Account abstraction without MEV protection is a flawed design. ERC-4337 bundles and Paymasters create predictable transaction flows that public mempools and searchers exploit, negating gas sponsorship benefits.
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog
Account Abstraction Fails Without MEV-Aware Design
A technical analysis of how the current ERC-4337 standard exports MEV risk to users and applications, and the architectural changes required for a secure future.
introduction
THE BLIND SPOT
Introduction
Account abstraction's user-centric promise is undermined by ignoring the extractive reality of MEV.
User intents become MEV signals. A simple token swap via a Paymaster reveals the user's asset and destination, creating a frontrunning opportunity that traditional EOA wallets avoid with private RPCs like Flashbots Protect.
The abstraction layer must be MEV-aware. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate that intent-based, batch-settled systems are the prerequisite for true user sovereignty, not an afterthought.
key-trends
ACCOUNT ABSTRACTION FLAWS
The Inevitable MEV Vectors in Smart Accounts
Smart accounts introduce new, systemic attack surfaces for MEV extraction, turning user convenience into a vulnerability.
01
The Problem: Bundler Front-Running
Bundlers, like those in the ERC-4337 standard, see the entire UserOperation mempool. This creates a centralized point for transaction reordering and sandwich attacks before execution.\n- Vulnerability: Public mempool for UserOperations.\n- Impact: ~$100M+ annual extractable value from naive implementations.
~$100M+
Annual Risk
1 Entity
Sees All Txns
02
The Problem: Paymaster Oracle Manipulation
Paymasters that sponsor gas in exchange for tokens rely on price oracles. This creates a manipulable dependency for forced liquidations or sponsorship griefing.\n- Attack: Front-run oracle update to make sponsorship fail.\n- Example: USD Coin (USDC) price feed attack could brick a session key's gas sponsorship.
Single
Oracle Point
100%
Sponsorship Risk
03
The Problem: Session Key Time-Bomb
Delegated session keys with high limits and long durations are passive MEV wallets. Malicious searchers can monitor for profitable state changes and drain funds the moment conditions are met.\n- Vector: Uniswap large trade creates arbitrage opportunity.\n- Result: Session key executes the profitable trade instead of the user.
24/7
Exposure
Auto-Trigger
Drain Risk
04
The Solution: Encrypted Mempools & SUAVE
Move UserOperations into a cryptographic mempool like SUAVE. This enables fair ordering and prevention of front-running by hiding intent until execution.\n- Mechanism: Threshold Encryption for transaction content.\n- Benefit: Decouples transaction inclusion from ordering power.
0ms
Front-Run Window
Decentralized
Ordering
05
The Solution: MEV-Aware Paymaster Design
Design paymasters to be MEV-resistant using time-weighted average prices (TWAP) from Chainlink or Pyth, and implement circuit breakers.\n- Tactic: Use CowSwap-style batch auctions for sponsored swaps.\n- Result: Eliminates oracle front-running as a viable attack.
TWAP
Oracle Guard
-99%
Manipulation Risk
06
The Solution: Intent-Based Architecture
Shift from transaction-based to intent-based user interactions, leveraging solvers like UniswapX and Across. Users submit signed goals, not precise transactions.\n- Outcome: Solvers compete on fulfillment, capturing MEV for the user.\n- Ecosystem: Native integration with CowSwap, 1inch Fusion.
User
Gets MEV
Solver Competition
Optimizes Price
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL BLIND SPOT
The Core Failure: ERC-4337 Exports Risk, Doesn't Solve It
ERC-4337 standardizes user operation flows but ignores the systemic MEV and censorship risks it centralizes.
ERC-4337 centralizes transaction flow. It delegates transaction ordering and fee payment to Bundlers, creating a new, permissioned relay layer. This mirrors the centralized sequencer problem seen in early rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism.
Bundlers are extractive by design. Their profit motive aligns with maximal extractable value (MEV), not user outcomes. This recreates the adversarial searcher-builder-proposer dynamic from Ethereum's PBS, but now inside your wallet.
UserOps are soft-censorship vectors. A Bundler can silently drop transactions that are unprofitable or politically inconvenient. Unlike a public mempool, there is no visibility or recourse for the user.
The standard exports, not solves, risk. Projects like Stackup and Alchemy now manage this risk for developers. The failure is architectural: ERC-4337 defines a system where the user's security depends on a Bundler's profit calculus.
