The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability
Open accessAbstract
Blockchains, and specifically smart contracts, have promised to create fair and transparent trading ecosystems.Unfortunately, we show that this promise has not been met. We document and quantify the widespread and rising deployment of arbitrage bots in blockchain systems, specifically in decentralized exchanges (or "DEXes"). Like high-frequency traders on Wall Street, these bots exploit inefficiencies in DEXes, paying high transaction fees and optimizing network latency to frontrun, i.e., anticipate and exploit, ordinary users' DEX trades.We study the breadth of DEX arbitrage bots in a subset of transactions that yield quantifiable revenue to these bots. We also study bots' profit-making strategies, with a focus on blockchain-specific elements. We observe bots engage in what we call priority gas auctions (PGAs), competitively bidding up transaction fees in order to obtain priority ordering, i.e., early block position and execution, for their transactions. PGAs present an interesting and complex new continuous-time, partial-information, game-theoretic model that we formalize and study. We release an interactive web portal, frontrun.me, to provide the community with real-time data on PGAs. We additionally show that high fees paid for priority transaction ordering poses a systemic risk to consensus-layer security. We explain that such fees are just one form of a general phenomenon in DEXes and beyond-what we call miner extractable value (MEV)-that poses concrete, measurable, consensus-layer security risks. We show empirically that MEV poses a realistic threat to Ethereum today. Our work highlights the large, complex risks created by transaction-ordering dependencies in smart contracts and the ways in which traditional forms of financial-market exploitation are adapting to and penetrating blockchain economies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2013) · Cited by 5,372
Making Smart Contracts Smarter
Luu, L., Chu, D.-H., Olickel, H., Saxena, P., & Hobor, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/2976749.2978309 · Cited by 2,249
Hawk: The Blockchain Model of Cryptography and Privacy-Preserving Smart Contracts
Kosba, A., Miller, A., Shi, E., Wen, Z., & Papamanthou, C. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp.2016.55 · Cited by 2,227
Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks
Szabo, N. (1997) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v2i9.548 · Cited by 2,102
Algorand: Scaling Byzantine Agreements for Cryptocurrencies
Gilad, Y., Hemo, R., Micali, S., Vlachos, G., & Zeldovich, N. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles · doi:10.1145/3132747.3132757 · Cited by 1,499
Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study
Nagel, R. (2007) · American Economic Review · Cited by 1,414
The High-Frequency Trading Arms Race: Frequent Batch Auctions as a Market Design Response *
Budish, E., Cramton, P., & Shim, J. (2015) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjv027 · Cited by 883
Price manipulation in the Bitcoin ecosystem
Gandal, N., Hamrick, J., Moore, T., & Oberman, T. (2018) · Journal of Monetary Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jmoneco.2017.12.004 · Cited by 739
Town Crier: An Authenticated Data Feed for Smart Contracts
Zhang, F., Cecchetti, E., Croman, K., Juels, A., & Shi, E. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/2976749.2978326 · Cited by 580
Self-citationA Smart Contract for Boardroom Voting with Maximum Voter Privacy
McCorry, P., Shahandashti, S. F., & Hao, F. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70972-7_20 · Cited by 506
Cited by
Fusing Blockchain and AI With Metaverse: A Survey
Yang, Q., Zhao, Y., Huang, H., Xiong, Z., Kang, J., & Zheng, Z. (2022) · IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society · doi:10.1109/ojcs.2022.3188249 · Cited by 554
Smart contracts on the blockchain – A bibliometric analysis and review
Ante, L. (2021) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101519 · Cited by 267
Understanding Security Issues in the NFT Ecosystem
Das, D., Bose, P., Ruaro, N., Kruegel, C., & Vigna, G. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3548606.3559342 · Cited by 195
Pandl, K. D., Thiebes, S., Schmidt-Kraepelin, M., & Sunyaev, A. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2981447 · Cited by 115
Do not rug on me: Leveraging machine learning techniques for automated scam detection
Mazorra, B., Adan, V., & Daza, V. (2022) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math10060949 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Daian, P., Goldfeder, S., Kell, T., Li, Y., Zhao, X., Bentov, I., Breidenbach, L., & Juels, A.
- Venue
- 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-05
- Pages
- 910-927
- ISSN
- 1081-6011 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3016124762
- Cited by
- 482
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 36.12
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/sp40000.2020.00040
- The paper
- Daian, P., Goldfeder, S., Kell, T., Li, Y., Zhao, X., Bentov, I., Breidenbach, L., & Juels, A. (2020). Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Instability. 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). https://doi.org/10.1109/sp40000.2020.00040
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.