Why Custom Virtual Machines Exacerbate Opaque MEV

Optimistic and parallel VMs like Sui's MoveVM and Aptos' Block-STM reorder transactions for speed, obscuring the original intent and final execution path.\n- Opaque Ordering: MEV searchers cannot reliably model transaction inclusion or final state.\n- Tooling Gap: Block explorers and mempool watchers built for EVM sequential execution are blind.

Custom VMs implement novel fee models (e.g., Solana's local fee markets, Fuel's UTXO-based model) that decouple payment from execution priority.\n- Unpredictable Costs: Searchers cannot use gas price auctions as a reliable signal for MEV value.\n- Cross-Domain Arbitrage: Creates MEV opportunities between VM economic models that are invisible to single-chain bots.

Architectures like FuelVM and Eclipse SVM layer-2s natively support intent-driven transactions, abstracting execution details away from users.\n- Lost Transparency: The public chain sees a settled intent, not the competitive solver auction that fulfilled it.\n- New MEV Sink: Value extraction shifts to off-chain solvers (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) creating a hidden MEV layer.

Standard EVM MEV is visible on-chain; custom VM execution is a sealed system. Searchers exploit proprietary transaction ordering logic that developers cannot audit.

• No public mempool means no fair competition for block space.
• Opaque sequencer logic hides front-running and sandwich attacks.
• Impossible to measure the true cost of execution for users.

Each custom VM (e.g., Solana SVM, Fuel VM, Move-based chains) creates a separate MEV market. This fragments searcher capital, leading to monopolies.

• Higher barriers to entry for independent searchers.
• Cartel formation around a single sequencer or validator set.
• Inefficient price discovery across the broader DeFi ecosystem.

Projects like UniswapX and CowSwap promote intents as a user-friendly solution. On a custom VM, the solver network becomes a centralized, un-auditable MEV cartel.

• Solver competition is a facade if the VM's execution is opaque.
• Users trade transparency for convenience, trusting a black box.
• Contrast with Ethereum, where protocols like Across and 1inch Fusion leverage public mempools for verifiable fairness.

Custom VMs often bake MEV capture directly into protocol revenue models (e.g., searcher fees, priority gas auctions). This aligns developer incentives with extractors, not users.

• Revenue is hidden in execution details, not transparent fees.
• Creates perverse incentives to maximize, not minimize, extractable value.
• Undermines credible neutrality—the chain becomes a predatory product.

Without a standardized, verifiable sequencing layer (like Ethereum with PBS), custom VMs lack the infrastructure to prove fair ordering. Shared sequencers like Astria or Espresso are nascent mitigations.

• No proof-of-censorship-resistance or fair ordering.
• Forces blind trust in the operator's integrity.
• Contrast with EigenLayer's approach to decentralizing sequencing.

The fix is not to abandon custom VMs, but to enshrine transparency. Mandate public pre-confirmation logs, verifiable delay functions (VDFs) for ordering, and MEV auction houses.

• Force sequencer logic on-chain for public verification.
• Adopt shared sequencing with cryptographic proofs.
• Learn from Ethereum's PBS roadmap and Cosmos' Skip Protocol.

Custom VMs introduce non-EVM state models (e.g., Move's resource-oriented, SVM's parallel execution). This breaks generalized MEV searcher tooling, forcing extractors to build proprietary bots for each chain. The result is information asymmetry and reduced competition, allowing specialized actors to capture outsized margins in niche pools.

Protocols must standardize a pre-confirmation intent layer, like a shared order flow auction (OFA), that sits above VM diversity. This abstracts execution complexity, creating a transparent, competitive marketplace for block space. Builders should look to SUAVE or Flashbots' vision for a unified settlement layer that neutralizes the VM advantage.

Each custom VM ecosystem (Aptos, Solana, Fuel) fragments liquidity into sovereign pools. Cross-VM arbitrage becomes a complex, multi-step bridge operation dominated by a few sophisticated players. This creates persistent, hidden spreads and worse prices for end-users, undermining the composability promise of a multi-chain world.

Solana's Sealevel runtime enables parallel execution, which transforms MEV from a sequencing game into a race for state access. Jito's bundling ecosystem demonstrates how custom VM mechanics birth specialized extractor networks. The lesson: high-performance VMs don't eliminate MEV; they recentralize it into optimized, opaque pipelines.

Invest in infrastructure that abstracts VM complexity or enforces transparency. Avoid protocols where the core value accrual is predicated on opaque, custom VM mechanics that enable insider extraction. The real moat is in shared security layers and intent standardization, not in creating the next siloed execution environment.

Do not build another custom VM without a plan for MEV transparency. Instead, implement EVM-compatible precompiles or adopt universal intent standards (like those proposed by UniswapX and CowSwap). Your design goal should be to expose value to a public marketplace, not hide it in proprietary runtime semantics.