Extracted MeV or maximum value is an approach to manipulate the order, integration or exclusion of transactions in blocks to maximize their value. This approach has become more democratic to Ethereum, especially the introduction of Mev-Boost. However, it creates important centralization phenomena. A side effect that the Malik672 developer wishes to solve.
- Mev, a disturbing phenomenon of centralization to Ethereum, was emphasized by the use of the mev-boost and architecture of the petitioner’s separation.
- The Malik672 developer has proposed a radical solution for decentralizing the creation of blocks and eliminating the MeV by introducing a system based on a random algorithm shared by all Ethereum customers.
Mev-Boost: Centralized machine
Currently Block Production on Ethereum is produced through an architecture called Separation of offer-builder (PBS). Although this is not implemented at the protocol level, it is ensured Mev-boostSolution created by flashbots. Several separate entities are therefore responsible for performing the defined part of the production work of the block. As the name suggests, it plays in favor of Mev at Ethereum.
On the one hand builders (Manufacturers) Build transactions in blocks by optimizing their content and order. They include MEV transactions to maximize block value. Forest builders offer their blocks built on the proposed.
On the other hand propose (Designed) are Responsible for selecting the most profitable block from those offered by builders. It then presents a block selected to the Ethereum network for verification and inclusion in the string.
Currently, the vast majority of Ethereum blocks (around 80 %) are Proposed by only two main entities. Especially the coalition of the manufacturer Relay as lightning. Creates and centralization Which is contrary to the ethos ethreum.
However, this department of roles initially focused on reducing the centralization of the network and at the same time improved the effectiveness of the MEV extraction. However, the goodness of a handful of actors creates the opposite phenomenon.
Leave PBS Architecture: Solution against centralization
28. February Developer Pseudonym Malik672submitted a new proposal through the ETHRESEARCH forum, focused on Pleror this phenomenon of centralization.
In its publication, therefore, called “A proposal for a decentralized random block: elimination of Mev and complete democratization Ethereum” It offers an alternative to the current system.
“This research offers a decentralized system in which all Ethereum customers offer blocks using shared random algorithm. Compared to PBS, it favors the absence of confidence in optimization that represents a transformative change for Ethereum. »»
Thus offers a system aimed at Re -evaluate the way the blocks are created and added to the Ethereum blockchain.
In practice, every customer would use a A common random algorithm for choosing transactions and creating a block of candidates. The aim of this random method is to ensure that the offered blocks are similar among different customers.
Once the blocks are created, they were broadcast simultaneously to network validators. These validators would then explore the proposed blocks, check their validity and use a consensual mechanism to agree on the block that will be added to the chain.
According to Malik672, this approach has several advantages.
On one side she could greatly reduce the problem of Mev (Maximum extractable value) because the order of transactions would be determined randomly than actors trying to maximize their profits.
On the other hand, this would make the block formation process much more inclusive, allowing a larger number of participants to contribute directly to the network growth.
“While 80 % of the Ethereum blocks are currently managed by two Entities within PBS, this decentralized system design system offers a radical solution. It eliminates Mev on blocks, transmits a proposal to all customers, and is in line with the core without confidence in the Ethereum, and at the same time takes care of dankharding. PBS optimizes the scalability of the summary summary, but this system gives the priority of its own capital and overall democratization, which is essential how centralization settles. This is a compromise: lack of confidence in the accuracy of L2. »»
Comparison with PBS
Finally, the Malik672 summarizes the different features of both systems in the comparative table.
| Metric | Decentralized blender | PBS |
|---|---|---|
| Mev | Eliminated in a block | Redistributed through manufacturers |
| Decentralization | High (all customers offer) | Mild (80% from 2 subjects) |
| Speed | Potentially faster (6-8s slots) | Slower (12s slots) |
| Endurance | Strong (customer redundancy) | Good (manufacturer’s download, relay risk) |
| Simplicity | High (only validators are running) | Mild (proposition + certificate) |
| Scalability | Good (compatible with blouses, less optimized) | Excellent (optimized for plan) |
For the time being, however, his proposal had no reaction from his peers. In addition, because it focuses on killing a lucrative market in Mev, it is likely that it is in front of re -chalitrants. The case to follow.
The Ethereum network is preparing to experience the main update with a firm fork. Has recently been deployed to tolets of testnet, not without incorrect. A situation that can well postpone its deployment on the separation and then on the mainnet.