The post Here’s One of the Biggest Threats to DeFi appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Fintech A silent form of market manipulation is shaping the future of decentralized finance – and it might explain why the world’s biggest financial players are still watching from the sidelines. Inside every blockchain block, there’s a hidden contest for profit known as maximal extractable value, or MEV. It’s a process where validators or miners can rearrange pending transactions to benefit themselves. In simple terms, they see what’s about to happen — and move first. Aditya Palepu, the founder of DEX Labs and one of the main architects behind the derivatives platform DerivaDEX, believes this invisible tug-of-war is the biggest obstacle between DeFi and institutional money. When Transparency Becomes a Liability Blockchain’s radical transparency — once hailed as a strength — has become its most exploitable feature. In public mempools, every order is visible before it’s executed, giving opportunists time to anticipate and react. Validators can “sandwich” a trader’s move by placing a buy before and a sell after, capturing risk-free profit. Palepu likens this to a digital version of high-frequency front-running — a tactic long criticized in traditional finance. “Markets depend on fairness,” he explains. “If your trade is visible before it happens, you’re already at a disadvantage.” At DEX Labs, his team is experimenting with trusted execution environments (TEEs) — hardware-secured enclaves that process trades privately. Orders are encrypted before being broadcast and only decrypted after sequencing, meaning no one can peek at them in advance. “It’s like trading inside a vault,” Palepu says. “Nobody gets to see your move until it’s already made.” The Institutional Void This lack of privacy, he argues, is the reason major financial institutions have largely avoided decentralized markets. Investment firms can’t expose billion-dollar strategies on public ledgers where competitors — or bots — can react in milliseconds. And their absence has ripple… The post Here’s One of the Biggest Threats to DeFi appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Fintech A silent form of market manipulation is shaping the future of decentralized finance – and it might explain why the world’s biggest financial players are still watching from the sidelines. Inside every blockchain block, there’s a hidden contest for profit known as maximal extractable value, or MEV. It’s a process where validators or miners can rearrange pending transactions to benefit themselves. In simple terms, they see what’s about to happen — and move first. Aditya Palepu, the founder of DEX Labs and one of the main architects behind the derivatives platform DerivaDEX, believes this invisible tug-of-war is the biggest obstacle between DeFi and institutional money. When Transparency Becomes a Liability Blockchain’s radical transparency — once hailed as a strength — has become its most exploitable feature. In public mempools, every order is visible before it’s executed, giving opportunists time to anticipate and react. Validators can “sandwich” a trader’s move by placing a buy before and a sell after, capturing risk-free profit. Palepu likens this to a digital version of high-frequency front-running — a tactic long criticized in traditional finance. “Markets depend on fairness,” he explains. “If your trade is visible before it happens, you’re already at a disadvantage.” At DEX Labs, his team is experimenting with trusted execution environments (TEEs) — hardware-secured enclaves that process trades privately. Orders are encrypted before being broadcast and only decrypted after sequencing, meaning no one can peek at them in advance. “It’s like trading inside a vault,” Palepu says. “Nobody gets to see your move until it’s already made.” The Institutional Void This lack of privacy, he argues, is the reason major financial institutions have largely avoided decentralized markets. Investment firms can’t expose billion-dollar strategies on public ledgers where competitors — or bots — can react in milliseconds. And their absence has ripple…

Here’s One of the Biggest Threats to DeFi

2025/11/02 17:00
Fintech

A silent form of market manipulation is shaping the future of decentralized finance – and it might explain why the world’s biggest financial players are still watching from the sidelines.

Inside every blockchain block, there’s a hidden contest for profit known as maximal extractable value, or MEV. It’s a process where validators or miners can rearrange pending transactions to benefit themselves. In simple terms, they see what’s about to happen — and move first.

Aditya Palepu, the founder of DEX Labs and one of the main architects behind the derivatives platform DerivaDEX, believes this invisible tug-of-war is the biggest obstacle between DeFi and institutional money.

When Transparency Becomes a Liability

Blockchain’s radical transparency — once hailed as a strength — has become its most exploitable feature. In public mempools, every order is visible before it’s executed, giving opportunists time to anticipate and react. Validators can “sandwich” a trader’s move by placing a buy before and a sell after, capturing risk-free profit.

Palepu likens this to a digital version of high-frequency front-running — a tactic long criticized in traditional finance. “Markets depend on fairness,” he explains. “If your trade is visible before it happens, you’re already at a disadvantage.”

At DEX Labs, his team is experimenting with trusted execution environments (TEEs) — hardware-secured enclaves that process trades privately. Orders are encrypted before being broadcast and only decrypted after sequencing, meaning no one can peek at them in advance. “It’s like trading inside a vault,” Palepu says. “Nobody gets to see your move until it’s already made.”

The Institutional Void

This lack of privacy, he argues, is the reason major financial institutions have largely avoided decentralized markets. Investment firms can’t expose billion-dollar strategies on public ledgers where competitors — or bots — can react in milliseconds.

And their absence has ripple effects. Without institutional players, DeFi loses the very stabilizers that make traditional markets efficient: liquidity, arbitrage, and consistent price alignment. Palepu describes institutions as “builders of the highways” — the infrastructure that keeps markets smooth. When they stay out, volatility rises, liquidity dries up, and trading costs climb for retail investors.

