MEV on Layer 2 DeFi Networks: Strategies and Risks

concepts

Core Concepts of L2 MEV

Understanding the unique characteristics and mechanisms of Maximal Extractable Value on Layer 2 scaling solutions.

Sequencer Centralization

The sequencer is a single node that orders transactions on most L2s, creating a centralized point for MEV extraction. Unlike Ethereum's decentralized mempool, this role is often managed by the L2 team or a trusted entity. This centralization allows the sequencer to front-run or reorder transactions within a batch before submission to L1, capturing value that would otherwise be contested by a public network of searchers.

Cross-Domain MEV

Cross-domain MEV refers to value extraction opportunities that span both Layer 1 and Layer 2. A common example is arbitrage between an L2 DEX and the mainnet when an asset's price diverges. Searchers must manage the latency and finality differences between chains. This creates complex strategies involving bridging assets and timing transactions across the two domains to capture price inefficiencies.

Batch Submission & Compression

L2s aggregate transactions into compressed batches submitted to L1. The entity controlling batch creation can reorder transactions within it to extract MEV. This process hides transaction intent from the public until the batch is finalized on Ethereum. The compression of calldata also changes the economic model, as gas costs are amortized across many users, altering the profit calculus for MEV strategies compared to L1.

Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) for L2s

Proposer-Builder Separation is a design pattern being adapted for L2s to decentralize sequencing and mitigate MEV centralization. It separates the role of building transaction blocks (Builder) from the role of proposing/ordering them (Proposer). Builders compete in an auction to have their block accepted, potentially creating a more transparent and competitive market for L2 block space and MEV, similar to Ethereum's post-merge roadmap.

Fast Withdrawal MEV

Fast withdrawal services on L2s create specific MEV opportunities. These services provide instant liquidity to users exiting an L2, backed by a liquidity pool on L1. Searchers can profit by monitoring the withdrawal queue and the state of the liquidity pool, performing arbitrage if the service's exchange rate deviates from the market or by providing liquidity when demand is high, capturing fees and spreads.

MEV-Boost for Rollups

MEV-Boost is an architecture that allows rollup sequencers to outsource block building to a competitive marketplace. Specialized builders create optimized, MEV-rich blocks, and sequencers choose the most profitable one. This can increase sequencer revenue and potentially redistribute some value to L2 users via fee rebates. It represents a move towards a more modular and efficient MEV supply chain within the L2 ecosystem.

MEV Across Different L2 Architectures

How L2 Design Shapes MEV

MEV extraction is fundamentally constrained by the underlying consensus and sequencing model of a Layer 2. The architecture dictates who can see transactions, in what order, and who has the authority to finalize blocks.

Key Architectural Models

Optimistic Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism): A single sequencer receives, orders, and submits transaction batches to L1. This creates a centralized point for transaction ordering MEV, as the sequencer can front-run or reorder user transactions before they are posted to Ethereum. The challenge period delays finality, but does not prevent the sequencer from extracting value.
ZK-Rollups (e.g., zkSync Era, Starknet): Provers generate cryptographic validity proofs. While some use a centralized sequencer similar to Optimistic Rollups, the focus shifts to prover competition. MEV may be extracted by the entity that can generate the cheapest or fastest validity proof for a profitable batch.
Validiums & Volitions (e.g., Immutable X): Data availability is kept off-chain. This introduces data availability committee (DAC) risk as a new MEV vector. Actors controlling data withholding could potentially censor or extract value from transactions before they are settled.

Example

On an Optimistic Rollup, a user's large swap on a decentralized exchange like Uniswap V3 is seen first by the sequencer. The sequencer can insert its own profitable trade directly ahead of the user's transaction in the batch, capturing the price impact.

Common MEV Strategies on L2s

Process overview of prevalent MEV extraction techniques on Layer 2 networks.

Arbitrage Across L2 DEXs

Exploit price differences for the same asset across different decentralized exchanges on the same L2.

Detailed Instructions

Arbitrage is the most fundamental MEV strategy, capitalizing on temporary price discrepancies. On L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism, liquidity is often fragmented across multiple DEXs (e.g., Uniswap, SushiSwap, Balancer).

