pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22667 · v2 · pith:RFFJLXAMnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 💻 cs.GT · q-fin.TR

Imperfect Commitment in Maximal Extractable Value Auctions

Aleksei Adadurov , Sergey Barseghyan , Anton Chtepine , Antero Eloranta , Andrei Sebyakin , Arsenii Valitov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 15:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.GT q-fin.TR
keywords MEV auctionsimperfect commitmentEthereumbuilder defectionsearcher biddingreplication fractionsandwich arbitrageliquidations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Imperfect builder commitment in MEV auctions leaves more surplus exposed in arbitrage and liquidations than in sandwiches.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper models Ethereum block builders who run sealed auctions for MEV opportunities but can defect with probability ε after observing bids and replicate a type-specific fraction γ(τ) of the winning bundle. Searchers anticipate this and select between a risky first-price bid and a safe deterrence bid that renders frontrunning unprofitable, producing a piecewise equilibrium whose cost depends on both replicability and competition. Using the libMEV dataset the authors estimate γ(τ) from right-tail bribe plateaus and decompose observed auction revenue against the surplus a defecting builder could capture. The results reveal sharp heterogeneity: sandwich opportunities are already highly competitive while naked arbitrage and liquidations leave substantially more surplus exposed to builder defection.

Core claim

The cost of imperfect commitment depends jointly on replicability and competition; credible MEV auctions therefore require not only an auction format but also constraints on the builder's ability to use observed bid and payload information ex post.

What carries the argument

Builder defection process with probability ε and type-specific replication fraction γ(τ), which searchers internalize when choosing between risky first-price bids and safe deterrence bids.

If this is right

  • Auction revenue can be decomposed into the portion protected by competition versus the portion vulnerable to defection.
  • Sandwich MEV already operates near the competitive limit, so imperfect commitment adds little extra cost.
  • Naked arbitrage and liquidations expose a larger fraction of surplus to builder replication.
  • Any protocol aiming for credible MEV extraction must limit ex-post use of bid and payload data in addition to specifying an auction rule.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same estimation approach could be applied to other sealed-bid settings where the auctioneer can act on information after the bids are submitted.
  • Protocols might reduce exposed surplus by forcing builders to commit to bundles before seeing searcher bids rather than after.
  • Heterogeneity across MEV types suggests that uniform auction rules may be suboptimal and type-specific constraints could be more efficient.

Load-bearing premise

Right-tail bribe plateaus in the libMEV dataset allow reliable estimation of the type-specific replication fraction gamma(tau) and searchers' equilibrium choice between risky and safe bids follows directly from the modeled defection process.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of actual builder replication success rates after observing winning bids, broken down by MEV type, would confirm or refute the estimated gamma(tau) values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22667 by Aleksei Adadurov, Andrei Sebyakin, Antero Eloranta, Anton Chtepine, Arsenii Valitov, Sergey Barseghyan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Timing of the game [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Bribe percentage vs extracted value by MEV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Bergemann disclosure benchmark by effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Auction revenue (blue) vs foregone frontrun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ethereum block builders run sealed auctions among searchers, but nothing in the protocol forces a builder to honor the auction outcome after observing submitted bundles. This paper studies the commitment problem. We model a builder who defects with probability $\varepsilon$ and, upon defection, replicates a type-specific fraction $\gamma(\tau)$ of the winning MEV opportunity. Searchers anticipate this behavior and choose between a risky first-price bid and a safe deterrence bid that makes frontrunning unprofitable. The resulting equilibrium is piecewise, with the cost of imperfect commitment depending jointly on replicability and competition. Using the libMEV dataset, we estimate $\gamma(\tau)$ from right-tail bribe plateaus and decompose observed auction revenue against the surplus a defecting builder could capture. The results show sharp heterogeneity across MEV types: sandwich opportunities are already highly competitive, while naked arbitrage and liquidations leave substantially more surplus exposed to builder defection. Credible MEV auctions, therefore, require not only an auction format, but also constraints on the builder's ability to use observed bid and payload information ex post.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript models imperfect commitment in MEV auctions where a builder defects with probability ε and replicates a type-specific fraction γ(τ) of the opportunity upon defection. Searchers anticipate this and select between risky first-price bids and safe deterrence bids, leading to a piecewise equilibrium. Using the libMEV dataset, γ(τ) is estimated from right-tail bribe plateaus, and observed auction revenue is decomposed relative to the defecting builder's replicable surplus. The key finding is sharp heterogeneity: sandwich opportunities are highly competitive, whereas naked arbitrage and liquidations expose substantially more surplus to builder defection.

