When Ethereum's consensus used proof of work, a miner of block B would have no guarantees that they would also be a miner of block B + 1. This property is important when considering the impact of MEV on certain transactions. For instance, this has led Uniswap to design its price oracle to only update at the beginning of each block prior to any trades occurring. This way, MEV actors cannot be 100% sure that a trade they perform will also be able to influence the price oracle, because the only way for that to happen is if they were able to ensure they'll mine block B and as well block B + 1.


Now that the network has switched to Proof of Stake, and a validator knows they'll have 32 consecutive blocks in which they have full control of the order of transactions, should smart contract developers ensure there is a 32-block separation (and not just a 1 block separation) between MEV-impacted components of their smart contracts?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.