Sub-step 1: Monitor price feeds. Use a mempool listener or a subgraph query to track the reserve ratios of token pairs (e.g., ETH/USDC) across target DEX pools. A profitable opportunity exists when price_A > price_B * (1 + fees + gas_cost).
Sub-step 2: Construct the bundle. Build a transaction that executes a swap on the lower-priced DEX followed immediately by a swap on the higher-priced DEX. The profit is the net difference in output tokens.
Sub-step 3: Submit via private RPC. To avoid frontrunning, submit the atomic bundle directly to a block builder's private RPC endpoint (e.g., Flashbots Protect, bloXroute) rather than the public mempool.

solidity
// Simplified arbitrage contract logic for two Uniswap V3 pools
function executeArbitrage(
    address poolCheap,
    address poolExpensive,
    uint256 amountIn
) external {
    // Swap token0 for token1 on the cheap pool
    (int256 amount0, int256 amount1) = IUniswapV3Pool(poolCheap).swap(...);
    // Swap the received token1 back to token0 on the expensive pool
    (int256 amount0Out, int256 amount1Out) = IUniswapV3Pool(poolExpensive).swap(...);
    // Profit = final token0 balance - initial token0 amountIn
}

Tip: Account for the specific fee tiers (e.g., 5bps, 30bps) of each pool in your profit calculation, as they differ across L2 deployments.

Liquidations on Lending Protocols

Identify and execute undercollateralized positions on L2-native money markets.

Detailed Instructions

Liquidation involves repaying a borrower's debt in exchange for their collateral at a discount when their health factor falls below a threshold (e.g., healthFactor < 1.0).

Sub-step 1: Track positions. Monitor the health of open positions on protocols like Aave V3 on Arbitrum or Compound on Base. This can be done by listening for HealthFactorUpdated events or polling the getUserAccountData() view function.
Sub-step 2: Calculate profitability. Determine the liquidation bonus (e.g., 5-10%) and the gas cost. The profit must exceed the L2 transaction fee, which is lower than L1 but still variable.
Sub-step 3: Execute the liquidation. Call the protocol's public liquidation function (e.g., liquidationCall()). You must supply the exact debt asset to be repaid. Use a flash loan from an L2-native provider if you lack the upfront capital.

solidity
// Example call to Aave V3's liquidation function
interface IAavePool {
    function liquidationCall(
        address collateralAsset,
        address debtAsset,
        address user,
        uint256 debtToCover,
        bool receiveAToken
    ) external;
}
// The caller repays `debtToCover` of `debtAsset` and receives discounted `collateralAsset`.

Tip: Due to lower latency on L2s, competition is fierce. Use a searcher bundle sent to a private transaction pool to ensure your liquidation tx is included in the next block.

Sandwich Trading in High-Frequency Pools

Frontrun and backrun large user swaps in pools with high volume and predictable slippage.

Detailed Instructions

Sandwich trading involves placing one transaction before and one after a target victim swap to profit from its price impact.

Sub-step 1: Identify a victim transaction. In the public mempool, look for large, non-private swap transactions with high maxSlippage settings. The target token pair should have concentrated liquidity (e.g., in a Uniswap V3 5bps fee pool on Optimism) to maximize price movement.
Sub-step 2: Execute the frontrun. Immediately submit a buy transaction for the same token the victim is buying, pushing the price up. This transaction must be bundled and given priority via a private relay.
Sub-step 3: Execute the backrun. After the victim's swap executes at the worsened price, sell the tokens you acquired in the frontrun, profiting from the difference.

javascript
// Pseudocode for sandwich detection logic
const victimTx = mempool.getLargeSwap("WETH", "USDC", 1000);
if (victimTx.slippageTolerance > 0.5) {
    const frontrun = buildSwap("USDC", "WETH", victimTx.amount * 0.1); // Buy 10% of victim amount
    const backrun = buildSwap("WETH", "USDC", frontrun.amountOut); // Sell all acquired WETH
    submitBundle([frontrun, victimTx, backrun]);
}

Tip: This strategy is highly adversarial and may be mitigated by users using swap aggregators with private RPCs or protocols like CowSwap that use batch auctions.

NFT Marketplace Arbitrage

Profit from mispriced NFTs across different L2 marketplaces and aggregation layers.

