Push oracles like Chainlink deliver price updates on a regular schedule, broadcasting data to all subscribers simultaneously. This model excels at latency consistency and liveness, ensuring protocols like Aave and Synthetix have predictable, on-time data for critical functions like liquidations. However, this broadcast approach creates a predictable, time-bound information edge that sophisticated bots can exploit for arbitrage and sandwich attacks, extracting value from end-users.
LABS
Comparisons
Push Pricing vs Pull Pricing: MEV
A technical comparison of push and pull oracle pricing models, analyzing their inherent trade-offs in MEV exposure, latency, cost, and security for protocol architects and CTOs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Oracle Pricing Dilemma and MEV
A foundational look at how oracle pricing models fundamentally shape protocol security and economic efficiency in the face of MEV.
Pull oracles such as Pyth Network require users or contracts to explicitly request the latest price. This on-demand model results in lower latency for the requester and can reduce front-running opportunities, as updates are not broadcast. The trade-off is higher gas costs for the pulling contract and potential liveness risks if a request is not made in time, placing the operational burden on the integrator.
The key trade-off: If your priority is operational simplicity and guaranteed liveness for time-sensitive functions, choose a push oracle. If you prioritize minimizing predictable MEV vectors and can manage the gas overhead of on-demand calls, a pull model may be superior. The choice dictates your protocol's exposure to latency arbitrage versus its resilience to stale data.
tldr-summary
Push Pricing vs Pull Pricing: MEV
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural trade-offs for managing MEV at the protocol level. The choice dictates who controls value extraction and transaction ordering.
01
Push Pricing (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum)
Protocol-Enforced Execution: Validators/proposers set inclusion fees (base + priority) and order transactions. This creates a predictable fee market for users but centralizes MEV capture in the hands of block producers. This matters for protocols prioritizing user experience and fee estimation.
>95%
MEV to Validators
Gas Auction
Primary Mechanism
02
Push Pricing Trade-off
MEV Centralization Risk: Builders and proposers capture most value via private orderflow (PBS) and proposer-builder separation (PBS). This can lead to censorship and requires complex infrastructure like MEV-Boost to mitigate. This matters for decentralization purists and applications sensitive to transaction ordering fairness.
03
Pull Pricing (e.g., SUAVE, Flashbots Protect)
User-Directed Execution: Searchers compete in an open market to execute user intent, pulling transactions only when profitable. Users retain MEV value via backrunning or direct payments. This matters for sophisticated users and dApps (e.g., CowSwap) wanting to capture their own generated value.
User/App
MEV Beneficiary
Intent-Based
Primary Mechanism
04
Pull Pricing Trade-off
Complexity & Latency Overhead: Requires users or wallets to integrate with searcher networks or intent solvers. Adds latency for transaction finality and is less mature than push models. This matters for mainstream adoption where simplicity and speed are critical.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON FOR MEV
Feature Comparison: Push vs Pull Pricing
Direct comparison of key architectural and economic metrics for MEV pricing models.
| Metric | Push Pricing | Pull Pricing |
|---|---|---|
Primary MEV Risk | Builder/Proposer (Front-running, Sandwiching) | Searcher (Failed Arbitrage, Execution Risk) |
Pricing Model | Upfront, Fixed Fee (e.g., PBS, MEV-Boost) | Pay-for-Success (e.g., MEV-Share, SUAVE) |
Liquidity Requirement | High (Capital for upfront bids) | Low (Pay only on successful extraction) |
Searcher Onboarding | High Barrier (Capital intensive) | Low Barrier (Permissionless execution) |
Protocol Revenue Source | Auction Premiums & Priority Fees | Success Fee Slippage or Revenue Sharing |
Dominant Use Case | Generalized Block Building | Targeted, Conditional Arbitrage |
Example Implementations | Flashbots MEV-Boost, Builder APIs | MEV-Share, CowSwap, UniswapX |
pros-cons-a
MECHANISM COMPARISON
Push Pricing vs Pull Pricing: MEV
A technical breakdown of the two dominant MEV pricing models, highlighting their core trade-offs for protocol design and user experience.
01
Push Pricing: Pros
Immediate price certainty: Users receive a guaranteed price at transaction submission, shielding them from last-block volatility. This is critical for retail DeFi users and institutional traders requiring execution certainty. Protocols like UniswapX and Cow Swap leverage this model for better UX.
- Reduces Failed Transactions: Eliminates front-running and sandwich attacks for the user.
- Simplifies Accounting: Final cost is known upfront, easing settlement.
02
Push Pricing: Cons
Higher gas overhead & complexity: Relayers or solvers must pre-commit capital and bundle transactions, increasing infrastructure costs. This can lead to higher implicit fees passed to users. Systems like Flashbots SUAVE aim to optimize this but add protocol complexity.
- Solver/Relayer Risk: Centralizes risk in a few entities that must be trusted for execution and liquidity.
- Latency Sensitivity: Performance depends on solver competition and network propagation speed.
03
Pull Pricing: Pros
Simplicity and low overhead: The protocol (e.g., a standard Uniswap V3 pool) defines a pricing function; users 'pull' liquidity at the current rate. This minimizes infrastructure needs and is ideal for high-frequency, automated strategies where bots monitor mempools.
