Solana proposes ‘Constellation’ upgrade to curb MEV and enforce fair transaction ordering

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-03-25Last updated on 2026-03-25

Abstract

Solana researchers have proposed "Constellation," a new protocol upgrade designed to reduce maximal extractable value (MEV) by limiting validator control over transaction ordering. The system replaces single-leader block production with multiple concurrent proposers (MCP) that submit transaction batches simultaneously. A new class of nodes called "attesters" verifies and timestamps these submissions to enforce fairness before blocks are assembled. This structure aims to prevent validators from reordering, censoring, or front-running transactions for profit. Unlike other MEV solutions that redistribute extracted value, Constellation seeks to eliminate the conditions that enable MEV extraction by enforcing strict inclusion rules and fixed 50-millisecond economic ticks. The proposal introduces greater protocol-level fairness but also adds complexity through synchronized clocks and multi-node coordination. If successful, it could position Solana as a high-speed blockchain optimized for fair financial market operations.

Solana researchers have introduced a new protocol design aimed at reducing validator control over transaction ordering. It targets one of the most persistent issues in blockchain markets: Maximal Extractable Value [MEV].

In a newly released whitepaper, the team outlines “Constellation,” a multiple concurrent proposers [MCP] system designed to prevent validators from manipulating transaction inclusion and sequencing.

The proposal shifts away from single-leader block production, which currently allows validators to reorder or censor transactions for profit.

Instead, Constellation distributes transaction submissions across multiple proposers while introducing a new class of nodes, called attesters, to enforce fairness in how transactions are processed.

How Constellation changes transaction ordering on Solana

Under the proposed model, multiple proposers submit transaction batches simultaneously, rather than relying on a single leader with temporary control over the mempool.

Attesters then verify and timestamp these submissions before they are assembled into blocks.

This structure limits the ability of any single validator to delay, reorder, or front-run transactions. The leader role still exists but is constrained by proposer inputs and attestations, reducing discretionary control over block composition.

The system also introduces fixed “economic ticks” of around 50 milliseconds, creating predictable intervals for transaction inclusion.

Why the design targets MEV rather than redistributing it

Most existing approaches, including proposer-builder separation, focus on redistributing MEV rather than eliminating it. Constellation takes a different approach by attempting to remove the conditions that allow MEV extraction in the first place.

The whitepaper describes this as “selective censorship resistance,” in which valid, competitively priced transactions must be included within a defined time window, limiting opportunities for manipulation.

This design aims to ensure that protocol rules rather than validator incentives determine transaction latency and ordering.

Can Solana enforce fairness at scale?

The proposal reflects a broader push to align blockchain infrastructure with traditional financial market standards, where fairness and predictable execution are critical.

However, the system introduces additional complexity, including reliance on synchronized clocks and new coordination layers between proposers, attesters, and validators.

Its effectiveness will depend on whether these assumptions hold under real-world network conditions.

If implemented successfully, Constellation could shift Solana’s positioning from a high-speed blockchain to a platform designed for fair and efficient financial markets.


Final Summary

  • Solana’s Constellation proposal targets MEV by limiting validator control over transaction ordering.
  • The design introduces multi-proposer coordination and enforced timing to improve fairness at the protocol level.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat is the main goal of Solana's proposed 'Constellation' upgrade?

AThe main goal of Solana's 'Constellation' upgrade is to reduce validator control over transaction ordering to curb Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) and enforce fairness in how transactions are processed.

QHow does the MCP (multiple concurrent proposers) system work in the Constellation proposal?

AThe MCP system works by having multiple proposers submit transaction batches simultaneously, rather than relying on a single leader. This is then verified and timestamped by a new class of nodes called 'attesters' before being assembled into blocks.

QWhat is the role of 'attesters' in the new protocol design?

AAttesters are a new class of nodes that verify and timestamp the transaction submissions from the multiple proposers to enforce fairness before the transactions are assembled into blocks.

QHow does Constellation's approach to MEV differ from other common solutions like proposer-builder separation?

AUnlike solutions like proposer-builder separation that focus on redistributing MEV, Constellation attempts to eliminate the conditions that allow MEV extraction in the first place through 'selective censorship resistance' and enforced protocol rules.

QWhat are some of the potential challenges or complexities introduced by the Constellation system?

AThe system introduces additional complexity, including a reliance on synchronized clocks and new coordination layers between proposers, attesters, and validators. Its effectiveness depends on these assumptions holding under real-world network conditions.

Related Reads

From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply + Institutional Frenzy, Might It Repeat the 'Explosive' Price Trend?

"From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply and Institutional Frenzy May Lead to 'Explosive' Price Rally Analysts suggest Bitcoin's price action could mirror gold's over the past two decades, following the launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs. Gold ETFs, introduced in 2004, drove gold's price surge to a current market cap near $28 trillion. Both gold and Bitcoin are non-yielding stores of value, with prices driven purely by investor sentiment rather than cash flows or credit. Gold ETFs experienced dramatic cycles: explosive growth, painful drawdowns, and slow recoveries, with each cycle reaching higher peaks. Bitcoin ETFs, approved in early 2024, saw rapid institutional adoption but are now facing similar volatility. Recent warnings highlight the risk of significant ETF outflows disrupting the current rebound. BlackRock's IBIT, a leading Bitcoin ETF, has sold nearly 100,000 BTC to meet redemptions while still holding over 733,000. The core parallel is fixed supply: when demand surges, prices explode, but demand is often volatile and wave-like, not steady. Institutional interest, through ETFs and corporate adoption, remains a key support pillar, helping to cushion sell-offs. If Bitcoin captures even a fraction of gold's role as a store of value, its upside potential is immense, though the path will be marked by high volatility. For investors, focusing on long-term trends and managing risk is crucial as this 'price explosion' narrative unfolds."