Significance. The work addresses a practically relevant commitment problem in blockchain MEV extraction. The theoretical framework linking replicability, competition, and bidding behavior is a useful contribution. If the empirical decomposition is robust, it provides evidence that different MEV types require different levels of commitment enforcement. The equilibrium analysis is a strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Empirical estimation] The estimation of γ(τ) from right-tail bribe plateaus in the libMEV dataset lacks discussion of potential confounding factors such as systematic differences in opportunity values or searcher arrival rates across MEV types. This could shift the observed plateaus independently of replicability, undermining the type-specific surplus exposure measures (Empirical section).
  2. [Revenue decomposition] The decomposition of observed auction revenue against the surplus a defecting builder could capture relies on the estimated γ(τ), so the reported heterogeneity across types is partly a restatement of the fitted parameter rather than an independent prediction. This is load-bearing for the central empirical claim (Revenue decomposition).
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions the model and data decomposition but provides no references to specific equations, error analysis, or robustness checks.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The estimation of γ(τ) from right-tail bribe plateaus in the libMEV dataset lacks discussion of potential confounding factors such as systematic differences in opportunity values or searcher arrival rates across MEV types. This could shift the observed plateaus independently of replicability, undermining the type-specific surplus exposure measures (Empirical section).

    Authors: We agree that the empirical section would benefit from explicit discussion of potential confounders. In the revision we will add a new paragraph after the description of the plateau estimator that addresses systematic differences in opportunity values and searcher arrival rates. We will note that the right-tail identification focuses on the most competitive bids within each type, provide supplementary tabulations of opportunity-value proxies by type, and report robustness checks that restrict the sample to opportunities with comparable value distributions. These additions will clarify the identifying assumptions without altering the core estimates. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The decomposition of observed auction revenue against the surplus a defecting builder could capture relies on the estimated γ(τ), so the reported heterogeneity across types is partly a restatement of the fitted parameter rather than an independent prediction. This is load-bearing for the central empirical claim (Revenue decomposition).

    Authors: We disagree that the heterogeneity result is merely a restatement of the fitted γ(τ). The replicable-surplus term is indeed constructed from the estimated γ(τ), but the numerator of the decomposition—observed auction revenue—is taken directly from the winning bids recorded in the dataset and is therefore independent of the plateau estimation. The reported type-specific gaps therefore reflect the empirical interaction between (i) the replicability parameters recovered from right-tail behavior and (ii) the actual equilibrium payments made by searchers. This decomposition supplies a data-driven measure of exposed surplus rather than a model-derived prediction, and the heterogeneity across MEV types is an empirical finding, not an algebraic identity. revision: no

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Decomposition of auction revenue into replicable surplus uses fitted γ(τ) by construction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract (estimation and decomposition paragraph)]
    "Using the libMEV dataset, we estimate γ(τ) from right-tail bribe plateaus and decompose observed auction revenue against the surplus a defecting builder could capture. The results show sharp heterogeneity across MEV types: sandwich opportunities are already highly competitive, while naked arbitrage and liquidations leave substantially more surplus exposed to builder defection."

    The decomposition defines the defecting builder's replicable surplus for each τ as a direct function of the estimated γ(τ). Therefore the type-specific surplus-exposure figures that produce the heterogeneity claim are computed from the same fitted parameters used to construct the decomposition; the reported differences are not an independent prediction but a restatement of the γ(τ) estimates.

full rationale

The paper estimates type-specific replicability γ(τ) from right-tail bribe plateaus in the libMEV data, then applies those estimates to decompose observed revenues against the surplus a defecting builder could capture. The headline heterogeneity result (sandwiches competitive vs. arb/liquidations exposing more surplus) is obtained directly from this decomposition, so the reported type differences restate the fitted γ(τ) values rather than constituting an independent prediction. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern with no external benchmark or out-of-sample test separating the fit from the claimed result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on two fitted parameters and one domain modeling choice that are not derived from prior literature.

