比特币上MEV日益凸显:MEV以更隐晦的方式蔓延至比特币

Odaily星球日报Published on 2024-07-12Last updated on 2024-07-12

Abstract

通过“狙击”Ordinal铭文、挖空区块和矿工卡特尔化等形式,比特币上的MEV日益凸显。

原文作者:George Kaloudis, CoinDesk

原文编译:Felix, PANews

要点:

  • 传统金融和加密领域都存在套利机会,但由于后者待处理交易的可见性和结算时间较长,套利机会更加明显。

  • 尽管比特币上的 MEV 没有以太坊那么突出,但正通过“狙击”Ordinal 铭文、挖空区块和矿工卡特尔化等出现。

  • 比特币上出现的 MEV 可能导致市场对内存池“私有化”的压力,这将破坏加密货币的创始原则。

加密货币和区块链的所谓“杀手级应用”之一,是能够在没有中心化金融中介的情况下交易各种资产。别管这些资产中的大多数什么都不做,或者据称什么都不做。人们通过交易它们获得了巨大的回报。就像 2020 年每个人都从 SHIB 中致富,然后在 2023 年再次交易 WIF 和 PEPE。

当早期资本涌入这些代币时,首先在代币上线 CEX 之前,通过自动做市商(AMM)在 DEX 购买。AMM 是去中心化的应用程序,可以匹配加密代币的买家和卖家,而无需通过受监管的交易所,也无需 KYC(如护照照片、驾照照片或多张自拍照)。你所要做的就是连接加密钱包,通过 AMM 输入想购买哪种资产,点击购买就可以了。

这些 AMM 的有趣之处在于(除了避免身份检查的便利性和隐私性之外),虽然加密 KOL 将加密货币和区块链宣传为股票市场的“下一个迭代”,但在某种程度上,股市比 AMM 更实时。

举个简单的例子:A 想以 100 美元的价格购买股票 XYZ,而 B 想以 99 美元的价格出售股票 XYZ。因为如今的金融市场是相当的互联互通,C 不知何故知道这一点(有合法和非法的方式来查找和处理这些信息),并以 99 美元的价格从 B 手中购买了 XYZ 股票,然后立即以 100 美元的价格卖给了 A。每个人都很高兴:A 得到 XYZ 股票,B 得到 99 美元,C 通过交易套利得到 1 美元。

现在,那笔赚钱的交易已经完成,随着交易的结束,套利者 C 吞噬了这笔交易,股票 XYZ 的市场效率低下(A 的买入价和 B 的卖出价之间相差 1 美元)。这一切都是实时发生的,也就是说是线性的,C 必须在恰当的时间介入 A 和 B 之间才能执行这笔交易,而且必须按照这个顺序进行(从 A 到 C 再到 B)。

尽管形式略有不同,这种类型的套利也可以在 AMM 中看到。假设您很早就听说了 SHIB,并且想在 CEX 上市之前购买一些。由于它不在交易所,你调用了基于以太坊的 AMM,然后点击按钮购买 SHIB 代币。当你下订单时,订单会被扔进一大批待定的以太坊交易中。其中一些交易可能是人们用 USDC 在网上购买东西,但其中许多交易是 SHIB 或 WIF 或 PEPE 等代币的交易。

这些交易在完成和执行之前,每个人都可以看到,因为它们都在一个叫做内存池(mempool)里。如果用于交易的 AMM 由于市场效率低下而错误定价了 SHIB(就像示例的股票 XYZ 一样),网络上的某人可以构建一个以太坊交易,在您使用另一个 AMM 之前购买 SHIB,然后将其出售给您以获取利润。

进一步举个例子,假设您购买的 SHIB 相当多。在这种情况下,每个人都可以看到买入量很大且能影响市场的交易正在等待,可以围绕你的交易进行交易,以利用市场效率低下和你的订单影响市场的行情。

像这样的交易可以归类为三明治交易。有些人选择了“三明治攻击”这个术语,因为 AMM 无法将买家与预期卖家进行匹配,并且可能导致原始买家在交易完成之前损失惨重(想象一下,如果你想购买 10 亿枚 SHIB 代币,而由于 AMM 效率低下而无法进行三明治交易,你只得到 8 亿枚)。

三明治交易和其他类型的“低效率发现”更广泛地称为最大化(或矿工)可提取价值(简称 MEV)。MEV 的意思是,验证交易的人选择以对自己而不是交易者最有利的方式对交易进行排序。由于区块时间(验证交易所需的时间)不是实时的(在以太坊中,交易每 12 秒左右验证一次),因此有足够的时间进行套利交易,尤其是交易机器人。

考虑到这一点,不难想象 MEV 已经扩展到 AMM 之外。对于前面的技术争论,一个合理的结论是:想做的事情越复杂,就越有可能出现 MEV。

MEV:优点、缺点,以及在比特币上的存在

围绕 MEV 的讨论非常广泛。是好是坏?是非法的吗?

