Search

In this article, we develop an interdisciplinary analysis of MEV which desires to merge the gap that exists between technical and legal research supporting policymakers in their regulatory decisions concerning blockchains, DeFi and associated risks. Consequently, this article is intended for both technical and legal audiences, and while we abstain from a detailed legal analysis, we aim to open a policy discussion regarding decentralized governance design at the block building layer as the place where MEV occurs. Maximal Extractable Value or MEV has been one of the major concerns in blockchain designs as it creates a centralizing force which ultimately affects user transactions. In this article, we dive into the technicality behind MEV, where we explain the concept behind the novel Proposal Builder Separation design as an effort by Flashbots to increase decentralization through modularity. We underline potential vulnerability factors under the PBS design, which open space for MEV extracting adversarial strategies by inside participants. We discuss the shift of trust from validators to builders in PoS blockchains such as Ethereum, acknowledging the impact that the later ones may have on users' transactions (in terms of front running) and censorship resistance (in terms of transaction inclusion). We recognize that under PBS, centralized (dominant) entities such as builders could potentially harm users by extracting MEV via front running strategies. Finally, we suggest adequate design and policy measures which could potentially mitigate these negative effects while protecting blockchain users., Comment: 12 pages

The potential for blockchain technology to eliminate the middleman and replace the top down hierarchical model of governance with a system of distributed cooperation has opened up many new opportunities, as well as dilemmas. Surpassing the level of acceptance by early tech adopters, the market of smart contracts is now moving towards wider acceptance from regular (non tech) users. For this to happen however, smart contract development will have to overcome certain technical and legal obstacles to bring the code and the user closer. Guided by notions from contract law and consumer protection we highlight the information gap that exists between users, legal bodies and the source code. We present a spectrum of low-code to no-code initiatives that aim at bridging this gap, promising the potential of higher regulatory acceptance. Nevertheless, this highlights the so called "Pitfall of the Trustless Dream", because arguably solutions to the information gap tend to make the system more centralized. In this article, we aim to make a practical contribution of relevance to the wide-spread adoption of smart contracts and their legal acceptance by analyzing the evolving practices that bring the user and the code closer.