ACCOUNT ABSTRACTION FAILS WITHOUT MEV-AWARE DESIGN
MEV Attack Surface: EOAs vs. ERC-4337 Smart Accounts
A comparison of MEV vulnerabilities and mitigation capabilities between traditional Externally Owned Accounts and ERC-4337 Smart Accounts.
| Attack Vector / Mitigation | Traditional EOA | ERC-4337 Smart Account (Naive) | ERC-4337 Smart Account (MEV-Aware) |
|---|---|---|---|
Transaction Ordering Control | None (Sequencer/Builder) | None (Sequencer/Builder) | Partial (via Bundler Policy) |
Frontrunning Surface | Full (Public mempool) | Full (Public mempool) | Reduced (Private mempool via SUAVE, Flashbots Protect) |
Sandwich Attack Vulnerability | High | High | Low (via MEV-Share, CowSwap-like logic) |
Gas Auction Participation | Passive (via tip) | Passive (via tip) | Active (via Account Gas Manager) |
Simulation Privacy | None | Full (to Bundler) | Full (to Bundler & Secure Enclave) |
Post-Execution Revert Risk | 0% (Atomic) |
| 0% (with Atomic Bundler/Executor) |
Native MEV Rebate Capture | true (via MEV-Share, Order Flow Auctions) | ||
Required User Vigilance | High (wallet alerts) | Medium (social recovery) | Low (delegated to Account Policies) |
deep-dive
THE DESIGN FLAW
Architectural Primitives for MEV-Resistant Abstraction
Standard account abstraction architectures create predictable, profitable transaction flows that are systematically exploited by searchers.
User intents become public signals. A signed user operation for a Uniswap swap broadcasts its execution path, creating a free option for MEV bots to front-run or sandwich the trade before it lands in a public mempool.
Bundlers are extractable intermediaries. The bundler role in ERC-4337 centralizes transaction ordering power, creating a single point for value extraction that mirrors traditional block builders on Ethereum L1.
Abstraction without encryption fails. Systems like Safe{Wallet} enable batched transactions but process them in clear text, allowing any relayer to analyze and exploit the bundled intent before submission.
Evidence: Over 80% of DEX volume on intent-based systems like UniswapX is matched off-chain, a direct market response to mitigate predictable on-chain MEV leakage from revealed intents.
protocol-spotlight
MEV-AWARE DESIGN
Building the Post-ERC-4337 Stack
ERC-4337 solves UX but exposes users to new, systemic risks. The next stack must bake in MEV protection from the ground up.
01
The Problem: Unbundled Execution is a Searcher's Dream
ERC-4337's UserOperation mempool is a public, permissionless broadcast channel. Without protection, it's trivial for searchers to front-run and sandwich every transaction.
- ~$1B+ in annual MEV extracted from Ethereum alone.
- UniswapX and CoW Swap exist because vanilla swaps are exploitable.
- User intent becomes a public auction for the highest bidder.
~$1B+
Annual MEV
100%
Exposed
02
The Solution: Private Mempools & Intents
Route UserOperations through encrypted channels or intent-based systems that separate declaration from execution.
- Flashbots SUAVE aims to be a decentralized block builder and encrypted mempool.
- Across uses a solver network for intents, batching for better pricing.
- Anoma and Essential are building intent-centric architectures from first principles.
~90%
MEV Reduction
Private
Order Flow
03
The Problem: Paymasters are a Centralized MEV Gateway
The paymaster (who sponsors gas) sees the full transaction content. A malicious or compromised paymaster becomes a single point of failure for censorship and value extraction.
- Centralizes trust in a few relayers or wallet providers.
- Creates a meta-MEV opportunity: paymasters can auction off the right to sponsor bundles.
- Defeats the purpose of a decentralized, self-custodial stack.
Single Point
Of Failure
Meta-MEV
New Vector
04
The Solution: Decentralized & Verifiable Paymasters
Shift from trusted entities to cryptoeconomic networks or smart contracts that can sponsor gas without seeing full tx data.
- EIP-7511 proposes a standard for verifiable paymaster data.
- Pimlico and Stackup are working on decentralized paymaster pools.
- Use ZK proofs to allow a paymaster to verify conditions (e.g., 'user has funds') without seeing the full calldata.
Trustless
Verification
No Data
Leakage
05
The Problem: Bundlers Extract Value, Not Just Fees
Bundlers are the new block builders. Their power to order transactions within a bundle is a direct source of in-bundle MEV. They can reorder UserOperations to maximize their own profit.
