Public mempools are toxic. Every pending trade is a free option for searchers, creating a predictable extractive tax on all on-chain activity.
security-post-mortems-hacks-and-exploits
Blog
The Future of DEX Design: Architecting Against Sandwich Attacks
Traditional DEXs are leaky by design, hemorrhaging value to MEV bots. This analysis deconstructs how next-generation protocols like CowSwap and UniswapX are re-architecting the swap flow itself, using batch auctions and intent-based systems to render sandwich attacks obsolete.
introduction
THE PROBLEM
Introduction: The Inevitable Tax of On-Chain Trading
Sandwich attacks are a structural flaw in public mempools, not a bug.
The tax is quantifiable. MEV-Boost relays and Flashbots Auction data show searchers capture ~$1B annually, a direct cost to end-users and protocol liquidity.
This is a design failure. Protocols like Uniswap and Curve expose naive price functions, creating the predictable slippage that MEV bots exploit.
The solution is architectural. New designs must either hide intent (via SUAVE or private RPCs) or eliminate atomic arbitrage (via batch auctions like CowSwap).
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
Thesis: Neutralizing MEV Requires Abandoning the TX Queue
The public mempool is the root vulnerability that sandwich bots exploit, making its elimination the only viable defense.
Public mempools are obsolete. They broadcast user intent, creating a free option for front-running bots. Protocols like Flashbots Protect and Taichi Network are band-aids that hide transactions but still rely on the same vulnerable queue model.
Intent-based architectures bypass ordering. Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap separate order declaration from execution. Users submit signed intents to a solver network, which competes to find the best execution path off-chain, eliminating the atomic sandwich opportunity.
Private order flow is the new standard. The future is a network of private channels and encrypted mempools. This shifts power from generalized searchers to specialized solvers, as seen in the success of CoW Protocol's batch auctions, which neutralize intra-block arbitrage.
Evidence: Over 60% of Ethereum DEX volume susceptible to MEV is now routed through private order flow or intent-based systems, according to EigenPhi. The public queue is a legacy system for retail losses.
key-trends
ARCHITECTING AGAINST SANDWICH ATTACKS
Key Trends: The Architectural Shift in DEX Design
The MEV arms race is forcing a fundamental redesign of DEX architecture, moving execution logic off-chain to protect users.
01
The Problem: The $1B+ Sandwich Tax
Front-running bots exploit public mempools, stealing value from retail trades. This is a direct tax on user trust and capital efficiency.
- Annual Extractable Value estimated at $1B+
- Creates a ~50-100 bps implicit cost on every vulnerable swap
- Forces users into a game they cannot win, eroding UX
$1B+
Annual Extract
~100 bps
Hidden Tax
02
The Solution: Intents & Private Order Flow
Users express desired outcomes (intents) instead of transactions. Solvers compete off-chain to fulfill them, eliminating front-running surfaces.
- UniswapX and CowSwap pioneered this model
- Across Protocol uses a commit-reveal scheme
- ~90%+ reduction in successful sandwich attacks for protected users
90%+
Attack Reduction
Off-Chain
Execution
03
The Enabler: SUAVE - A Decentralized Block Builder
Flashbots' SUAVE aims to decentralize block building and order flow, creating a neutral marketplace for execution. It's the infrastructure layer for the intent-centric future.
- Separates consensus from execution
- Creates a competitive solver market, improving pricing
- Potential to capture $10B+ in order flow value
Decentralized
Block Building
$10B+
Order Flow Value
04
The Trade-off: Centralization & Censorship Risk
Moving execution off-chain to trusted sequencers or solvers reintroduces centralization vectors. This is the core tension in modern DEX design.
- LayerZero's OFT standard and Circle's CCTP rely on attestation committees
- Fast finality (~500ms) requires trusted execution environments
- The security model shifts from L1 consensus to economic and social guarantees
~500ms
Fast Finality
Social Guarantees
New Security
05
The Outcome: DEXs as Liquidity Hubs, Not Execution Engines
The core DEX contract becomes a settlement layer and liquidity source. Aggregators and solvers handle routing and execution, optimizing for best price and MEV protection.
- Uniswap v4 hooks enable customized pool logic
- 0x API and 1inch Fusion act as intent-based routers
- TVL remains on-chain, but execution becomes a service
On-Chain
Settlement & TVL
Off-Chain Service
Execution
06
The Endgame: Programmable Privacy
The final architectural shift integrates privacy-preserving tech like ZKPs directly into swap flows. This makes transaction intent opaque, rendering sandwich attacks impossible by design.