Detailed Instructions

NFT arbitrage exploits listing price differences for the same NFT collection across platforms like Blur, OpenSea, and LooksRare on a given L2.

Sub-step 1: Index floor prices. Continuously scan the floorPrice for target collections (e.g., Pudgy Penguins) across multiple marketplaces via their APIs or indexer subgraphs. Focus on collections with high liquidity.
Sub-step 2: Identify profitable listings. Find NFTs listed significantly below the aggregate floor price. Calculate profit after accounting for marketplace fees (Blur 0.5%, OpenSea 2.5%) and L2 gas costs.
Sub-step 3: Execute the buy and list. Purchase the undervalued NFT in a single transaction. Immediately create a new listing on the higher-priced marketplace. The two actions can be combined in a single atomic transaction using a helper contract to mitigate risk.

solidity
// Example helper contract for atomic NFT arbitrage
contract NFTArb {
    function buyAndList(
        address marketplaceBuy,
        uint256 tokenId,
        address marketplaceSell,
        uint256 listPrice
    ) external payable {
        // Execute purchase on first marketplace
        IMarketplace(marketplaceBuy).buyToken{value: msg.value}(tokenId);
        // Approve and list on second marketplace
        IERC721(NFT_ADDR).approve(marketplaceSell, tokenId);
        IMarketplace(marketplaceSell).listToken(tokenId, listPrice);
    }
}

Tip: Monitor marketplace reward tokens (e.g., BLUR) and airdrop criteria, as these can significantly impact the net profitability of trading activity.

Cross-L2 Bridge Arbitrage

Capitalize on price differences for bridged assets between an L2 and other layers.

Detailed Instructions

Bridge arbitrage involves moving assets between an L2 and L1 or another L2 when the canonical bridged asset trades at a premium or discount to its native counterpart.

Sub-step 1: Identify price divergence. Monitor the price of a bridged asset (e.g., USDC.e on Arbitrum) against its native version (USDC on Ethereum) or its price on another L2. Use DEX oracles and CEX prices as references.
Sub-step 2: Plan the asset flow. If USDC.e is trading at a discount on Arbitrum, the strategy is to buy USDC.e, bridge it to Ethereum via the canonical bridge (taking 10-30 minutes), and sell it for native USDC at a 1:1 value.
Sub-step 3: Execute and manage latency. Initiate the bridge withdrawal, which has a challenge period (e.g., 7 days for Optimistic Rollups, ~1 hour for some ZK-Rollups). Hedge the price risk during this period using perpetual futures or by executing the opposite leg on a fast third-party bridge like Hop or Across.

solidity
// Interacting with a canonical bridge (e.g., Arbitrum's L1 Gateway)
interface IL1Gateway {
    function outboundTransfer(
        address _token,
        address _to,
        uint256 _amount,
        bytes calldata _data
    ) external payable returns (bytes memory);
}
// The `_data` includes the max submission cost and gas limit for the L2 side of the transaction.

Tip: This strategy requires significant capital to be profitable due to bridging latency and gas costs. It is more suitable for institutional actors or large pools.

Comparing MEV Risk Profiles: L1 vs. L2

Key differences in MEV extraction vectors, costs, and mitigations between base layer and scaling solutions.

Risk Vector / Metric	Ethereum L1	Optimistic Rollup (e.g., Optimism)	ZK-Rollup (e.g., zkSync Era)
Block Builder Centralization	High (Dominant by a few professional builders)	Moderate (Sequencer-operated, but proposer is L1)	Moderate (Sequencer-operated, but proposer is L1)
Frontrunning Cost (Gas)	~$50 - $500+ per transaction	~$0.01 - $0.10 per transaction	~$0.01 - $0.10 per transaction
Sandwich Attack Viability	High (Public mempool visibility)	Low (Sequencer mempool is private)	Low (Sequencer mempool is private)
Time-Bandit Attack Surface	High (12-second block time)	Very Low (Finality tied to L1 challenge period)	Very Low (Instant cryptographic finality)
Arbitrage Latency Window	~12 seconds	~2 seconds (sequencer ordering)	~2 seconds (sequencer ordering)
MEV-Boost Adoption	Ubiquitous (>90% of blocks)	Not applicable (No fork choice rule on L2)	Not applicable (No fork choice rule on L2)
Primary Mitigation Layer	Protocol-level (PBS, SUAVE)	Application-level (FCFS, private RPCs)	Application-level (FCFS, encrypted mempools)

mitigation_techniques

MEV Mitigation for L2 Builders and Users

Strategies and mechanisms to reduce the negative externalities of Maximal Extractable Value on Layer 2 networks, protecting users and ensuring fairer system operation.