这取决于你问谁。

从积极的方面来看,MEV 是一个自由市场,通过消除低效率来计算区块链上事物的实际成本,这种低效率将被利用,直到低效率接近于零。消极的一面是,MEV 可能使不了解的外行和新用户又被专业人士和高级用户利用。

目前为止只提到了以太坊,因为尽管 MEV 有先发优势,但比特币历史上并不存在 MEV。尽管它在理论上是存在的,但实际上在经济上不可行(除了在非常特殊的情况下)。

你可能在想:“没有 MEV?如果基于以太坊的 AMM 有 MEV,那么基于比特币的 AMM 肯定也有 MEV 吧?”

你说得对,只是目前还没有基于比特币的 AMM。这是因为以太坊比比特币更具表现力,这意味着你可以“用它做更多的事情”,比如用 Doge 或其他 Meme 创建代币,在 AMM 上交易并致富。

而且由于比特币的表现力不强,比特币上的新代币没有一个繁荣的市场或 AMM。如果比特币上没有新的非比特币资产,与 AMM 相关的 MEV 机会怎么可能出现?用比特币交换其他比特币?

是的。这正是比特币的 MEV 开始出现的地方。

比特币上的 MEV

MEV 在比特币上的稳健性远不及以太坊,当专家们讨论这个话题时,总是带有警告意味。

比特币挖矿公司 Luxor Technology 的研究和内容主管 Colin Harper 表示:“这更像是你可以玩的游戏,而不是 MEV。”

三年前,比特币经历了一次名为 Taproot 的更新,使网络更具表现力。通过 Ordinals 协议,意外地使比特币等价于 NFT 成为可能。这就是之前所说的“用比特币交换其他比特币”的意思:“NFT”可以在比特币上发挥作用,因为 Ordinals 协议能够看到哪些聪(比特币的最小单位, 1 亿分之一)上刻有任意数据,这些数据可以是图片、文本或其他东西。这些收藏品被称为铭文,与 NFT(单独的代币)有所不同。如果你购买的是一个铭文,而不是像在以太坊上那样购买一个全新的代币,那么你只是购买了一些比特币,只有从 Ordinals 协议的角度来看,这些比特币才是特别的。

这实际上就是用比特币买比特币(当然是用多买少)。就像用 ETH 购买 SHIB 或用 USDT 购买 USDC 一样,用比特币购买比特币是一种可以抢先进行的活动。

Colin Harper 解释说:“当你在 Magic Eden 或其他类似的市场上出售铭文时,你使用的是 PSBT(部分签名的比特币交易)。卖方签署他们的一半,当买方购买时,他们会用他们的签名完成交易,买方支付交易费用。因此,如果 NFT 交易者在内存池中看到交易,可以通过广播自己的交易来替换原始买家的付款和地址(窃取)。为此,他们广播了一项费用更高的 RBF(费用替代)交易,以确保他们的交易在原始交易之前得到确认。”

尽管这与本文第一节中讨论的纯粹的 MEV 不太一样,但看起来仍然像 MEV:预期的买方和卖方不匹配,因为第三方介入并为矿工提供更多的补偿以换取铭文,而矿工通过接受第三方交易在交易中最大化了自己的价值。

比特币上其他类似 MEV 的东西

比特币仍然有矿工,在挖矿业务中,有一些事情经常发生,看起来像 MEV。

一个常见的例子是空块挖矿。比特币会定期挖出一个空块。除了挖出该块的矿工之外,这个块对任何人都没有用,因为除了向矿工奖励区块的 coinbase(小写的“c”,不是公司)交易外,没有其他等待确认的交易得到验证。这种情况的发生有技术原因,空块的出现其实是偶然的,但很难说这是不是 MEV 以及是否对比特币有利。

