Why Cross-Chain MEV Cannot Be Solved Without Dedicated Hubs

Cross-chain MEV is systemic. It is not a bug but a feature of fragmented liquidity. Every atomic swap via LayerZero or Axelar creates a multi-domain arbitrage opportunity that extractors exploit.

Bridges are not sequencers. Protocols like Across and Stargate are message-passing layers, not execution layers with MEV-aware ordering. This creates a coordination gap between intent fulfillment and chain-state finality.

The hub is the only solution. A dedicated cross-chain sequencing layer is required to internalize and manage this value flow, transforming a leakage problem into a protocol revenue stream, as seen in UniswapX's off-chain design.

Cross-chain MEV is a coordination problem. It requires atomic execution across multiple, isolated state machines. General-purpose bridges like Stargate or LayerZero are message-passing rails, not execution engines. They lack the infrastructure to discover, simulate, and guarantee atomic bundles across chains.

Intent-based solvers are insufficient alone. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap optimize for single-chain fills. Their solvers cannot natively compose with solvers on another chain. A hub acts as the neutral settlement layer where cross-chain intents are matched and finalized, preventing fragmented, suboptimal execution.

Without a hub, MEV leaks. Competing solvers on separate chains create arbitrage gaps that are captured by searchers, not users. This is the cross-chain DEX sandwich attack. A hub internalizes this value by enabling atomic, multi-chain bundle construction that eliminates inter-chain latency for attackers.

Evidence: The mempool vacuum. Ethereum has a canonical mempool; cross-chain does not. The success of Flashbots SUAVE as a single-chain MEV hub proves the model. Its proposed cross-chain vision fails without a dedicated hub architecture to coordinate its decentralized block builders across L2s.

Cross-chain MEV is unsolvable without a shared execution layer. Bridges like Across, Stargate, and LayerZero are passive message-passing channels; they cannot coordinate or compete for atomic cross-domain value extraction.

Intent-based systems like UniswapX expose the core flaw. Solvers compete within a chain but cannot see or act on opportunities spanning Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base simultaneously, leaving billions in latent value uncaptured.

The fragmentation creates negative-sum games. MEV searchers onchain A front-run a bridge transaction, destroying value that a solver onchain B intended to capture. This is a coordination failure inherent to the current architecture.

Evidence: Over $2.1B in bridge volume flows daily (DeFiLlama), yet cross-chain arbitrage remains a niche, manual pursuit dominated by a few specialized firms, not a liquid, permissionless market.

Point solutions create blind spots. Bridges like Across and Stargate operate as isolated messaging channels, lacking visibility into the execution environment on the destination chain. This creates a fundamental information asymmetry where the bridge cannot see pending transactions or mempool dynamics, making it impossible to optimize for MEV or protect users from it.

Execution is not transport. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap solve for intents within a single domain but fail across chains because they rely on a destination solver. Without a dedicated cross-chain sequencer, these solvers cannot coordinate atomic execution or access a unified mempool, leaving value on the table for generalized searchers.

The hub is the vantage point. A specialized cross-chain MEV hub, analogous to a Layer 2 sequencer but for inter-chain flow, is the only architecture that can maintain a global state view. This allows for the coordination of complex multi-chain arbitrage and liquidation bundles that LayerZero's simple messaging cannot facilitate.

Evidence: The success of EigenLayer's restaking for security illustrates the demand for shared infrastructure layers. Cross-chain MEV capture requires a similar dedicated coordination layer; without it, over 60% of cross-chain arbitrage opportunities remain unexploited according to Chainscore Labs estimates.

Bridges are message-passing infrastructure. Protocols like Across, Stargate, and LayerZero are optimized for secure, trust-minimized state transfer. They are not designed to coordinate complex, multi-step transactions or compete for atomic execution windows across chains.

Cross-chain MEV is an execution problem. It requires real-time, global liquidity discovery and the ability to atomically execute a multi-leg trade. A bridge's relayer cannot perform this role without becoming a centralized, permissioned MEV searcher.

The hub model centralizes competition. A dedicated cross-chain MEV hub like Chainscore's proposed system creates a single, permissionless marketplace. This aggregates searchers and solvers, driving efficiency down to the protocol's fundamental latency and finality limits.

Evidence: The rise of intent-based architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap proves that separating order flow from execution is optimal. A cross-chain MEV hub is the natural extension of this principle into a multi-chain environment.

Cross-chain MEV is a coordination problem that existing bridges like Stargate and LayerZero treat as a transport problem. Their generalized messaging layers lack the specialized execution environment needed to atomically coordinate assets and state across multiple chains, creating exploitable arbitrage windows.

Generic L2s are execution-constrained, optimized for single-chain throughput, not for the latency-sensitive, multi-chain atomic bundles that MEV requires. An Arbitrum sequencer cannot natively enforce settlement on Ethereum and Solana in the same block, creating a fundamental architectural mismatch.

The solution is a dedicated MEV hub like Suave, which centralizes intent matching and cross-chain routing logic. This consolidation creates a unified liquidity and information layer where searchers compete on a level field, unlike the fragmented, first-come-first-served model of today's bridges.

Evidence: Intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap already demonstrate the efficiency of centralized solving. Extending this model cross-chain with a sovereign chain like Suave is the logical evolution, moving value capture from transport (bridges) to coordination (the hub).