Smart contract accounts expose MEV. EOA-based MEV is a black box; bots compete in private mempools. Accounts like Safe or ERC-4337 wallets execute logic on-chain, making their entire transaction path and value extraction legible.
web3-philosophy-sovereignty-and-ownership
Blog
Why Smart Contract Accounts Make MEV More Transparent (and Problematic)
EIP-4337 and smart accounts shift MEV extraction from hidden validators to explicit bundlers. This creates a clear market for transaction ordering but introduces severe centralization risks and novel attack vectors that threaten user sovereignty.
introduction
THE DATA
Introduction: The Illusion of Transparency
Smart contract accounts expose previously hidden MEV, transforming a backroom game into a public, systemic risk.
Transparency creates new attack surfaces. Visible intent is a free option for extractors. Protocols like UniswapX and CoW Swap abstract execution, but their solvers now compete in a public arena where the optimal routing is itself MEV.
The system optimizes for extraction. Transparent user flows let searchers build persistent arbitrage loops. This is not a bug; it's the equilibrium state of a market where every contract interaction is a potential profit vector for bots.
Evidence: Over 80% of DEX arbitrage on Ethereum is now executed by just five entities, a concentration visible only because their strategies are written in immutable contract code.
key-trends
THE ACCOUNT ABSTRACTION EFFECT
The New MEV Stack: From Opaque to Operational
Smart contract accounts (SCAs) shift MEV from a hidden network tax to a programmable, on-chain resource, creating new transparency and new attack vectors.
01
The Problem: Opaque, Extractable Order Flow
EOAs (Externally Owned Accounts) leak intent through public mempools, making users prey for generalized front-running and sandwich attacks.\n- Billions extracted annually via opaque, off-chain auctions.\n- User experience is adversarial; speed is weaponized against retail.
$1B+
Annual Extractable Value
~100ms
Attack Window
02
The Solution: Programmable, Auctionable Intents
SCAs enable intent-based architectures (like UniswapX and CowSwap) where user preferences are signed declarations, not raw transactions.\n- MEV becomes a visible, auctioned resource for solvers and fillers.\n- Competition shifts to fulfillment quality, not just latency, improving prices.
80%+
Fill Rate Improvement
0 Slippage
For CoWs
03
The New Problem: Centralized Sequencer Risk
Bundled user operations create massive, valuable blocks. The entity controlling the sequencer (e.g., Starknet, zkSync, Base) becomes a centralized MEV cartel.\n- Single point of failure/censorship for intent flow.\n- Vertical integration risk where the chain captures all value.
1
Centralized Sequencer
100%
Block Control
04
The Operational Stack: SUAVE & Shared Sequencers
New infrastructure like SUAVE and Astria decouple block building from chain execution, creating a neutral marketplace for block space.\n- Specialized block builders compete on SCA bundle execution.\n- Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) principles applied to the intent economy.
10x+
Builder Competition
Cross-Chain
MEV Market
05
Entity Spotlight: ERC-4337 Bundlers
Bundlers are the new searchers. They aggregate UserOperations, simulate execution, and bid for inclusion, creating a transparent fee market.\n- Paymasters enable sponsored transactions, abstracting gas.\n- Bundling creates new atomic arbitrage opportunities across SCAs.
$0.01
Avg. Bundle Profit
1000+
Ops/Bundle
06
The Endgame: Regulatory Attack Surface
Transparent on-chain auctions and identifiable fee recipients turn MEV from a dark forest into a litigated clearinghouse.\n- OFAC-sanctionable entities: Solvers and builders are now clear targets.\n- Securities law implications: Intent fulfillment as a service could be deemed a security.
KYC/AML
Compliance Risk
SEC
Enforcement Vector
deep-dive
THE TRANSPARENCY PARADOX
Anatomy of a Bundler-Led MEV Market
Smart contract accounts shift MEV from opaque miner extraction to a transparent, competitive market between bundlers and searchers.
Smart accounts externalize execution logic. EOAs hide MEV in private mempools, but Account Abstraction (ERC-4337) moves transaction ordering and payment to public actors. This creates a visible bundler marketplace where searchers bid for the right to include user operations.
Transparency creates new attack surfaces. Public bidding reveals user intent, enabling frontrunning and sandwich attacks at the bundler level. Projects like EigenLayer and Flashbots SUAVE are building to mitigate this, but the economic pressure is now explicit.