A System That Punishes Participation

In today’s DeFi environment, even small traders are caught in the MEV trap. Every swap, stake, or position can become an opportunity for bots to extract value. According to the European Securities and Markets Authority, such extraction isn’t just costly — it undermines decentralization itself by rewarding those with the most computational power or network access.

Palepu believes this structural flaw prevents DeFi from reaching the level of legitimacy it needs to compete with centralized finance. “We’ve built open systems,” he says, “but not fair ones. MEV is the tax we all pay for transparency.”

Searching for Fairness in an Open System

Across the industry, developers are exploring new ways to neutralize MEV. Concepts like batched encryption, private mempools, and threshold cryptography are gaining traction as potential antidotes. But progress is slow — partly because MEV is woven so deeply into blockchain design that removing it risks breaking the very system it supports.

For now, privacy-preserving infrastructure like that of DerivaDEX may offer a pragmatic middle ground. “We don’t need to hide everything,” Palepu argues, “just the parts that give others an unfair edge.”

If DeFi is to attract traditional finance — and protect retail participants — it must evolve into something more than an open network. It has to become a level playing field, where transparency no longer means vulnerability and where decentralization doesn’t come at the cost of fairness.

Until then, the blockchain’s greatest strength will remain its most dangerous weakness.


The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

Author

Alex is an experienced financial journalist and cryptocurrency enthusiast. With over 8 years of experience covering the crypto, blockchain, and fintech industries, he is well-versed in the complex and ever-evolving world of digital assets. His insightful and thought-provoking articles provide readers with a clear picture of the latest developments and trends in the market. His approach allows him to break down complex ideas into accessible and in-depth content. Follow his publications to stay up to date with the most important trends and topics.

Related stories

Next article

Source: https://coindoo.com/heres-one-of-the-biggest-threats-to-defi-and-why-it-keeps-wall-street-away/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

On November 3, the Balancer V2 protocol and its fork projects were attacked on multiple chains, resulting in a serious loss of more than $120 million. BlockSec issued an early warning at the first opportunity [1] and gave a preliminary analysis conclusion [2]. This was a highly complex attack. Our preliminary analysis showed that the root cause was that the attacker manipulated the invariant, thereby distorting the calculation of the price of BPT (Balancer Pool Token) -- that is, the LP token of Balancer Pool -- so that it could profit in a stable pool through a batchSwap operation. Background Information 1. Scaling and Rounding To standardize the decimal places of different tokens, the Balancer contract will: upscale: Upscales the balance and amount to a uniform internal precision before performing the calculation; downscale: Reduces the result to its original precision and performs directional rounding (e.g., inputs are usually rounded up to ensure the pool is not under-filled; output paths are often truncated downwards). Conclusion: Within the same transaction, the asymmetrical rounding direction used in different stages can lead to a systematic slight deviation when executed repeatedly in very small steps. 2. Prices of D and BPT The Balancer V2 protocol’s Composable Stable Pool[3] and the fork protocol were affected by this attack. Stable Pool is used for assets that are expected to maintain a close 1:1 exchange ratio (or be exchanged at a known exchange rate), allowing large exchanges without causing significant price shocks, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of capital utilization between similar or related assets. The pool uses the Stable Math (a Curve-based StableSwap model), where the invariant D represents the pool's "virtual total value". The approximate price of BPT (Pool's LP Token) is: The formula above shows that if D is made smaller on paper (even if no funds are actually withdrawn), the price of BPT will be cheaper. BTP represents the pool share and is used to calculate how many pool reserves can be obtained when withdrawing liquidity. Therefore, if an attacker can obtain more BPT, they can profit when withdrawing liquidity. Attack Analysis Taking an attack transaction on Arbitrum as an example, the batchSwap operation can be divided into three stages: Phase 1: The attacker redeems BPT for the underlying asset to precisely adjust the balance of one of the tokens (cbETH) to a critical point (amount = 9) for rounding. This step sets the stage for the precision loss in the next phase. Phase Two: The attacker uses a carefully crafted quantity (= 8) to swap between another underlying asset (wstETH) and cbETH. Due to rounding down when scaling the token quantity, the calculated Δx is slightly smaller (from 8.918 to 8), causing Δy to be underestimated and the invariant D (derived from Curve's StableSwap model) to be smaller. Since BPT price = D / totalSupply, the BPT price is artificially suppressed. Phase 3: The attackers reverse-swap the underlying assets back to BPT, restoring the balance within the pool while profiting from the depressed price of BPT—acquiring more BPT tokens. Finally, the attacker used another profitable transaction to withdraw liquidity, thereby using the extra BPT to acquire other underlying assets (cbETH and wstETH) in the Pool and thus profit. Attacking the transaction: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x7da32ebc615d0f29a24cacf9d18254bea3a2c730084c690ee40238b1d8b55773 Profitable trades: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x4e5be713d986bcf4afb2ba7362525622acf9c95310bd77cd5911e7ef12d871a9 Reference: [1]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985262010347696312 [2]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985302779263643915 [3]https://docs-v2.balancer.fi/concepts/pools/composable-stable.html
Share
PANews2025/11/04 14:00