The Potential of Self-Regulation for Front-Running Prevention on DEXes

The transaction ordering dependency of the smart contracts building decentralized exchanges (DEXes) allow for predatory trading strategies. In particular, front-running attacks present a constant risk for traders on DEXes. Whereas legal regulation outlaws most front-running practices in traditional finance, such measures are ineffective in preventing front-running on DEXes due to the absence of a central authority. While novel market designs hindering front-running may emerge, it remains unclear whether the market's participants, in particular liquidity providers, would be willing to adopt these new designs. A misalignment of the participant's private incentives and the market's social incentives can hinder the market from adopting an effective prevention mechanism. We present a game-theoretic model to study the behavior of traders and liquidity providers in DEXes. Our work finds that in most market configurations, the private interests of traders and liquidity providers align with the market's social incentives - eliminating front-running attacks. However, even though liquidity providers generally benefit from embracing the market that prevents front-running, the benefit is often small and may not suffice to entice them to change strategy in reality. Thus, we find that inert liquidity providers might require additional incentives to adopt innovative market designs and permit the market's successful self-regulation

DeFi Lending During The Merge

Lending protocols in decentralized finance enable the permissionless exchange of capital from lenders to borrowers without relying on a trusted third party for clearing or market-making. Interest rates are set by the supply and demand of capital according to a pre-defined function. In the lead-up to The Merge: Ethereum blockchain's transition from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS), a fraction of the Ethereum ecosystem announced plans of continuing with a PoW-chain. Owners of ETH - whether their ETH was borrowed or not - would hold the native tokens on each chain. This development alarmed lending protocols. They feared spiking ETH borrowing rates would lead to mass liquidations which could undermine their viability. Thus, the decentralized autonomous organization running the protocols saw no alternative to intervention - restricting users' ability to borrow. We investigate the effects of the merge and the aforementioned intervention on the two biggest lending protocols on Ethereum: AAVE and Compound. Our analysis finds that borrowing rates were extremely volatile, jumping by two orders of magnitude, and borrowing at times reached 100% of the available funds. Despite this, no spike in mass liquidations or irretrievable loans materialized. Further, we are the first to quantify and analyze hard-fork-arbitrage, profiting from holding debt in the native blockchain token during a hard fork. We find that arbitrageurs transferred tokens to centralized exchanges which at the time were worth more than 13 Mio US$, money that was effectively extracted from the platforms' lenders

Ethereum Proof-of-Stake Consensus Layer: Participation and Decentralization

In September 2022, Ethereum transitioned from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) during "the merge" - making it the largest PoS cryptocurrency in terms of market capitalization. With this work, we present a comprehensive measurement study of the current state of the Ethereum PoS consensus layer on the beacon chain. We perform a longitudinal study of the history of the beacon chain. Our work finds that all dips in network participation are caused by network upgrades, issues with major consensus clients, or issues with service operators controlling a large number of validators. Further, our longitudinal staking power decentralization analysis reveals that Ethereum PoS fairs similarly to its PoW counterpart in terms of decentralization and exhibits the immense impact of (liquid) staking services on staking power decentralization. Finally, we highlight the heightened security concerns in Ethereum PoS caused by high degrees of centralization

DeFi and NFTs Hinder Blockchain Scalability

Many classical blockchains are known to have an embarrassingly low transaction throughput, down to Bitcoin's notorious seven transactions per second limit.Various proposals and implementations for increasing throughput emerged in the first decade of blockchain research. But how much concurrency is possible? In their early days, blockchains were mostly used for simple transfers from user to user. More recently, however, decentralized finance (DeFi) and NFT marketplaces have completely changed what is happening on blockchains. Both are built using smart contracts and have gained significant popularity. Transactions on DeFi and NFT marketplaces often interact with the same smart contracts. We believe this development has transformed blockchain usage. In our work, we perform a historical analysis of Ethereum's transaction graph. We study how much interaction between transactions there was historically and how much there is now. We find that the rise of DeFi and NFT marketplaces has led to an increase in "centralization" in the transaction graph. More transactions are now interconnected: currently there are around 200 transactions per block with 4000 interdependencies between them. We further find that the parallelizability of Ethereum's current interconnected transaction workload is limited. A speedup exceeding a factor of five is currently unrealistic.Comment: 22 pages, 12 figures, to be published in Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC), May 202

Ethereum's Proposer-Builder Separation: Promises and Realities

With Ethereum's transition from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake in September 2022 came another paradigm shift, the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) scheme. PBS was introduced to decouple the roles of selecting and ordering transactions in a block (i.e., the builder), from those validating its contents and proposing the block to the network as the new head of the blockchain (i.e., the proposer). In this landscape, proposers are the validators in the Proof-of-Stake consensus protocol who validate and secure the network, while now relying on specialized block builders for creating blocks with the most value (e.g., transaction fees) for the proposer. Additionally, relays play a crucial new role in this ecosystem, acting as mediators between builders and proposers, being entrusted with the responsibility of transmitting the most lucrative blocks from the builders to the proposers. PBS is currently an opt-in protocol (i.e., a proposer can still opt-out and build their own blocks). In this work, we study it's adoption and show that the current PBS landscape exhibits significant centralization amongst the builders and relays. We further explore whether PBS effectively achieves its intended objectives of enabling hobbyist validators to maximize block profitability and preventing censorship. Our findings reveal that although PBS grants all validators the same opportunity to access optimized and competitive blocks, it tends to stimulate censorship rather than reduce it. Additionally, our analysis demonstrates that relays do not consistently uphold their commitments and may prove unreliable. Specifically, there are instances where proposers do not receive the complete value as initially promised, and the censorship or filtering capabilities pledged by the relay exhibit significant gaps

SoK: Preventing Transaction Reordering Manipulations in Decentralized Finance

User transactions on Ethereum's peer-to-peer network are at risk of being attacked. The smart contracts building decentralized finance (DeFi) have introduced a new transaction ordering dependency to the Ethereum blockchain. As a result, attackers can profit from front- and back-running transactions. Multiple approaches to mitigate transaction reordering manipulations have surfaced recently. However, the success of individual approaches in mitigating such attacks and their impact on the entire blockchain remains largely unstudied. In this systematization of knowledge (SoK), we categorize and analyze state-of-the-art transaction reordering manipulation mitigation schemes. Instead of restricting our analysis to a scheme's success at preventing transaction reordering attacks, we evaluate its full impact on the blockchain. Therefore, we are able to provide a complete picture of the strengths and weaknesses of current mitigation schemes. We find that currently no scheme fully meets all the demands of the blockchain ecosystem. In fact, all approaches demonstrate unsatisfactory performance in at least one area relevant to the blockchain ecosystem

Base Fee Manipulation In Ethereum's EIP-1559 Transaction Fee Mechanism

In 2021 Ethereum adjusted the transaction pricing mechanism by implementing EIP-1559, which introduces the base fee - a fixed network fee per block that is burned and adjusted dynamically in accordance with network demand. The authors of the Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) noted that a miner with more than 50% of the mining power might have an incentive to deviate from the honest mining strategy. Instead, such a miner could propose a series of empty blocks to increase its future rewards. In this paper, we generalize this attack and show that under rational player behavior, deviating from the honest strategy can be profitable for a miner with less than 50% of the mining power. Further, even when miners do not collaborate, it is rational for smaller mining power miners to join the attack