Bundlers become the new validators. In a rollup like Arbitrum or Optimism, the sequencer-bundler hybrid controls the final transaction order. This centralizes MEV capture into a single, accountable entity, replacing the distributed miner cartel with a protocol-level revenue stream.
Evidence: On Ethereum mainnet, Pimlico and Stackup bundlers already compete on inclusion, proving the market's viability. Their public mempools and bid transparency provide the data that makes this new MEV landscape quantifiable and problematic.
MEV TRANSPARENCY
EOA vs. SCA: The MEV Extraction Point Shift
Compares how Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) and Smart Contract Accounts (SCAs) structurally alter the visibility and control of MEV extraction, impacting users and searchers.
| Extraction Vector | Externally Owned Account (EOA) | Smart Contract Account (SCA) (e.g., Safe, Argent) | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Extraction Point | Public Mempool | Bundled User Operation Pool | SCAs move extraction from public view to private order flow auctions. |
Searcher Visibility | Full visibility of raw tx intent pre-execution | Opaque; sees only UserOp calldata, not full intent | Reduces frontrunning but enables new forms of generalized extraction. |
User Control Over Order Flow | None; tx is public upon submission | Delegatable via session keys or paymasters (e.g., ERC-4337) | Enables programmable MEV capture redirection to user/application. |
Typical MEV Capture | Sandwich attacks, arbitrage | Generalized extractable value (GEV) via batched logic | SCAs enable more complex, application-specific value extraction. |
Fee Payment Flexibility | Native token only (ETH) | Any token via paymaster sponsorship | Allows applications like UniswapX to abstract gas, creating new MEV sinks. |
Required Searcher Infrastructure | Simple bots monitoring mempools | Complex bundlers integrating with Alt Mempools (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE) | Raises barriers to entry, centralizing searcher power. |
User Cost of MEV Protection | ~0-5% (via private RPCs like Flashbots) | Theoretically negative (MEV redistribution) | SCAs can turn MEV from a cost into a rebate via mechanisms like CowSwap. |
counter-argument
THE TRANSPARENCY TRAP
The Optimist's Rebuttal: Isn't This Better?
Smart contract accounts shift MEV from hidden network latency to explicit, on-chain logic, creating a new class of systemic risks.
Account abstraction exposes MEV. Programmable validity conditions in accounts like Safe or ERC-4337 bundles move competition from validator mempools into user-signed transactions. This makes extraction logic auditable but also standardizes it.
Transparency enables cartel formation. Visible, on-chain bidding in systems like CowSwap or UniswapX allows searchers to coordinate. Opaque gas auctions in Ethereum mempools are replaced by explicit, colludable payment channels.
The systemic risk amplifies. A malicious intent solver for ERC-4337 can exploit thousands of user ops in a single batch. This centralizes failure points compared to the distributed risk of traditional MEV.
Evidence: The 'cancun hard fork' and 'PBS' proposals aim to manage traditional MEV, but account abstraction creates a parallel system requiring new mitigations like SUAVE or fair sequencing services.
risk-analysis
SMART ACCOUNT MEV
The Centralization Doom Loop: Four Critical Risks
Smart contract accounts (SCAs) shift MEV from opaque miner/validator backrooms to transparent, auction-based public mempools, creating new systemic risks.
01
The Problem: Public Mempool as a MEV Bazaar
ERC-4337 bundles are public before inclusion. This creates a transparent auction where searchers and builders compete, but also exposes every user transaction to front-running and sandwich attacks.
- Universal Exposure: Every SCA tx is visible, unlike EOAs using private RPCs like Flashbots Protect.
- Auction Dynamics: Searchers bid for bundle rights, driving up costs for end-users.
- New Surface: Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap emerged to counter this, but only for swaps.
100%
Tx Visibility
~$200M+
Annual SCA MEV
02
The Solution: Private Order Flow Cartels
The natural response is the formation of centralized, trusted intermediaries to route SCA transactions, recreating the very centralization SCAs aimed to solve.
- Vertical Integration: Wallet providers (e.g., Safe) may partner with or become exclusive builders.
- RPC Gatekeeping: Services like Alchemy, Infura become critical chokepoints for private order flow.
- Regulatory Target: Concentrated flow is easier to censor and monitor, creating a Tornado Cash-style compliance risk.
