An overview of the most significant MEV strategies that target leverage, liquidation, and pricing mechanisms within decentralized derivatives protocols.
LABS
Guides
DeFi Derivatives and MEV Risk
Chainscore © 2025
mev_vectors
Primary MEV Attack Vectors in Derivatives
01
Liquidation Front-Running
Liquidation front-running involves bots detecting a near-liquidatable position and manipulating the price to trigger it, then submitting their own liquidation transaction with higher gas to claim the reward.
- Bots monitor mempools for
liquidatePositioncalls. - They may execute a small trade on a DEX to push the price past the liquidation threshold.
- The original liquidator's transaction fails, and the attacker collects the fee.
- This directly reduces profitability for legitimate keepers and can increase costs for traders.
02
Oracle Manipulation
Oracle manipulation attacks exploit the latency or manipulability of price feeds used by perpetual swaps and options protocols to trigger unfair liquidations or create arbitrage opportunities.
- Attackers can temporarily move the price on a smaller DEX that serves as an oracle source.
- This can falsely signal a position is undercollateralized.
- After a liquidation, the price often snaps back, allowing profit.
- Protocols using TWAPs or multiple sources are more resilient to this vector.
03
Funding Rate Arbitrage
Funding rate arbitrage targets the periodic payments in perpetual futures contracts. Bots manipulate the spot price relative to the perpetual's price to influence the funding rate direction for profit.
- A bot might pump the spot price on a DEX to increase positive funding rates.
- They hold a corresponding short position in the perpetual to collect the funding.
- This extracts value from long-position holders.
- It can distort the intended mechanism that keeps the perpetual price anchored to the spot.
04
Transaction Reordering (Sandwiching)
Transaction reordering in derivatives involves sandwiching large orders that impact the oracle price or the AMM pool used for settlement, extracting value from the trader.
- A large market order on a perp DEX is seen in the mempool.
- The bot front-runs it with a buy, driving the price up.
- The victim's order executes at a worse price.
- The bot then sells in the same block, profiting from the inflated price.
- This increases slippage and cost for end-users.
05
Liquidity Sniping
Liquidity sniping targets the initialization of new derivative markets or liquidity pools. Bots front-run the first deposits to gain a favorable position, often at the expense of the protocol or initial LPs.
- A new options vault or perp pool is announced with initial capital.
- Bots monitor contract deployments and are the first to mint shares or LP tokens.
- They can then immediately sell these tokens to later depositors at a premium.
- This attacks the fair launch mechanism and can deter early organic liquidity.
06
Time-Bandit Attacks
Time-bandit attacks exploit the ability of some blockchain designs to reorg blocks. Attackers can revert blocks where unfavorable derivative settlements (like liquidations against them) occurred.
- This is a longer-range attack requiring significant hash power.
- An attacker's large leveraged position is liquidated in a block.
- They attempt to mine a competing chain that excludes that block, reversing the liquidation.
- While rare on Ethereum today, it's a consideration for protocols on chains with weaker consensus security.
Protocol-Specific MEV Vulnerabilities
Understanding MEV in Derivatives
Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) refers to profit that can be extracted by reordering, inserting, or censoring transactions within a block. In derivatives protocols, this risk is often tied to how prices are updated and positions are liquidated.
Key Vulnerabilities
- Oracle Manipulation: Attackers can temporarily manipulate the price feed an oracle provides, triggering unfair liquidations or enabling profitable trades before the price corrects. This is a major risk for perpetual futures.
- Liquidation Front-Running: When a position becomes undercollateralized, bots can see the pending liquidation transaction and pay a higher gas fee to liquidate it first, capturing the liquidation fee that should have gone to a keeper.
- Arbitrage on Slippage: Large trades on AMM-based derivative vaults create predictable price impact. Bots can sandwich the trade, buying the asset before and selling after, extracting value from the trader.
Example
When a trader opens a large leveraged position on a perpetual DEX, the price update creates an arbitrage opportunity. A searcher's bot detects this, executes a trade against the oracle on another venue just before the update, and reverses it after, profiting from the temporary price discrepancy.
Implementing MEV Mitigation for Derivatives
A technical process for integrating MEV protection into derivatives protocol design and user interactions.
1
Analyze Protocol-Specific MEV Vectors
Identify and categorize the unique MEV risks inherent to your derivatives system.