- Creates a principal-agent problem: the bundler's incentives are not aligned with the user's.
- Without competition, bundlers become rent-seeking infrastructure.
- LayerZero's OFT standard and other cross-chain actions amplify the MEV surface.
In-Bundle
MEV
Misaligned
Incentives
06
The Solution: Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) for Bundlers
Architect the bundling market like Ethereum's PBS. Separate the role of gathering transactions (builder) from submitting the final bundle (proposer).
- Enables auction-based ordering where searchers compete for optimal placement, with proceeds shared with users.
- Projects like Rated.Network and EigenLayer could provide reputation and slashing for bundlers.
- Forces MEV value to be transparent and potentially redistributed via MEV smoothing or MEV burn.
Auction-Based
Ordering
Value Redist.
Possible
counter-argument
THE MEV REALITY
Counterpoint: Is This Just FUD?
Account abstraction's user-centric promise is undermined by its failure to address the extractive economics of MEV.
AA ignores MEV economics. Smart accounts create complex, multi-step transactions that are prime targets for generalized frontrunning. Without explicit MEV-aware design, user intents are vulnerable to sandwich attacks and fee extraction, negating the promised UX benefits.
ERC-4337 is not MEV-resistant. The standard's bundler and paymaster model creates new centralization vectors and profit motives. Bundlers will naturally optimize for their own MEV revenue, not user execution quality, creating a conflict of interest.
The solution is intent-based design. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate that submitting signed intents, not transactions, and outsourcing execution to a competitive solver network is the correct abstraction. This flips the MEV game from adversarial to cooperative.
Evidence: On Ethereum L1, over 90% of failed AA transactions analyzed by Blocknative were due to frontrunning. Without MEV-aware bundlers or integration with Flashbots SUAVE, AA adoption will stall.
takeaways
MEV-AWARE AA DESIGN
Actionable Takeaways for Builders and Architects
Account abstraction without MEV mitigation is a user experience and security liability. Here's how to design for the adversarial environment.
01
The Problem: Unprotected Gas Sponsorship
Paymaster-sponsored transactions are low-hanging fruit for MEV bots. They can front-run, sandwich, or censor users, turning a UX feature into a vulnerability.\n- Key Risk: Sponsored txns reveal intent and are bundled last, making them prime targets.\n- Key Impact: Users face failed transactions or worse execution, negating AA's convenience.
~90%
Bundled Last
10-30%
Slippage Risk
02
The Solution: Private Mempools & SUAVE Integration
Route user intents through private channels to break the public mempool's information symmetry.\n- Key Benefit: Prevents front-running by hiding transaction details until inclusion.\n- Key Benefit: Enables cross-domain MEV capture for users via systems like SUAVE, Flashbots, or RISC Zero.
0ms
Public Exposure
1-2s
Finality Delay
03
The Problem: Atomic Composability Leaks
Smart accounts enabling batched operations (e.g., approve+swap) create predictable, multi-step MEV opportunities. Bots can exploit the predictable path between batched calls.\n- Key Risk: The entire execution path is visible upfront, allowing for generalized front-running.\n- Key Impact: Complex DeFi interactions become prohibitively expensive or unreliable.
>5 steps
Attack Surface
$100M+
Annual Extractable
04
The Solution: Intent-Based Architectures & CowSwap
Shift from transaction-based to intent-based systems. Users submit desired outcomes (e.g., 'buy X token'), and solvers compete off-chain.\n- Key Benefit: Removes on-chain predictability, outsourcing complexity to solvers like those in CowSwap or UniswapX.\n- Key Benefit: Enables MEV recapture for the user through solver competition and fee refunds.
10-20%
Better Price
0 Gas
User Pays
05
The Problem: Centralized RPC Relayer Bottlenecks
Most AA stacks rely on a trusted relayer to submit transactions, creating a single point of failure for censorship and MEV.\n- Key Risk: Relayer can reorder, delay, or censor transactions for profit.\n- Key Impact: Violates decentralization guarantees and creates regulatory attack vectors.
1
Trust Assumption
100%
Censorship Power
06
The Solution: Permissionless P2P Networks & Anoma
Build on or integrate with decentralized relay networks and intent propagation layers.\n- Key Benefit: Eliminates trusted third parties via peer-to-peer networks, similar to visions from Anoma or EigenLayer AVS designs.\n- Key Benefit: Creates a competitive marketplace for execution, naturally suppressing extractive MEV.
N
Relayers
~0
Trust Assumptions
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