free parameters (2)
  • ε
    Builder defection probability introduced as a model primitive without external calibration.
  • γ(τ)
    Type-specific replication fraction estimated from right-tail bribe plateaus and used to decompose revenue.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Searchers anticipate defection and select between a risky first-price bid and a safe deterrence bid.
    This behavioral assumption generates the piecewise equilibrium described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5741 in / 1156 out tokens · 45753 ms · 2026-06-30T15:42:32.152660+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Imperfect Commitment in Maximal Extractable Value Auctions

    honest-disclosure benchmark, interpreting the honest- disclosure threshold as an upper bound on user-beneficial arXiv:2605.22667v2 [cs.GT] 22 May 2026 2 disclosure once strategic builder behavior is admitted. The contribution is twofold. First, the paper isolates the builder-defection channel in MEV auctions from the auction-format question studied in [1]...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    shows how public transaction information creates priority-gas-auction races and consensus risk, while [13] formalizes the AMM sandwich channel through which or- der details such as size and slippage become directly ex- ploitable. These papers establish replication-based fron- trunning as the relevant manipulation channel in our set- ting: once the builder...

  3. [3]

    The builder’s defection rateεbecomes known

  4. [4]

    Each ofNpotential searchers decides whether to enter, and the number of entrantsn≤Nis realized

  5. [5]

    Each entrantiobserves her own private signalz i and submits a (sealed) bidb i to the builder

  6. [6]

    Resolution of the game: with probabilityε the builder defects and uses the observed bids (b1, . . . , bn) together with the winning transaction payload to frontrun the winner; with probability 1−εthe builder honors the auction outcome, i.e., the highest bidder wins and pays their own bid. Builder’s defection rateεis known Searchers decide whether to enter...

  7. [7]

    Ifγ(τ)v > β(v)for∀v∈ V(high extractability regime), thenε ∗ = 1

  8. [8]

    Proof.By Theorem 3.4, ε(v, τ) is strictly decreasing in v, implying its inversev ∗(ε) is strictly decreasing inε

    Ifγ(τ)v < β(v)for∀v∈ V(low extractability regime), thenε ∗ = 0. Proof.By Theorem 3.4, ε(v, τ) is strictly decreasing in v, implying its inversev ∗(ε) is strictly decreasing inε. Hence, dv∗ dε <0. Becauseε, 1−γ(τ), andf (1) are all non- negative, the term− dv∗ dε v∗ε(1−γ(τ))f (1)(v∗) is strictly positive. In the high extractability regime, the integrand in...

    2024

  9. [9]

    and Valitov, A

    Adadurov, A., Barseghyan, S., Chtepine, A., Eloranta, A., Sebyakin, A. and Valitov, A. (2026) ‘Open vs. sealed: Auction format choice for maximal extractable value’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.16333

    work page arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    and Weinschelbaum, F

    Arozamena, L. and Weinschelbaum, F. (2009) ’The effect of corruption on bidding behavior in first-price auctions’, European Economic Review, 53(6), pp. 645–657

    2009

  11. [11]

    and Roughgarden, T

    Bahrani, M., Garimidi, P. and Roughgarden, T. (2024) Centralization in block building and proposer–builder separation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12120

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    and Winter, E

    Bergemann, D., Heumann, T., Morris, S., Sorokin, C. and Winter, E. (2022) ’Optimal information disclosure in auctions’. Working paper, Yale University, MIT and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

    2022

  13. [13]

    and Pesendorfer, M

    Bergemann, D. and Pesendorfer, M. (2007) ’Informa- tion structures in optimal auctions’, Journal of Economic Theory, 137(1), pp. 580–609

    2007

  14. [14]

    (2009) ’Revealing information in auctions: The allocation effect’, Economic Theory, 38(1), pp

    Board, S. (2009) ’Revealing information in auctions: The allocation effect’, Economic Theory, 38(1), pp. 125–135

    2009

  15. [15]

    and Che, Y.-K

    Burguet, R. and Che, Y.-K. (2004) ’Competitive pro- curement with corruption’, RAND Journal of Economics, 35(1), pp. 50–68

    2004

  16. [16]

    and Verdier, T

    Compte, O., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. and Verdier, T. (2005) ’Corruption and competition in procurement auc- tions’, RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), pp. 1–15

    2005

  17. [17]

    and Juels, A

    Daian, P., Goldfeder, S., Kell, T., Li, Y., Zhao, X., Ben- tov, I., Breidenbach, L. and Juels, A. (2020) ’Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning, transaction reordering, and consensus instability in decentralized exchanges’, in Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, pp. 910–927

    2020

  18. [18]

    and Schummer, J

    Eso, P. and Schummer, J. (2004) ’Bribing and signaling in second price auctions’, Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), pp. 299–324

