Fair ordering is non-negotiable for payments. Throughput is a capacity metric; ordering defines the system's integrity. A fast network that allows front-running or sandwich attacks is useless for value transfer, as seen in the MEV extraction plaguing Ethereum and Solana.
e-commerce-and-crypto-payments-future
Blog
Why Fair Ordering Is More Critical Than Throughput for Payments
The crypto payments narrative is obsessed with transactions per second. For merchants and users, the real bottleneck is equitable transaction ordering that prevents front-running and ensures predictable finality.
introduction
THE PAYMENTS PARADOX
Introduction
For payment systems, the integrity of transaction ordering is a more fundamental guarantee than raw throughput.
Users prioritize finality over latency. A payment must be irrevocably settled in the correct sequence, not just broadcast quickly. This is why Visa's 1,700 TPS is sufficient—its centralized ledger provides a single, authoritative order, a property blockchains must emulate.
Proof-of-Work provided weak fairness. Nakamoto Consensus created probabilistic ordering, which was adequate for Bitcoin's peer-to-peer model but insufficient for high-frequency DeFi, where Flashbots emerged to mitigate its exploitable gaps.
Evidence: The $1.2B in MEV extracted from Ethereum users demonstrates the direct cost of unfair ordering, a tax that any credible payment rail must eliminate.
key-trends
THE PAYMENTS PARADIGM SHIFT
Executive Summary
For real-world payments, the order of transactions is a more critical security property than raw throughput.
01
The Problem: Frontrunning and MEV in Payments
In traditional block ordering, arbitrage bots can frontrun and extract value from payment transactions, creating systemic risk.\n- Cost Inflation: Users pay for failed transactions and priority gas auctions.\n- Security Risk: Time-sensitive payments (e.g., liquidations, trades) become unreliable.\n- User Experience: Finality is unpredictable, undermining trust.
$1B+
Extracted Annually
~15%
Failed Tx Rate
02
The Solution: Censorship-Resistant Fair Ordering
Protocols like Axiom, Espresso Systems, and SUAVE decouple transaction ordering from execution to guarantee fairness.\n- First-Come, First-Served: Order is based on submission time, not gas bid.\n- MEV Mitigation: Removes the profit motive for predatory frontrunning.\n- Predictable Finality: Users know their transaction's place in line.
0 Gas
Priority Auctions
~500ms
Ordering Latency
03
The Outcome: VISA-Grade Payment Rails
Fair ordering enables blockchain payments that match traditional finance guarantees.\n- Settlement Assurance: Non-custodial transactions with bank-level reliability.\n- Micro-Economies: Enables viable micropayments and streaming money.\n- Regulatory Clarity: Provides a clear audit trail compliant with Travel Rule requirements.
10,000+
TPS for Payments
< 2s
Settlement Time
04
The Architectural Shift: Intent-Based Design
Frameworks like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract ordering by having solvers compete on outcome, not transaction placement.\n- User Declares 'What': Specifies desired outcome (e.g., "swap X for Y").\n- Solvers Compete on 'How': Find optimal execution path, including cross-chain via Across or LayerZero.\n- Payment Becomes a Service: Users get best execution without managing blockchain mechanics.
20-30%
Better Rates
Multi-Chain
By Default
thesis-statement
THE PAYMENTS PARADOX
The Core Argument: Fairness > Speed
For real-world payments, the integrity of transaction ordering is a more fundamental requirement than raw throughput.
Fairness is a security property. In payments, the order of transactions determines who gets paid first. A system that processes 100k TPS but allows front-running is fundamentally broken for financial settlement, unlike a permissioned network like VisaNet.
Speed without fairness creates systemic risk. High-throughput chains like Solana or Sui optimize for latency, but their leader-based consensus models are vulnerable to Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) exploitation, turning payment finality into a probabilistic auction.
The evidence is in DeFi failures. The 2022 BNB Chain bridge hack exploited out-of-order validation. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave require fair ordering to prevent sandwich attacks that directly siphon value from end-users.
Throughput is a solvable engineering problem. Scaling solutions like Arbitrum Nitro or zkSync Era prove transaction capacity scales with layer-2 architectures. Fair ordering requires a consensus-level guarantee that these systems often outsource.
PAYMENT RAIL COMPARISON
The Cost of Unfair Ordering: A Merchant's Nightmare
Comparing the financial impact of transaction ordering on merchant revenue and user experience across different blockchain architectures.
| Critical Payment Metric | Traditional L1 (e.g., Ethereum Mainnet) | High-Throughput L1 (e.g., Solana) | Fair Ordering L1 (e.g., Aptos, Sui) |
|---|---|---|---|
Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) Loss per $1M Volume | $15,000 - $50,000 | $5,000 - $20,000 | < $500 |
Failed Transaction Rate Due to Frontrunning | 8-15% | 3-8% | < 0.5% |
Settlement Finality for User Approval | 12-60 seconds | 400-800ms | 400-800ms |
Guaranteed Transaction Ordering | |||
Required Slippage Tolerance for Viability |
|
| < 0.1% |
Infrastructure Cost (RPC/Sequencer Premium) | High | Medium | Low |
Native Support for Payment Intents |
deep-dive
THE PAYMENTS PRIORITY
How Fair Ordering Protocols Redraw the Map
For payment systems, transaction ordering fairness is a more fundamental requirement than raw throughput.
Fairness precedes finality. Payment users need predictable execution, not just fast confirmation. A high-throughput chain with Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) allows bots to front-run and reorder transactions, creating unacceptable financial risk for senders.
Throughput is a commodity; fairness is architecture. Solana and Sui achieve high TPS, but their first-come-first-served ordering is vulnerable to latency races. Protocols like Axiom and SUAVE are building fair ordering layers that decouple transaction sequence from network latency.