- Aztec Protocol and Nocturne are exploring private DeFi
- ZK-Rollups with private mempools (e.g., zkSync) offer native protection
- The goal is sub-second private settlement with $0 MEV leakage
$0
MEV Leakage
Sub-Second
Private Settlement
SANDWICH ATTACK MITIGATION
AMM Architecture Comparison: Vulnerability vs. Resistance
A technical comparison of DEX design paradigms based on their inherent susceptibility to MEV extraction via sandwich attacks.
| Architectural Feature / Metric | Classic Constant Product AMM (Uniswap V2) | Concentrated Liquidity AMM (Uniswap V3) | Batch Auction / Solver-Based (CowSwap, UniswapX) |
|---|---|---|---|
Transaction Execution Model | Continuous, On-Chain | Continuous, On-Chain | Batch Auction, Off-Chain |
Frontrunning Vulnerability | |||
Required Searcher Profit per Sandwich |
|
|
|
Typical User Slippage Tolerance | 0.3% - 1.0% | 0.05% - 0.3% | Defined by limit order |
Native MEV Resistance Mechanism | |||
Time to Execution (TTE) Guarantee | < 1 block (~12s) | < 1 block (~12s) | 1-5 minutes |
Relies on External Solvers | |||
Primary Design Trade-off | Simplicity & Liquidity | Capital Efficiency | Latency for Protection |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURE
Deep Dive: The Mechanics of MEV-Neutral Design
MEV-neutral DEX design shifts the adversarial game from on-chain execution to off-chain coordination, rendering sandwich attacks economically non-viable.
Commit-Reveal schemes eliminate frontrunning by decoupling transaction submission from execution. Users submit hashed intents, which are only revealed and settled after a delay. This creates a sealed-bid auction environment where searchers cannot react to pending trades, nullifying the information asymmetry that sandwich attacks exploit.
Batch auctions with uniform clearing prices aggregate all liquidity within a discrete time interval. Protocols like CowSwap and UniswapX use this model, settling all trades at a single price computed after the batch closes. This mechanism atomically matches orders, removing the price slippage window that sandwich bots require for profitability.
Encrypted mempools and private RPCs like those from Flashbots Protect obfuscate transaction flow from public sequencers. By routing orders through private channels, user intent remains hidden from the public mempool, which is the primary data source for generalized frontrunners across chains like Ethereum and Solana.
The economic result is negative EV. The combined cost of capital for failed attacks and fees paid to private relayers exceeds the marginal profit from successful sandwiches. Data from Ethereum post-EIP-1559 shows a sharp decline in sandwich profitability as these designs gain adoption, proving the model's efficacy.
protocol-spotlight
ARCHITECTING AGAINST SANDWICH ATTACKS
Protocol Spotlight: The Vanguard of New DEX Design
Front-running is a tax on every trade. The next generation of DEXs is moving beyond AMMs to neutralize MEV at the protocol layer.
01
The Intent-Based Paradigm
Shifts the execution risk from the user to a network of solvers. Users submit desired outcomes (intents), not rigid transactions.\n- Key Benefit: Removes the predictable transaction target for front-runners.\n- Key Benefit: Solvers compete on price, creating a natural market for execution quality.
~$10B+
Volume Protected
~0
User Slippage
02
CowSwap & UniswapX
Pioneers of the batch auction model, which aggregates orders and clears them at a single uniform clearing price.\n- Key Benefit: Batch execution makes sandwich attacks economically impossible within the batch.\n- Key Benefit: Enables gas-free order placement and native cross-chain swaps via fillers.
>100k
Batches
-99%
MEV Extracted
03
Private Mempools & Encrypted Transactions
Protocols like Flashbots SUAVE and Shutter Network encrypt transactions until they are included in a block.\n- Key Benefit: Obfuscates transaction content, blinding searchers to profitable opportunities.\n- Key Benefit: Preserves composability while adding a critical layer of pre-confirmation privacy.
~500ms
Encryption Window
100%
Blind to Searchers
04
Threshold Encryption (e.g., Diva)
Uses a decentralized network of operators to hold secret shares of a decryption key, preventing any single entity from seeing the plaintext order.\n- Key Benefit: Trust-minimized privacy without relying on a single sequencer or operator.\n- Key Benefit: Aligns with Ethereum's credibly neutral ethos, avoiding centralized gatekeepers.
