Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
173 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

RediSwap: MEV Redistribution Mechanism for CFMMs (2410.18434v1)

Published 24 Oct 2024 in cs.GT and cs.CR

Abstract: Automated Market Makers (AMMs) are essential to decentralized finance, offering continuous liquidity and enabling intermediary-free trading on blockchains. However, participants in AMMs are vulnerable to Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) exploitation. Users face threats such as front-running, back-running, and sandwich attacks, while liquidity providers (LPs) incur the loss-versus-rebalancing (LVR). In this paper, we introduce RediSwap, a novel AMM designed to capture MEV at the application level and refund it fairly among users and liquidity providers. At its core, RediSwap features an MEV-redistribution mechanism that manages arbitrage opportunities within the AMM pool. We formalize the mechanism design problem and the desired game-theoretical properties. A central insight underpinning our mechanism is the interpretation of the maximal MEV value as the sum of LVR and individual user losses. We prove that our mechanism is incentive-compatible and Sybil-proof, and demonstrate that it is easy for arbitrageurs to participate. We empirically compared RediSwap with existing solutions by replaying historical AMM trades. Our results suggest that RediSwap can achieve better execution than UniswapX in 89% of trades and reduce LPs' loss to under 0.5% of the original LVR in most cases.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (53)
  1. P. Daian, S. Goldfeder, T. Kell, Y. Li, X. Zhao, I. Bentov, L. Breidenbach, and A. Juels, “Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability,” in 2020 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP ’20).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 910–927.
  2. K. Qin, L. Zhou, and A. Gervais, “Quantifying Blockchain Extractable Value: How dark is the forest?” in 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP ’22).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 198–214.
  3. C. F. Torres, R. Camino et al., “Frontrunner Jones and the Raiders of the Dark Forest: An Empirical Study of Frontrunning on the Ethereum Blockchain,” in 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security ’21), 2021, pp. 1343–1359.
  4. L. Zhou, K. Qin, C. F. Torres, D. V. Le, and A. Gervais, “High-Frequency Trading on Decentralized On-Chain Exchanges,” in 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP ’21).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 428–445.
  5. J. Milionis, C. C. Moallemi, T. Roughgarden, and A. L. Zhang, “Automated Market Making and Loss-Versus-Rebalancing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.06046, 2022.
  6. Flashbots, “MEV-Share,” https://docs.flashbots.net/flashbots-protect/mev-share/, 2024, accessed: 2024-10-08.
  7. MEV Blocker, “MEV Blocker,” https://mevblocker.io/, 2023, accessed: 2024-10-08.
  8. CoW DAO, “CoW Protocol Documentation,” https://docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol, 2022, accessed: 2024-10-05.
  9. C. Protocol, “MEV Blocker,” https://dune.com/cowprotocol/mev-blocker, 2023, accessed: 2024-10-10.
  10. Uniswap, “UniswapX Overview,” https://docs.uniswap.org/contracts/uniswapx/overview, 2023, accessed: 2024-10-05.
  11. A. Adams, C. Moallemi, S. Reynolds, and D. Robinson, “am-AMM: An Auction-Managed Automated Market Maker,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03367, 2024.
  12. Josojo, “MEV capturing AMM (McAMM),” 2022, accessed: 2024-10-08. [Online]. Available: https://ethresear.ch/t/mev-capturing-amm-mcamm/13336
  13. R. Fritsch and A. Canidio, “Measuring Arbitrage Losses and Profitability of AMM Liquidity,” in Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference (WWW ’24), 2024, pp. 1761–1767.
  14. J. Milionis, C. C. Moallemi, and T. Roughgarden, “The Effect of Trading Fees on Arbitrage Profits in Automated Market Makers,” in International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC ’23).   Springer, 2023, pp. 262–265.
  15. G. Angeris and T. Chitra, “Improved Price Oracles: Constant Function Market Makers,” in Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT ’20), 2020, pp. 80–91.
  16. L. Heimbach, V. Pahari, and E. Schertenleib, “Non-Atomic Arbitrage in Decentralized Finance,” in 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP ’24).   IEEE Computer Society, 2024, pp. 224–224.
  17. Ethereum Foundation, “The Merge — ethereum.org,” 2024, accessed: 2024-10-10. [Online]. Available: https://ethereum.org/en/roadmap/merge/
  18. Sorella, “Sorella dashboard,” 2024, accessed: 2024-10-07. [Online]. Available: https://sorellalabs.xyz/dashboard
  19. G. Angeris, A. Evans, T. Chitra, and S. Boyd, “Optimal Routing for Constant Function Market Makers,” in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC ’22), 2022, pp. 115–128.
  20. D. Engel and M. Herlihy, “Composing Networks of Automated Market Makers,” in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT ’23), 2021, pp. 15–28.
  21. L. Zhou, K. Qin, and A. Gervais, “A2MM: Mitigating Frontrunning, Transaction Reordering and Consensus Instability in Decentralized Exchanges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.07371, 2021.
  22. G. Ramseyer, A. Goel, and D. Mazières, “SPEEDEX: A Scalable, Parallelizable, and Economically Efficient Decentralized EXchange,” in 20th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI ’23), 2023, pp. 849–875.