Detailed Instructions
Begin by mapping the order flow and state transitions of your protocol. For perpetual futures, analyze liquidation triggers, funding rate updates, and position modifications. For options, scrutinize the exercise and settlement mechanisms.
- Sub-step 1: Audit all user-facing transactions (open, close, liquidate) for predictable profit opportunities from frontrunning or sandwiching.
- Sub-step 2: Examine keeper or oracle update functions for latency arbitrage, where the time between price feed and execution creates risk.
- Sub-step 3: Model the economic value extractable from each vector, estimating potential loss per trade for users.
solidity// Example: Identifying a vulnerable liquidation function function liquidatePosition(address trader) public { Position memory pos = positions[trader]; // MEV Risk: Oracle price is read here. A keeper can frontrun if the price update is predictable. require(_isUnderwater(pos, oracle.getPrice()), "Position not liquidatable"); ... // liquidation logic }
Tip: Use historical blockchain data and MEV explorer tools like EigenPhi to quantify past extraction on similar protocols.
2
Integrate a Private Transaction Relay
Route sensitive transactions through a private mempool to prevent frontrunning.
Detailed Instructions
Implement a private transaction relay like Flashbots Protect RPC, BloxRoute's blxr:// endpoint, or Taichi Network. This prevents transactions from being publicly visible in the mempool before inclusion in a block.
- Sub-step 1: Configure your protocol's frontend or SDK to send transactions for key actions (e.g.,
openPosition,claimArbitrage) to the chosen relay's RPC endpoint. - Sub-step 2: For smart contract-initiated actions (e.g., keeper liquidations), use a trusted relayer pattern where a designated address submits bundles directly to builders.
- Sub-step 3: Set appropriate priority fees (
maxPriorityFeePerGas) for the relay to ensure builder acceptance without revealing your fee strategy publicly.
javascript// Example: Sending a tx via Flashbots Protect in a frontend import { FlashbotsBundleProvider } from '@flashbots/ethers-provider-bundle'; const flashbotsProvider = await FlashbotsBundleProvider.create(provider, authSigner); const signedTx = await wallet.signTransaction(tx); const bundleSubmission = await flashbotsProvider.sendPrivateTransaction({ transaction: signedTx, signer: wallet });
Tip: Combine with
revertprotection from relays to avoid paying gas for failed frontrun attempts.
3
Implement Commit-Reveal Schemes for Orders
Decouple order submission from execution to hide intent and prevent latency races.
Detailed Instructions
Design a two-phase commit-reveal scheme for order placement. Users first commit to an order hash, then reveal the order details after a delay, eliminating the advantage of seeing the full intent in the mempool.
- Sub-step 1: Define a struct for the order (price, size, trader) and a function
commitOrder(bytes32 orderHash)whereorderHash = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(orderParams, nonce)). - Sub-step 2: Enforce a minimum reveal delay (e.g., 5 blocks) before the
revealAndExecuteOrderfunction can be called with the original parameters and nonce. - Sub-step 3: Validate in the reveal function that the hash matches the commitment and the reveal period is active, then execute the trade at the current market price.
solidity// Simplified commit-reveal structure for a limit order mapping(address => bytes32) public commitments; function commit(bytes32 orderCommitment) external { commitments[msg.sender] = orderCommitment; } function revealAndExecute(Order calldata order, uint256 nonce) external { require(commitments[msg.sender] == keccak256(abi.encode(order, nonce)), "Invalid reveal"); require(block.number >= commitBlock[msg.sender] + 5, "Reveal delay not met"); delete commitments[msg.sender]; // Execute order against current oracle price _executeOrder(order); }
Tip: This adds latency and is best suited for non-time-sensitive orders like limit orders or funding rate arbitrage.
4
Use TWAPs and Batch Auctions for Settlements
Mitigate price impact and timing manipulation during critical settlement phases.
Detailed Instructions
Replace instantaneous price checks with Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) oracles or batch settlement auctions. This dilutes the value of manipulating a single price point.
- Sub-step 1: For funding rate calculations or mark price determination, integrate a TWAP oracle (e.g., Uniswap V3 TWAP, Chainlink Data Streams) over a 5-30 minute window instead of a spot price.