Fair Sequencing Services

Fair ordering protocols that prevent frontrunning by establishing a canonical transaction order before execution.

Uses cryptographic techniques like threshold signatures or consensus.
Decouples transaction ordering from block production.
Example: Chainlink FSS or Espresso Systems.
This matters for users by providing stronger guarantees against sandwich attacks and time-bandit exploits.

Encrypted Mempools

Transaction privacy mechanisms that hide transaction content until it is included in a block.

Uses threshold encryption or commit-reveal schemes.
Prevents searchers from scanning the public pool for profitable opportunities.
Implemented in networks like Aztec or as an add-on for EVM chains.
This protects users by making the content of their pending trades invisible to bots.

Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)

An architectural design that separates the roles of block building and block proposing.

Builders compete to create the most valuable blocks via a sealed-bid auction.
Proposers (validators) simply select the highest-paying header.
This mitigates centralization and reduces the incentive for proposers to engage in harmful MEV extraction themselves.
For users, PBS can lead to a more competitive and transparent block space market.

MEV-Aware Application Design

Application-level logic that developers implement to shield users from specific MEV vectors.

Features include transaction batching, limit order books, and private RPC endpoints.
Example: CowSwap's batch auctions with uniform clearing prices.
Use commit-reveal schemes for NFT mints to prevent gas wars.
This directly impacts user experience by reducing failed transactions and improving price execution.

MEV Redistribution and Burn

Mechanisms to capture extracted MEV and redistribute it back to users or burn it.

A protocol can auction off the right to reorder transactions in a block.
The proceeds are then distributed to stakers or burned, reducing the net extractable value.
Example: EIP-1559 base fee burn indirectly captures some MEV.
This matters by socializing the value or removing it from circulation, disincentivizing pure extraction.

Subsidy and Insurance Mechanisms

Protocols that actively compensate users for losses due to MEV.

Creates a cryptoeconomic safety net funded by system revenues or insurance pools.
Can automatically refund users who fall victim to sandwich attacks.
Requires robust MEV detection and attribution systems.
This builds user trust by providing a direct financial backstop against adversarial MEV strategies.

Frequently Asked Questions on L2 MEV

MEV extraction on Optimistic Rollups is fundamentally constrained by the sequencer's centralized ordering and the challenge period delay. On L1, searchers compete in a public mempool, while on L2, the sequencer typically has sole discretion over transaction ordering, privatizing the mempool. This centralizes MEV capture. Furthermore, extracted value cannot be settled to L1 until the fraud proof window (often 7 days) closes, creating a significant capital lock-up period. For example, a profitable arbitrage identified on Optimism may not be realized on Ethereum for over a week, altering the risk-reward calculus.

MEV on Layer 2 DeFi Networks

Core Concepts of L2 MEV

Sequencer Centralization

Cross-Domain MEV

Batch Submission & Compression

Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) for L2s

Fast Withdrawal MEV

MEV-Boost for Rollups

MEV Across Different L2 Architectures

How L2 Design Shapes MEV

Key Architectural Models

Example

Common MEV Strategies on L2s

Arbitrage Across L2 DEXs

Detailed Instructions

Liquidations on Lending Protocols

Detailed Instructions

Sandwich Trading in High-Frequency Pools

Detailed Instructions

NFT Marketplace Arbitrage

Detailed Instructions

Cross-L2 Bridge Arbitrage

Detailed Instructions

Comparing MEV Risk Profiles: L1 vs. L2

MEV Mitigation for L2 Builders and Users

Fair Sequencing Services

Encrypted Mempools

Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)

MEV-Aware Application Design

MEV Redistribution and Burn

Subsidy and Insurance Mechanisms

Frequently Asked Questions on L2 MEV

Further Reading and Research

MEV on Ethereum

Flashbots Documentation

Arbitrum Transaction Lifecycle

Flashbots Research and Talks

Build the future.