- Capital Efficiency: LPs' funds are always in the pool, not locked in solver contracts.
- Proven Scale: Handles the vast majority of on-chain DEX volume with predictable, auditable logic.
04
Pull Pricing: Cons
Exposes users to MEV: Transaction execution price is uncertain until block inclusion, making users vulnerable to sandwich attacks and front-running. This creates a poor experience for end-users and disadvantages naive participants.
- Race Conditions: Encourages gas auctions, driving up network congestion and costs for all.
- Requires User Sophistication: Users must employ MEV protection tools like MEVBlocker or private RPCs (e.g., Flashbots Protect) to mitigate risks.
pros-cons-b
A Technical Breakdown
Push Pricing vs Pull Pricing: MEV
A comparison of the dominant MEV extraction models, focusing on their architectural trade-offs, economic impact, and suitability for different protocol designs.
01
Push Pricing (e.g., Ethereum, Solana)
Pro: Simpler User Experience & Predictable Fees Users submit a transaction with a fee, and validators/proposers include it based on that bid. This creates a straightforward, auction-based market. This matters for dApps prioritizing user simplicity and predictable state finality.
Con: Inefficient Price Discovery & Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) The public mempool exposes intent, allowing searchers to front-run and sandwich trades. This leads to billions in extracted value (e.g., over $1.2B extracted on Ethereum in 2023) and worse prices for end users.
02
Pull Pricing (e.g., CowSwap, UniswapX)
Pro: MEV Resistance & Improved Price Execution Users sign an order intent, and off-chain solvers compete in a sealed-batch auction to provide the best settlement. This eliminates front-running and can achieve better-than-market prices via Coincidence of Wants (CoWs). This matters for traders and protocols minimizing leakage.
Con: Complex Infrastructure & Reliance on Solvers Requires a trusted network of solvers and a sophisticated off-chain auction mechanism. This adds protocol complexity and creates new trust assumptions around solver honesty and liveness.
03
Choose Push Pricing For...
Protocols valuing maximum decentralization and liveness.
- High-Frequency, Low-Value Transactions: Where MEV is a small percentage of swap size.
- General-Purpose Blockchains: Needing a simple, universal transaction model for all dApp types (DeFi, NFTs, Social).
- Established Ecosystems: Like Ethereum and Solana, where infrastructure (block builders, RPCs) is already optimized for this model.
04
Choose Pull Pricing For...
Applications where MEV protection is a primary feature.
- Retail-Focused DEX Aggregators: Protecting users from sandwich attacks is a key selling point (e.g., CowSwap, 1inch Fusion).
- Large, Sensitive Trades: Where even small price improvements save significant value.
- New L1/L2 Design: Architecting a chain from scratch with MEV minimization as a core principle (e.g., integrating a native order flow auction).
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which Model
Push Pricing for DeFi
Verdict: The dominant, battle-tested standard for permissionless systems. Strengths: EIP-1559 on Ethereum creates predictable base fees, while Priority Fees (tips) allow users to push transactions through during congestion. This model is integrated into every major wallet (MetaMask, Rabby) and is essential for protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and Compound that require user-initiated actions. It's the only viable option for public mempools. Weaknesses: Users bear the full cost and complexity of fee estimation. Susceptible to frontrunning and sandwich attacks in public mempools, requiring integration with services like Flashbots Protect.
Pull Pricing for DeFi
Verdict: A specialized model for private order flow and intent-based architectures. Strengths: Protocols or searchers pull and pay for user transactions, abstracting gas complexity. This is core to CoW Swap, UniswapX, and Flashbots SUAVE. It enables MEV capture redirection back to users and allows for sophisticated batch settlements, improving price execution. Weaknesses: Requires a trusted relayer or order flow auction. Not suitable for simple, immediate user actions. Limits composability as transactions are processed off the public mempool.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between push and pull pricing is a strategic decision that hinges on your protocol's tolerance for MEV and its operational complexity.
Push Pricing excels at providing predictable, upfront costs for users because the protocol itself initiates and pays for the transaction. For example, in a Uniswap V3 pool, the swap fee is a known percentage of the trade, shielding the user from the volatile gas auction dynamics of the block space market. This model builds user trust and simplifies the front-end experience, making it ideal for mainstream DeFi applications where cost certainty is paramount.
Pull Pricing takes a different approach by decoupling execution from payment, allowing users to submit intent-based orders that are fulfilled later by third-party solvers. This results in a trade-off: it can achieve superior price execution and MEV extraction for the user (e.g., via CoW Swap or UniswapX), but introduces complexity and requires robust solver networks and competition to prevent centralization. The user's final cost is revealed post-execution, which can be lower but is less predictable.
The key trade-off: If your priority is user experience simplicity, cost predictability, and minimizing protocol-side MEV risk, choose Push Pricing. This is the standard for most AMMs and lending protocols like Aave. If you prioritize maximizing user yield, aggregating liquidity across venues, and formally capturing MEV value for users, choose Pull Pricing. This is the strategic direction for intent-based protocols and advanced DEX aggregators aiming for optimal execution.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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