    2004

  19. [19]

    and Szentes, B

    Eso, P. and Szentes, B. (2007) ’The price of advice’, RAND Journal of Economics, 38(4), pp. 863–880

    2007

  20. [20]

    and Schertenleib, E

    Heimbach, L., Pahari, V. and Schertenleib, E. (2024) Non-atomic arbitrage in decentralized finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01622

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    and Wattenhofer, R

    Heimbach, L. and Wattenhofer, R. (2022) ’Eliminating sandwich attacks with the help of game theory’, in Pro- ceedings of the 2022 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, pp. 153–167

    2022

  22. [22]

    (1999) ’Auction theory: A guide to the literature’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 13(3), pp

    Klemperer, P. (1999) ’Auction theory: A guide to the literature’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 13(3), pp. 227–286

    1999

  23. [23]

    (2010)Auction theory

    Krishna, V. (2010)Auction theory. 2nd edn. Burlington, MA: Academic Press

    2010

  24. [24]

    and Tirole, J

    Laffont, J.-J. and Tirole, J. (1991) ’Auction design and favoritism’, International Journal of Industrial Organiza- tion, 9(1), pp. 9–42

    1991

  25. [25]

    and Wolfstetter, E

    Lengwiler, Y. and Wolfstetter, E. (2010) ’Auctions and corruption: An analysis of bid rigging by a corrupt auc- tioneer’, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34(10), pp. 1872–1892

    2010

  26. [26]

    and Shi, X

    Li, H. and Shi, X. (2017) ’Discriminatory information disclosure’, American Economic Review, 107(11), pp. 3363–3385

    2017

  27. [27]

    and Yao, D

    Ma, R., Tang, W. and Yao, D. (2025) Analysis of the order flow auction under proposer–builder separation on blockchain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12026

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Menezes, F. M. and Monteiro, P. K. (2006) ’Corrup- tion and auctions’, Journal of Mathematical Economics, 42(1), pp. 97–108

    2006

  29. [29]

    Milgrom, P. R. and Weber, R. J. (1982) ’A theory of auctions and competitive bidding’, Econometrica, 50(5), pp. 1089–1122

    1982

  30. [30]

    Myerson, R. B. (1981) ’Optimal auction design’, Mathe- matics of Operations Research, 6(1), pp. 58–73

    1981

  31. [31]

    Who wins ethereum block building auctions and why?

    ¨Oz, B., Sui, D., Thiery, T. and Matthes, F. (2024) Who wins Ethereum block building auctions and why? arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13931

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Pai, M. M. and Resnick, M. (2023) Structural advantages for integrated builders in MEV-Boost. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09083

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    (1961) ’Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders’, Journal of Finance, 16(1), pp

    Vickrey, W. (1961) ’Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders’, Journal of Finance, 16(1), pp. 8–37

    1961

  34. [34]

    and Zhang, F

    Yang, S., Nayak, K. and Zhang, F. (2024) Decentral- ization of Ethereum’s builder market. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01329. 10 Appendix A: Additional Derivations

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Affiliation Diagnostics Figure A1 provides the visual counterpart to the affiliation estimates used in Section IV B. Each panel compares the largest and second-largest log extracted values within the same block and MEV type; the positive slope is strongest for liquidations and naked arbitrage, but is present across all categories. FIG. A1: Affiliation dia...

  36. [36]

    Searcher Concentration Figure A2 shows that extracted MEV is highly concentrated at the searcher level across all types, which supports the right-tail interpretation of the revenue-decomposition results. 11 FIG. A2: Searcher revenue concentration by MEV type. The Lorenz curves and top-kshares show that extracted MEV is highly concentrated across searchers...

  37. [37]

    This supports the use of type-specificn(τ) in the honest-disclosure benchmark

    Allocation-Effect Diagnostic Figure A3 reports the Board-style allocation-effect check: revenue and bribe shares do not move uniformly with effective bidder count. This supports the use of type-specificn(τ) in the honest-disclosure benchmark. FIG. A3: Board-style allocation-effect diagnostic. The panels compare revenue and bribe shares across effective-bi...

  38. [38]

    Cross-Builder Bribe Distributions Table A1 reports summary statistics for the eight largest builders by total extracted value. Mean bribe percentages are homogeneous across the top five builders, while Titan’s bribe standard deviation is roughly 3×beaverbuild’s, 12 consistent with the integrated searcher-builder extension of the model. Builder Count Total...