The benchmark is Visa, not a blockchain. Visa's system guarantees deterministic ordering at the point of sale. Fair ordering protocols like Ethereum's PBS with crLists or Solana's Jito aim to replicate this property, making block production a public good rather than a private auction.
protocol-spotlight
PAYMENTS PRIMER
Builder's Toolkit: Protocols Solving Fair Ordering
For payments, the order of transactions is more critical than raw throughput; fair ordering prevents frontrunning and ensures deterministic settlement.
01
The Problem: MEV is a Tax on Every Payment
In a simple first-come-first-serve mempool, arbitrage bots can frontrun, backrun, or sandwich user payments, extracting value and increasing costs.\n- Cost: Adds a hidden tax of ~5-20+ bps on every large transfer.\n- Uncertainty: Users cannot predict final execution price or latency.
~20 bps
Hidden Tax
Unpredictable
Settlement
02
The Solution: Encrypted Mempools (e.g., Shutter Network)
Transactions are encrypted until a predefined reveal block, preventing bots from seeing and exploiting payment intents.\n- Fairness: Ordering is decided after decryption, neutralizing frontrunning.\n- Compatibility: Works with existing EVM chains like Ethereum and Gnosis Chain.
MEV-Proof
Ordering
EVM Native
Compatibility
03
The Solution: Leaderless Consensus (e.g., Solana, Sui)
Uses Proof-of-Stake with a rotating or parallelized leader schedule to decentralize block production, reducing the centralized power that enables MEV.\n- Throughput: Achieves ~3k-50k TPS via parallel execution.\n- Reduced Surface: No single proposer has persistent ordering rights.
~3k+ TPS
Throughput
Rotating
Leadership
04
The Solution: Intent-Based Architecture (e.g., UniswapX, Across)
Users submit desired outcomes (intents), not transactions. Solvers compete to fulfill them optimally, with rewards for best execution.\n- Optimality: User gets best price across all liquidity sources.\n- Fairness: Competition between solvers, not exploitation of users.
Best Execution
Guarantee
Solver Competition
Mechanism
05
The Problem: L2s Inherit L1's Weak Ordering
Most optimistic and zk-rollups batch transactions to Ethereum, inheriting its permissionless, MEV-prone mempool. The sequencer becomes a centralized point of failure and exploitation.\n- Centralization Risk: Single sequencer controls order.\n- MEV Leakage: Value extraction moves to the L2 layer.
Single Point
Of Failure
MEV Migration
Risk
06
The Arbiter: Fair Sequencing Services (FSS)
Protocols like Chainlink FSS or Astria decouple sequencing from execution, using a decentralized network to order transactions fairly before they reach the execution layer.\n- Censorship Resistance: No single entity can reorder or censor.\n- Verifiable Fairness: Ordering is provably fair via cryptographic proofs.
Decentralized
Sequencing
Provably Fair
Output
counter-argument
THE FLAWED PREMISE
The Throughput Advocate's Rebuttal (And Why It's Wrong)
Prioritizing raw throughput over transaction ordering guarantees is a fundamental architectural error for payment systems.
Throughput is a commodity. Layer 2s like Arbitrum and Optimism already achieve 2M+ TPS in optimistic benchmarks. The bottleneck for payments is not speed but predictable finality and ordering. Users need to know their transaction executes in the exact sequence submitted.
Fair ordering prevents economic attacks. Without it, front-running and sandwich attacks become systemic. This is the core failure of high-throughput chains like Solana during congestion, where bots extract millions from payment flows. Fair ordering is a prerequisite for trust.
Payment finality requires sequence consensus. Protocols like Celer's cBridge or Circle's CCTP rely on deterministic state transitions. If a user's deposit transaction is reordered after a withdrawal, the entire bridge state corrupts. Throughput without ordering creates settlement risk.
The evidence is in MEV. The $1B+ annual MEV market on Ethereum proves that unfair ordering has a direct cost. Payment systems on chains without fair ordering, like BSC or Polygon, implicitly tax every user to subsidize validator extractable value. This is a design flaw, not a feature.
takeaways
PAYMENTS FIRST
Takeaways
For real-world payments, the order of transactions is more critical than raw speed. Here's why.
01
The Problem: Front-Running & MEV
In a naive first-come-first-serve system, arbitrage bots can insert, reorder, or censor payment transactions. This extracts value from users and creates unpredictable finality.\n- Cost: Users pay hidden 'MEV tax' on every tx.\n- Security: Enables time-bandit attacks on high-value payments.
$1B+
Extracted Annually
>50ms
Attack Window
02
The Solution: Fair Ordering (e.g., Aequitas, Rome)
Protocols like Aequitas and Rome use cryptographic ordering (e.g., threshold signatures) to create a canonical, immutable sequence of transactions before execution. This neutralizes front-running.\n- Guarantee: First-seen fairness or batch ordering.\n- Result: Predictable settlement and cost for end-users.
0%
MEV Leakage
~1s
Fair Finality
03
Throughput is a Red Herring
A payment network with 100k TPS but unfair ordering is useless. Users prioritize finality guarantees over theoretical peak speed.\n- Analogy: A highway where lane-cutters always win is inefficient.\n- Reality: Solana-level throughput (~3k TPS) is sufficient if ordering is fair.
3k TPS
Sufficient Throughput
>99%
User Priority
04
The Infrastructure Shift: SUAVE & Shared Sequencers
The future is dedicated fair ordering layers like SUAVE or shared sequencers (Espresso, Astria). They decouple execution from consensus, providing neutrality as a public good.\n- Benefit: Enables fair cross-domain payments (Ethereum → L2s).\n- Architecture: Separates ordering from execution for specialization.
1
Canonical Order
N
Execution Layers
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