100+
Operators
t+1
Threshold Security
05
The Inevitability of Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
Separates block building (selecting transactions) from block proposing (signing the header). This is the endgame for Ethereum.\n- Key Benefit: Creates a competitive market for block space, commoditizing MEV extraction.\n- Key Benefit: Allows protocols to build anti-MEV logic directly into the block-building process.
EIP-4844+
Roadmap
All
Future DEXs
06
The Solver Reputation Layer
In intent-based systems, the solver is the new trusted party. Protocols like Across and CowSwap are building verifiable reputation systems.\n- Key Benefit: Solvers that front-run their own users face slashing and exclusion.\n- Key Benefit: Creates long-term economic incentives for honest execution, aligning solver and user interests.
$M's
Slashable Bonds
>95%
Fill Rate
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRAP
Counter-Argument: The Inevitable Re-Centralization?
Advanced DEX designs inadvertently create new centralization vectors while solving old problems.
Solving MEV creates new bottlenecks. Intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap shift complexity from execution to solving. This centralizes power with a few solver networks who control order flow and cross-chain coordination via protocols like Across and LayerZero.
Private mempools are centralized gatekeepers. Solutions like Flashbots SUAVE or Titan Builder privatize transaction flow to prevent frontrunning. This replaces public, permissionless blockspace with a walled garden controlled by a handful of entities, recreating the very market structure DEXs aimed to dismantle.
Cross-chain intent execution is a trust problem. A user's intent to swap ETH on Arbitrum for SOL on Solana requires a trusted intermediary to custody assets across chains. This role defaults to large, capitalized players, making decentralized solvers a theoretical ideal with practical centralization.
Evidence: The top three solvers on CowSwap consistently process over 60% of its volume, demonstrating rapid centralization in a system designed for permissionless competition.
risk-analysis
DEX ARCHITECTURE
Risk Analysis: The New Attack Surfaces
The shift to intent-based and pre-confirmation designs fundamentally redefines the MEV threat model, creating new adversarial surfaces.
01
The Problem: Solver Collusion & Cartel Formation
Intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap outsource execution to competitive solvers. The risk is that solvers collude to form a cartel, capturing all user surplus and replicating the extractive nature of public mempools.
- Centralization Vector: A few dominant solvers can control >60% of flow.
- Opaque Pricing: Users cannot verify if the provided solution is truly optimal.
- Regulatory Target: A centralized solver set becomes a clear point of failure and enforcement.
>60%
Cartel Risk
0
Verifiability
02
The Problem: Pre-Confirmation Frontrunning
Private RPCs and fast lanes (e.g., Flashbots Protect, BloXroute) promise frontrunning protection by hiding transactions. This creates a new meta-game: attackers can spam the private channel with lookalike transactions to infer and frontrun the real one.
- Channel Poisoning: Spam degrades the privacy guarantee, leaking intent.
- Latency Arms Race: Becomes a capital-intensive battle for the first position in the private queue.
- Trust Assumption: Users must trust the RPC operator not to extract value themselves.
~500ms
Attack Window
1-of-N
Trust Model
03
The Solution: Cryptographic Commitments (Threshold Encryption)
The endgame is to remove all trusted intermediaries. Users encrypt their transaction with a key only released after a block delay, as pioneered by Shutter Network. This makes frontrunning information-theoretically impossible.
- Trust Minimization: No single entity (solver, RPC) can decrypt the intent early.
- Integration Path: Can be layered under existing systems like UniswapX or Across.
- Cost: Adds computational overhead and requires a decentralized key generation network.
~2s
Reveal Delay
100%
Probabilistic Security
04
The Solution: Verifiable Execution & Dispute Resolution
To prevent solver cartels, the system must allow anyone to verify execution quality and challenge suboptimal results. This requires an on-chain fraud proof or zero-knowledge proof system, akin to optimistic or zk rollups.
- Economic Security: Challengers are incentivized to police solvers, keeping them honest.
- Implementation Cost: Adds significant complexity and latency to settlement.
- Key Projects: Early research in this direction by Across (optimistic verification) and Chainlink (CCIP).
7 Days
Challenge Window
$1M+
Bond Required
05
The Problem: Cross-Chain Intent Manipulation
As intents span multiple chains via bridges like LayerZero and Axelar, the attack surface expands. A malicious solver can manipulate the cross-chain message or asset price across venues to extract value, exploiting latency differentials between chains.
- Oracle Dependency: Requires secure price feeds across all involved chains.