  23. M. Zhang, Y. Li, X. Sun, E. Chen, and X. Chen, “Computation of Optimal MEV in Decentralized Exchanges,” Working paper-https://mengqian-zhang.github.io/papers/batch.pdf, Tech. Rep., 2024.
  24. A. Canidio and R. Fritsch, “Batching Trades on Automated Market Makers,” in 5th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT ’23).   Schloss-Dagstuhl-Leibniz Zentrum für Informatik, 2023.
  25. G. Ramseyer, M. Goyal, A. Goel, and D. Mazières, “Augmenting Batch Exchanges with Constant Function Market Makers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04929, 2022.
  26. M. V. Xavier Ferreira and D. C. Parkes, “Credible Decentralized Exchange Design via Verifiable Sequencing Rules,” in Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ’23), 2023, pp. 723–736.
  27. T. Chan, K. Wu, and E. Shi, “Mechanism Design for Automated Market Makers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09357, 2024.
  28. S. Wadhwa, L. Zanolini, F. D’Amato, A. Asgaonkar, C. Fang, F. Zhang, and K. Nayak, “Data Independent Order Policy Enforcement: Limitations and Solutions,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2023.
  29. C. McMenamin and V. Daza, “An AMM minimizing user-level extractable value and loss-versus-rebalancing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13599, 2023.
  30. Flashbots, “Flashbots Protect Overview,” https://docs.flashbots.net/flashbots-protect/overview, 2024, accessed: 2024-10-20.
  31. M. Kelkar, F. Zhang, S. Goldfeder, and A. Juels, “Order-Fairness for Byzantine Consensus,” in 40th Annual International Cryptology Conference, (CRYPTO ’20).   Springer, 2020, pp. 451–480.
  32. M. Kelkar, S. Deb, S. Long, A. Juels, and S. Kannan, “Themis: Fast, Strong Order-Fairness in Byzantine Consensus,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS ’23), 2023, pp. 475–489.
  33. Y. Zhang, S. Setty, Q. Chen, L. Zhou, and L. Alvisi, “Byzantine Ordered Consensus without Byzantine Oligarchy,” in 14th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI ’20), 2020, pp. 633–649.
  34. C. Cachin, J. Mićić, N. Steinhauer, and L. Zanolini, “Quick Order Fairness,” in International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC ’22).   Springer, 2022, pp. 316–333.
  35. S. Yang, F. Zhang, K. Huang, X. Chen, Y. Yang, and F. Zhu, “SoK: MEV Countermeasures: Theory and Practice,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05111, 2022.
  36. T. Roughgarden, “Transaction Fee Mechanism Design,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC ’21), P. Biró, S. Chawla, and F. Echenique, Eds.   ACM, 2021, p. 792. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3465456.3467591
  37. M. Bahrani, P. Garimidi, and T. Roughgarden, “Transaction Fee Mechanism Design in a Post-MEV World,” in 6th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT ’24), September 23-25, 2024, Vienna, Austria, ser. LIPIcs, R. Böhme and L. Kiffer, Eds., vol. 316.   Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2024, pp. 29:1–29:24. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.AFT.2024.29
  38. H. Chung, T. Roughgarden, and E. Shi, “Collusion-Resilience in Transaction Fee Mechanism Design,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09321, 2024.
  39. Y. Gafni and A. Yaish, “Barriers to Collusion-resistant Transaction Fee Mechanisms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08564, 2024.
  40. J. Lenzi, “An Efficient and Sybil Attack Resistant Voting Mechanism,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01844, 2024.
  41. W. Wang, L. Zhou, A. Yaish, F. Zhang, B. Fisch, and B. Livshits, “Mechanism Design for ZK-Rollup Prover Markets,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06495, 2024.
  42. B. Mazorra and N. Della Penna, “Towards Optimal Prior-Free Permissionless Rebate Mechanisms, with applications to Automated Market Makers & Combinatorial Orderflow Auctions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17024, 2023.
  43. M. Bartoletti, J. H.-y. Chiang, and A. Lluch Lafuente, “Maximizing Extractable Value from Automated Market Makers,” in International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC ’22).   Springer, 2022, pp. 3–19.
  44. Binance, “ETH Price,” 2024, accessed: 2024-10-05. [Online]. Available: https://www.binance.com/en/price/ethereum
  45. Binance, “Historical market data,” 2024, accessed: 2024-10-05. [Online]. Available: https://www.binance.com/en/landing/data
  46. D. Analytics, “DEX Trades Dataset,” https://dexanalytics.org/schemas/dex-trades, 2024, accessed: 2024-10-05.
  47. Dune Analytics. (2024) Dune. [Online]. Available: https://dune.com/
  48. B. C. Arnold, “Pareto distribution,” Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, pp. 1–10, 2014.
  49. Etherscan, “Etherscan DEX,” https://etherscan.io/dex, 2024, accessed: 2024-10-17.
  50. V. Costan, “Intel SGX explained,” IACR Cryptol, EPrint Arch, 2016.
  51. Intel, “Intel Trust Domain Extensions (TDX) Documentation,” https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/tools/trust-domain-extensions/documentation.html, 2023, accessed: 2024-10-23.
  52. Oracles and the new frontier for application-owned orderflow auctions - multicoin capital. [Online]. Available: https://multicoin.capital/2023/12/14/oracles-and-the-new-frontier-for-application-owned-orderflow-auctions/
  53. C. Protocol, “CowSwap Dashboard,” https://dune.com/cowprotocol/cowswap, 2024, accessed: 2024-10-08.