>60%
Flow Concentration
1-3
Dominant Builders
03
The Problem: Builder Monopoly and Censorship
A few dominant builders (e.g., Flashbots' SUAVE, Blocknative) controlling SCA bundle construction creates a single point of failure and censorship.
- OFAC Compliance: Builders can be forced to censor transactions, violating neutrality.
- Extractable Value: Builder monopoly allows for maximal value extraction from user bundles.
- Protocol Risk: Entire account ecosystems become dependent on the liveness and integrity of one or two entities.
90%+
Builder Market Share
0s
Censorship Lag
04
The Solution: Credible Decentralization is Non-Trivial
Decentralizing the builder/relay layer for SCAs is a hard coordination problem with significant overhead, often sacrificed for speed and reliability.
- Staking Economics: Decentralized builders require heavy staking, favoring capital-rich entities.
- Latency Penalty: Consensus among builders adds ~500ms-2s latency, degrading UX.
- Fragmented Liquidity: Solutions like Across and LayerZero for intents still rely on centralized sequencers for execution, kicking the can down the road.
~2s
Speed Penalty
$1B+
Staking Barrier
future-outlook
THE ARCHITECTURAL DIVIDE
The Fork in the Road: Supranational Sequencers or P2P Networks
The transparency of smart contract accounts forces a fundamental choice in MEV management: centralized sequencing or decentralized peer-to-peer networks.
Smart contract accounts expose MEV. Unlike opaque EOAs, their logic is public, making transaction intents and value flows legible to searchers and builders before execution.
This transparency creates a coordination problem. Public intents invite predatory front-running, forcing protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap to adopt off-chain solvers and batch auctions to protect users.
The solution is a sequencing layer. This layer must decide transaction order, determining who captures the exposed value. The industry faces two divergent paths.
Supranational sequencers centralize control. Networks like Arbitrum and Optimism operate a single, trusted sequencer. This provides efficiency but recreates the extractive miner role from Ethereum L1.
P2P networks distribute ordering. Protocols like Espresso Systems and Astria propose decentralized sequencer sets. This avoids central points of failure but introduces complex consensus overhead.
The trade-off is sovereignty vs. liveness. A supranational sequencer guarantees fast, reliable blocks. A P2P network offers credible neutrality but risks slower finality during disputes.
Evidence: Over 95% of rollup transactions today are ordered by a single, centralized sequencer, creating a systemic re-staking risk for the entire modular stack.
takeaways
SMART ACCOUNTS & MEV
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Smart Contract Accounts (SCAs) shift MEV from a hidden network tax to a visible, on-chain auction, creating new attack surfaces and design imperatives.
01
The Problem: Opaque, Extractive MEV
EOAs hide MEV in private mempools (e.g., Flashbots). This creates:\n- Information asymmetry between users and searchers.\n- Value leakage from users to validators via priority gas auctions.\n- Unpredictable execution where final transaction outcome is a black box.
$500M+
Annual Extractable MEV
~80%
In Private Mempools
02
The Solution: On-Chain Intent & Auction
SCAs enable intent-based architectures (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap). Users submit signed preferences, not rigid calldata. This creates:\n- Transparent competition: Solvers bid for fulfillment rights on-chain.\n- Better pricing: MEV is captured and potentially returned to the user.\n- Composability: Intents can be bundled and optimized across domains via protocols like Across and LayerZero.
10-30%
Better Prices
0 Slippage
For Limit Orders
03
The New Problem: SCA-Specific Attack Vectors
Programmability introduces new vulnerabilities that are irreversible (no private key rotation). Key risks include:\n- Signature replay: Malicious bundlers reuse signatures across chains.\n- Paymaster exploitation: Sponsored transactions can be front-run or censored.\n- Upgrade hijacking: A compromised account logic contract can drain all associated wallets (see ERC-4337 EntryPoint risks).
Irreversible
If Logic is Hacked
Multi-Chain
Attack Surface
04
The Architectural Imperative: MEV-Aware Design
Protocols must be built assuming every user is a contract. This requires:\n- MEV-resistant primitives: Use commit-reveal schemes or VDFs for ordering.\n- Bundler incentives: Design fee markets that don't leak value to L1 sequencers.\n- Account abstraction layers: Integrate with Safe{Wallet}, Biconomy, and ZeroDev to standardize security models.
ERC-4337
Standard Core
$5B+ TVL
In SCAs (Est.)
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