation and user error.

EIP-1153 eliminates this waste. By introducing transient storage (tstore/tload), state changes within a transaction can be reverted for free. This is a prerequisite for efficient proposer-builder separation (PBS) architectures.

Builders require cheap reversion. Without EIP-1153, builders simulating complex bundles face prohibitive gas costs for failed execution paths, limiting MEV extraction sophistication and network efficiency.

Evidence: Protocols like Uniswap v4 with its hooks and Flashbots' SUAVE rely on cheap, atomic execution attempts. Their economic viability depends on the cost structure EIP-1153 enables.