Summary

  • The paper proposes a novel MEV redistribution mechanism that precisely quantifies LVR and trade losses to enhance fairness in Automated Market Makers.
  • It employs mechanism design principles, including incentive compatibility and Sybil-proofing, and uses a second-price auction model for arbitrage participation.
  • Empirical results show an 89% improvement in execution prices and LP exposure reductions below 0.5%, validating RediSwap's effectiveness.

An Overview of "RediSwap: MEV Redistribution Mechanism for CFMMs"

The paper "RediSwap: MEV Redistribution Mechanism for CFMMs" introduces a novel approach designed to address the challenges posed by Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) in the context of Automated Market Makers (AMMs) in decentralized finance (DeFi). The authors focus on devising a fair mechanism for the redistribution of MEV within Constant Function Market Makers (CFMMs), ensuring equitable benefits to liquidity providers (LPs) and users.

Motivation

AMMs have revolutionized DeFi by enabling seamless token exchanges without needing an intermediary. However, they are susceptible to MEV exploitation, which refers to the excess value that intermediaries can capture through manipulating transaction sequencing. This generates multiple concerns:

  • Users may encounter detrimental trade executions due to strategies like front-running and sandwich attacks.
  • Liquidity Providers face Loss-Versus-Rebalancing (LVR), which undermines profitability.

Existing solutions to mitigate MEV, such as MEV-Share and MEV Blocker, focus on refunding a portion of the extracted value downstream in the transaction flow but often fall short of comprehensiveness and fairness.

RediSwap Mechanism

RediSwap proposes a mechanism that operates at the application level, directly integrating with the CFMM:

  • It interprets MEV as the collective sum of LVR and user trade losses, allowing a precise quantification of value extraction.
  • The authors employ mechanism design principles to ensure that the system is incentive-compatible and Sybil-proof, minimizing opportunities for gaming by strategic users.

Key Components and Process

  1. Bundle Generation: During a transaction, RediSwap constructs a transaction bundle, determining an optimal set of trades that maximizes MEV while maintaining fairness. The process ensures that MEV captured is proportional to each trade's loss within the bundle.
  2. Payment and Refund: The mechanism incorporates a second-price auction model. It collects payments from arbitrageurs based on their reported price beliefs and redistributes these funds proportionately to users and LPs.
  3. Arbitrage Participation: The system permits straightforward engagement for arbitrageurs, who can participate without complex strategies, mainly providing their price expectations.

Results and Evaluation

Empirical assessments were conducted by replaying historical trades against existing protocols like UniswapX and CoWSwap. The outcomes illustrated that:

  • RediSwap achieves superior execution prices in 89% of cases compared to UniswapX.
  • LPs' exposure to LVR is significantly reduced, often to less than 0.5% in the considered scenarios.

Theoretical Implications

The theoretical framework ensures that the mechanism adheres to essential game theory principles:

  • Truthfulness: Encourages accurate reporting of valuations by arbitrageurs.
  • Sybil-Proofness: Protects against false-user proliferation and collusion.

Practical Implications and Future Directions

RediSwap's integration into DeFi protocols promises improved fairness in MEV distribution, enhancing usability and trust. Future aspirations for RediSwap and similar mechanisms could include:

  • Extending the model to other DeFi infrastructures such as lending platforms and cross-protocol interactions.
  • Exploiting cryptographic advancements for secure implementation, potentially leveraging Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) for private computation.
  • Investigating solver behaviors in broader contexts to further refine and align incentives toward holistic user-beneficial outcomes.

The RediSwap mechanism presents a promising advancement in DeFi, harnessing mechanism design and empirical validation to tackle pervasive MEV challenges effectively.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com