Foresight News13m ago

From Gold to Bitcoin: Fixed Supply + Institutional Frenzy, Might It Repeat the 'Explosive' Price Trend?

Foresight News13m ago

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

The article argues that the popular narrative of "AI agent shopping" – equipping AI with a wallet to autonomously handle purchases – is fundamentally flawed and oversimplifies the complexity of shopping. It deconstructs shopping into two core actions: **information retrieval** (standardized, easily automated) and **value judgment** (deeply subjective and human-centric). The narrative mistakenly assumes AI can fully handle both. Value judgment itself has two layers: **evaluation** (assessing options against criteria) and **demand definition** (setting the criteria, weights, and values). The latter is inherently human and dynamic, as preferences are not fixed but constructed during the decision-making process ("constructive preferences"). The real dividing line for automation is not product standardization, but whether the **act of choosing** itself holds experiential value. For mundane purchases (e.g., printer paper), full AI delegation works. For experiential goods (e.g., wine, furniture), the joy of selection is core to consumption, so AI should act as an assistant that narrows options, leaving the final choice to humans. The "AI wallet" concept confuses three separate elements: decision-making, execution, and fund custody. Current payment industry solutions (e.g., from Stripe, Mastercard, Google, Visa) show that limited, scoped payment authorization tokens are sufficient for most consumer scenarios, not full fund custody. The true use case for autonomous AI wallets is in **B2B procurement** and **machine-to-machine (M2M) settlements** for standardized, high-frequency, low-value transactions. The real bottlenecks for AI shopping are not payment technology, but **1) the lack of trusted data sources** (e.g., fake reviews, counterfeit goods) and **2) the impossibility of automating human demand definition**. The conclusion is that the focus should be on safely automating the assessment and filtering process while reserving for humans the rights to define their criteria and enjoy the final act of choice. For experiential goods, the platform's competitive advantage shifts to providing a superior selection experience.

Foresight News1h ago

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

Foresight News1h ago

After Nine Months of Shorting, a Full Turn to Long: Renowned Trader Opens Bitcoin Positions Around 64K, Crypto Market Long-Short Divergence Intensifies

After nine months of being short, prominent crypto trader Doctor Profit has closed all his bearish positions and started buying Bitcoin near $64,000, signaling a complete bullish reversal. He argues that structural market changes—such as impending U.S. regulation (CLARITY Act) and institutional adoption via securities tokenization—are rewriting the traditional four-year cycle script, potentially bringing the market bottom forward from the widely expected September/October timeframe. This view finds some technical support from on-chain analyst gumsays, who notes a bullish divergence on Bitcoin's weekly chart has persisted for 147 days, nearing the 161-day duration seen before the 2022 cycle low. However, cycle researcher Jake Pahor presents a counter-argument based on historical data. Analyzing patterns since 2014, he identifies three common features of past bear market bottoms: a ~12-month duration from peak to trough, a sustained period of extreme fear (with a proprietary risk score below 20), and the price falling below Bitcoin's realized price (~$53,000 currently). The current cycle, only nine months from its October 2025 peak, meets none of these conditions. The debate highlights a market torn between "front-running" a potential early bottom driven by new fundamentals and waiting for confirmation through traditional on-chain and sentiment metrics. While Doctor Profit opts for aggressive buying, Pahor maintains a disciplined, tiered accumulation strategy, continuing weekly buys at current risk levels but reserving larger orders for if more extreme fear emerges.

marsbit1h ago

After Nine Months of Shorting, a Full Turn to Long: Renowned Trader Opens Bitcoin Positions Around 64K, Crypto Market Long-Short Divergence Intensifies

marsbit1h ago

Senior Trader's Confession: How to Trade Market's False Expectations?

Veteran trader's case study: trading the market's "wrong expectations". This trade centered on a textbook "expectation error" after a weak CPI report. While the market initially priced in broad monetary easing (sending Nasdaq to 30,060), the crucial 30-year real yield hit a 20-year high. This signaled a fractured transmission mechanism: short-term rates eased, but long-term funding costs (vital for tech valuations) refused to fall. The trader executed five short positions on the Nasdaq (NQ) as it fell from 30,060 to 28,768. The core methodology: don't just trade the data, but analyze the market's implied causal chain and identify where it breaks. In this case, the chain was: Weak CPI → Policy Easing → Lower Long-Term Funding Costs → NQ Valuation Expansion. The break occurred between policy easing and long-term rates. The "veto variable" – long-term real yields – refused to confirm the bullish narrative. Trades were structured around "fast variables" (price) temporarily repairing while "slow variables" (funding conditions) remained broken. The article outlines a repeatable framework: 1) Map the market's implied causal chain. 2) Identify the veto variable. 3) Observe if it rejects the narrative. 4) Enter when price still follows the old script. 5) Choose the cleanest asset expression (e.g., short NQ, not broad S&P). 6) Define both invalidation and fulfillment exit conditions. The key insight: Alpha often comes not from an information edge, but from a "reaction function edge" – recognizing when the market is applying an outdated causal logic to new data. The critical question: What causal chain is the market's first reaction relying on, and is that chain still valid today?

marsbit2h ago

Senior Trader's Confession: How to Trade Market's False Expectations?

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SOL (SOL) are presented below.

活动图片