-
Non-Atomic Arbitrage in Decentralized Finance
Authors:
Lioba Heimbach,
Vabuk Pahari,
Eric Schertenleib
Abstract:
The prevalence of maximal extractable value (MEV) in the Ethereum ecosystem has led to a characterization of the latter as a dark forest. Studies of MEV have thus far largely been restricted to purely on-chain MEV, i.e., sandwich attacks, cyclic arbitrage, and liquidations. In this work, we shed light on the prevalence of non-atomic arbitrage on decentralized exchanges (DEXes) on the Ethereum bloc…
▽ More
The prevalence of maximal extractable value (MEV) in the Ethereum ecosystem has led to a characterization of the latter as a dark forest. Studies of MEV have thus far largely been restricted to purely on-chain MEV, i.e., sandwich attacks, cyclic arbitrage, and liquidations. In this work, we shed light on the prevalence of non-atomic arbitrage on decentralized exchanges (DEXes) on the Ethereum blockchain. Importantly, non-atomic arbitrage exploits price differences between DEXes on the Ethereum blockchain as well as exchanges outside the Ethereum blockchain (i.e., centralized exchanges or DEXes on other blockchains). Thus, non-atomic arbitrage is a type of MEV that involves actions on and off the Ethereum blockchain.
In our study of non-atomic arbitrage, we uncover that more than a fourth of the volume on Ethereum's biggest five DEXes from the merge until 31 October 2023 can likely be attributed to this type of MEV. We further highlight that only eleven searchers are responsible for more than 80% of the identified non-atomic arbitrage volume sitting at a staggering $132 billion and draw a connection between the centralization of the block construction market and non-atomic arbitrage. Finally, we discuss the security implications of these high-value transactions that account for more than 10% of Ethereum's total block value and outline possible mitigations.
△ Less
Submitted 8 April, 2024; v1 submitted 3 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
The Potential of Self-Regulation for Front-Running Prevention on DEXes
Authors:
Lioba Heimbach,
Eric Schertenleib,
Roger Wattenhofer
Abstract:
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. While novel market desi…
▽ More
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. 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 sophisticated traders, retail traders, and liquidity providers in DEXes. Sophisticated traders adjust for front-running attacks, while retail traders do not, likely due to lack of knowledge or irrationality. Our findings show that with less than 1% of order flow from retail traders, traders' and liquidity providers' interests align with the market's social incentives - eliminating front-running attacks. However, the benefit from embracing this novel market is often small and may not suffice to entice them. With retail traders making up a larger proportion (around 10%) of the order flow, liquidity providers tend to stay in pools that do not protect against front-running. This suggests both educating traders and providing additional incentives for liquidity providers are necessary for market self-regulation.
△ Less
Submitted 6 September, 2024; v1 submitted 9 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Short Squeeze in DeFi Lending Market: Decentralization in Jeopardy?
Authors:
Lioba Heimbach,
Eric G. Schertenleib,
Roger Wattenhofer
Abstract:
Anxiety levels in the Aave community spiked in November 2022 as Avi Eisenberg performed an attack on Aave. Eisenberg attempted to short the CRV token by using funds borrowed on the protocol to artificially deflate the value of CRV. While the attack was ultimately unsuccessful, it left the Aave community scared and even raised question marks regarding the feasibility of large lending platforms unde…
▽ More
Anxiety levels in the Aave community spiked in November 2022 as Avi Eisenberg performed an attack on Aave. Eisenberg attempted to short the CRV token by using funds borrowed on the protocol to artificially deflate the value of CRV. While the attack was ultimately unsuccessful, it left the Aave community scared and even raised question marks regarding the feasibility of large lending platforms under decentralized governance.
In this work, we analyze Avi Eisenberg's actions and show how he was able to artificially lower the price of CRV by selling large quantities of borrowed CRV for stablecoins on both decentralized and centralized exchanges. Despite the failure of his attack, it still led to irretrievable debt worth more than 1.5 Mio USD at the time and, thereby, quadrupled the protocol's irretrievable debt. Furthermore, we highlight that his attack was enabled by the vast proportion of CRV available to borrow as well as Aave's lending protocol design hindering rapid intervention. We stress Eisenberg's attack exposes a predicament of large DeFi lending protocols: limit the scope or compromise on 'decentralization'.
△ Less
Submitted 21 June, 2023; v1 submitted 8 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
Exploring Price Accuracy on Uniswap V3 in Times of Distress
Authors:
Lioba Heimbach,
Eric Schertenleib,
Roger Wattenhofer
Abstract:
Financial markets have evolved over centuries, and exchanges have converged to rely on the order book mechanism for market making. Latency on the blockchain, however, has prevented decentralized exchanges (DEXes) from utilizing the order book mechanism and instead gave rise to the development of market designs that are better suited to a blockchain. Although the first widely popularized DEX, Unisw…
▽ More
Financial markets have evolved over centuries, and exchanges have converged to rely on the order book mechanism for market making. Latency on the blockchain, however, has prevented decentralized exchanges (DEXes) from utilizing the order book mechanism and instead gave rise to the development of market designs that are better suited to a blockchain. Although the first widely popularized DEX, Uniswap V2, stood out through its astonishing simplicity, a recent design overhaul introduced with Uniswap V3 has introduced increasing levels of complexity aiming to increase capital efficiency.
In this work, we empirically study the ability of Unsiwap V3 to handle unexpected price shocks. Our analysis finds that the prices on Uniswap V3 were inaccurate during the recent abrupt price drops of two stablecoins: UST and USDT. We identify the lack of agility required of Unsiwap V3 liquidity providers as the root cause of these worrying price inaccuracies. Additionally, we outline that there are too few incentives for liquidity providers to enter liquidity pools, given the elevated volatility in such market conditions.
△ Less
Submitted 10 November, 2022; v1 submitted 20 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