- Sub-step 2: For protocol-wide actions like option expiry settlement, use a batch auction. Collect all settlement requests in an epoch and process them in a single block using a single fair price fetched after the epoch ends.
- Sub-step 3: Implement access control so only a permissionless solver or the protocol itself can trigger the batch settlement, preventing users from racing to settle at marginally different prices.
solidity// Example: Checking a TWAP for a funding rate update interface ITWAPOracle { function getTWAP() external view returns (uint256 price); } function updateFundingRate() external { require(block.timestamp >= lastUpdate + 1 hours, "Too soon"); // Use TWAP over last hour instead of spot price uint256 twapPrice = ITWAPOracle(oracle).getTWAP(); _calculateAndStoreFundingRate(twapPrice); lastUpdate = block.timestamp; }
Tip: Batch auctions inherently increase settlement latency but provide fairness, a key property for derivatives.
5
Deploy MEV-Aware Keeper and Liquidator Systems
Design back-end systems to perform critical functions while minimizing extracted value.
Detailed Instructions
Protocol keepers (for liquidations, rebalancing) must be designed to avoid becoming MEV targets or extractors themselves. Use a combination of permissioning and incentive alignment.
- Sub-step 1: Implement a Dutch auction for liquidation rights. Instead of fixed rewards, allow keepers to bid a discount on the collateral they seize; the lowest bid (best for the protocol) wins.
- Sub-step 2: Use a randomized delay for keeper selection or execution. After a position becomes liquidatable, wait for a random 1-3 block period before allowing any keeper to act, reducing predictability.
- Sub-step 3: For in-protocol arbitrage (e.g., funding rate arbitrage), design a public goods-style reward that caps profitability or redistributes excess to stakers, disincentivizing wasteful gas wars.
solidity// Example: Dutch auction for liquidation discount function liquidateWithBid(address trader, uint256 offeredDiscountBps) external { require(_isLiquidatable(trader), "Not liquidatable"); require(offeredDiscountBps <= MAX_DISCOUNT_BPS, "Discount too high"); require(offeredDiscountBps < currentBestBid[trader], "Not best bid"); currentBestBid[trader] = offeredDiscountBps; auctionEndTime[trader] = block.timestamp + 5 minutes; // Winning keeper executes after auction period }
Tip: Consider using SUAVE or a similar decentralized block building network for fully decentralized, MEV-resistant keeper operations in the future.
MEV Solution Trade-offs for Derivatives
Comparison of architectural approaches for mitigating MEV in on-chain derivatives protocols.
| Architecture | MEV Resistance | Latency Impact | Gas Overhead | Implementation Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Private Order Flow (e.g., Flashbots Protect) | High (via off-chain auction) | High (1-5 block delay) | ~50k gas (for bundle inclusion) | Medium (requires RPC endpoint integration) |
Commit-Reveal Schemes | High (hides intent) | Very High (2+ block finality) | ~120k gas (two transactions) | High (custom state management) |
Fair Sequencing Services (FSS) | Very High (centralized sequencer trust) | Low (sub-second, but centralized) | Minimal (standard tx cost) | Low (protocol-level integration) |
Threshold Encryption (e.g., Shutter Network) | Very High (cryptographic hiding) | High (1-2 block key release delay) | ~80k gas (encryption/decryption) | Very High (TEE/MPC dependency) |
Frequent Batch Auctions (FBA) | Medium (batches limit front-running) | High (batch interval, e.g., 1 block) | ~30k gas (batch settlement logic) | Medium (requires order book redesign) |
In-protocol Slippage Controls (e.g., TWAP) | Low (only mitigates price impact MEV) | Low (executes per block) | Minimal (standard execution) | Low (parameter tuning) |
Submarine Sends / Time-lock Puzzles | Medium (delays execution visibility) | Very High (puzzle solve time) | ~200k+ gas (puzzle creation/solving) | Very High (cryptographic circuit design) |
MEV and Derivatives: Technical FAQs
Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) directly impacts perpetual futures pricing through liquidation cascades and oracle manipulation. During high volatility, searchers can front-run liquidations, triggering a series of forced sells that push the index price further down. This creates a feedback loop where the funding rate becomes negative, punishing longs. For example, a 5% price drop can be exacerbated to 8-10% due to MEV-driven liquidations, distorting the mark price from the true underlying index and creating profitable arbitrage opportunities for bots.