- Settlement Risk: Failed execution on one chain leaves assets stranded, which solvers can scoop.
- Complexity: The multi-chain state space is exponentially harder to audit and secure.
3+
Chain Hops
$10B+
Bridge TVL at Risk
06
The Solution: Unified Auction Design
The architectural answer is to formalize the competition. Instead of opaque solver networks, design a single, transparent auction for block space and execution rights that internalizes MEV. Ethereum's PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) is the blueprint, but applied at the application layer.
- Explicit Payments: MEV becomes a clear, bid-for commodity, not a hidden tax.
- Reduced Latency Games: Single auction reduces wasteful infrastructure duplication.
- Protocol Capture: The DEX protocol itself can capture a portion of the auction revenue.
-90%
Extractable MEV
Protocol
Revenue Shift
future-outlook
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Future Outlook: The End of the Vanilla AMM
The future of DEX design is a specialized, intent-centric architecture that isolates and neutralizes MEV at the protocol layer.
Vanilla AMMs are legacy infrastructure. Their public mempool and predictable execution path create a free option for searchers, making user protection an aftermarket add-on like Flashbots Protect.
The new standard is intent-based flow. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap separate order expression from execution, routing to a competitive solver network that internalizes and redistributes MEV.
This creates a zero-sum game for attackers. Solvers compete on net user output, forcing them to absorb sandwich costs. The winning solver's bundle is executed atomically, eliminating the adversarial race.
Evidence: UniswapX now processes over $30B in volume, with its Dutch auction model and private order flow directly reducing extractable value for generalized front-runners.
takeaways
DEX ARCHITECTURE
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
The next generation of DEXs will be defined by their resistance to predatory MEV, shifting the value flow from searchers back to users and LPs.
01
The Problem: The $1B+ Sandwich Tax
Front-running bots extract over $1 billion annually from retail traders, creating a toxic UX and deterring adoption. This is a direct tax on liquidity and a fundamental market structure flaw.
- Erodes Trust: Users see failed transactions and worse-than-expected prices.
- Distorts Liquidity: LPs suffer from artificially widened spreads and reversion losses.
$1B+
Annual Extract
>90%
Of Retail Txns
02
The Solution: Encrypted Mempools & SUAVE
Pre-trade privacy via threshold encryption (e.g., Shutter Network) or dedicated block building markets (e.g., SUAVE) neutralizes front-running. Transactions are hidden until inclusion.
- Blinds Searchers: Bots cannot see or front-run pending transactions.
- Preserves Composability: Works with existing AMM logic; a middleware layer for security.
~0ms
Attack Window
Ethereum
Native Path
03
The Solution: Intent-Based Architectures (UniswapX, CowSwap)
Shift from transaction execution to outcome fulfillment. Users submit signed "intents" (e.g., "I want 1 ETH for < $3000"), which are filled off-chain by a network of solvers competing on price.
- MEV Becomes Rebate: Searcher competition turns extractable value into better prices for users.
- Gasless & Failed-Tx Proof: Users only pay for successful fulfillment, massively improving UX.
100%
Fill-or-Kill
-99%
Gas Waste
04
The Solution: Batch Auctions & Frequent Batch Clearing
Aggregate orders over a short period (e.g., CowSwap's 30s batches, DEX Aggregators' internal batching) and clear them simultaneously at a uniform clearing price. This eliminates the time priority that sandwiches require.
- Atomic Settlement: No single transaction can be inserted between a victim's trade.
- Fair Price Discovery: All traders in a batch get the same price, improving fairness.
~30s
Batch Interval
0
Sandwich Slots
05
The Trade-Off: Latency vs. Security
Anti-MEV solutions introduce latency (encryption delays, batch periods). The design choice is between sub-second CEX-like speed and robust, fair settlement. The winning DEXs will segment the market by use case.
- High-Frequency: May tolerate some MEV for ultra-low latency.
- High-Value / Retail: Will prioritize security and fairness over speed.
500ms vs 30s
Latency Range
Strategic
Segmentation
06
The Investment Thesis: Owning the Settlement Layer
The ultimate value accrual shifts from the AMM curve to the settlement and order flow coordination layer. Protocols that standardize encrypted mempools, intent solving, or batch auction infrastructure become critical middleware.
- Protocols to Watch: UniswapX, CowSwap, Across (intents), Shutter, SUAVE.
- Moats: Network effects of solvers, validator sets, and integrated liquidity.
Infra
Value Shift
Middleware
New Moat
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