还有矿工的卡特尔化(PANews 注:卡特尔是一种垄断集团,很容易发生在少数资源被数个企业完全掌握的情况下)。许多比特币矿工现在使用矿池来平衡其收入,通过集体挖矿并获得相应的份额。这可能会产生一个问题,尤其是在矿池变得越来越大的情况下。正如风投公司 Cyber Fund 的 Walt Smith 在一篇题为《比特币的 MEV》的长篇文章中所写:

“……矿池挖矿通过提高连续区块获胜的几率,实现了精明的多区块 MEV,从而产生了系统性风险。矿池和其他挖矿卡特尔通过滥用矿池经济学来强制执行通用的区块模板,将进行非标准区块构建的小型矿工列入黑名单。持续的过剩费用加上规模经济会引发整合,从而产生病态循环。”

目前,一些矿池控制了相当大一部分的网络算力,甚至其中两三个矿池可以联合起来控制一半以上的算力。如果矿池卡特尔连续赢得足够的区块,就可以行使垄断权力来最大化利润。

比特币矿工行为的另一个真实例子可能是 MEV:带外支付(out-of-band payments)。比特币矿工会因接受被视为非标准的交易而获得报酬(无论是链下还是通过单独且看似无关的比特币转账)。同样,这不是纯粹的 MEV,因为提取的价值并非由于精明的程序决策而出现在区块链上。相反,价值是通过矿工获得比他们原本应该获得的报酬更多的报酬来提取的。

一些研究人员担心,带外支付是走向滑坡的第一步,可能会掩盖激励机制。但矿工们正在抓住这个机会。上市矿业巨头 Marathon 推出了一项名为 Slipstream 的服务,接受非标准交易。

令人担忧的是,这种暗箱操作可能会导致内存池私有化,这在任何区块链上都是令人不安的。正如 CoinDesk 的 Sam Kessler 所写:“最紧迫的是,人们担心内存池私有化可能会在以太坊交易管道的关键领域巩固新的中间商。”

如果大多数交易都提交到私人内存池进行确认,那么少数人(即被指定的少数人)能影响比特币交易。这将使区块链的权力集中化,对于任何重视审查抵制的人来说,显然是一种难以接受的情形。

比特币上还有其他类似 MEV 的例子,不可避免地以某种形式存在,网络参与者需要注意。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

Glue Finance founder argues that Ethereum's current price underperformance, despite high on-chain activity, stems from its incomplete state and lingering dependency on central stewards like the Ethereum Foundation. The core thesis is that the market is discounting ETH not for lack of use, but because the protocol remains a "machine under construction." Key unresolved issues include centralized L2 sequencers with limited escape hatches, state bloat, vulnerable public mempools, and the looming quantum computing threat. This perpetual "work-in-progress" status forces reliance on a small group of maintainers, undermining the network's promise of credible neutrality and immutability. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed paths: a "wartime mode" of centralizing for speed (surrendering Ethereum's unique value) or merely replacing the Foundation with another governing entity. The only solution is to complete and then "freeze" the protocol's neutral core through a focused "Manhattan Project" dubbed "Lean Ethereum." This project aims to bundle critical upgrades—consensus layer overhaul, massive scaling via ZK-proofs, quantum resistance, and statelessness—into a decisive push to finalize the base layer. Once the core rules are cryptographically solidified and beyond anyone's control (passing the "walk-away test"), Ethereum would shed its dependency discount and earn a "rigidity premium" for its credible neutrality and programmability, potentially surpassing Bitcoin's valuation. The race is between completing this hardening and the risks of protocol capture or stagnation.

链捕手1m ago

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

链捕手1m ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit58m ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit58m ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit1h ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit1h ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight News1h ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight News1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

What is $BITCOIN

DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction to DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a blockchain-based project operating on the Solana network, which aims to combine the characteristics of traditional precious metals with the innovation of decentralized technologies. While it shares a name with Bitcoin, often referred to as “digital gold” due to its perception as a store of value, DIGITAL GOLD is a separate token designed to create a unique ecosystem within the Web3 landscape. Its goal is to position itself as a viable alternative digital asset, although specifics regarding its applications and functionalities are still developing. What is DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a cryptocurrency token explicitly designed for use on the Solana blockchain. In contrast to Bitcoin, which provides a widely recognized value storage role, this token appears to focus on broader applications and characteristics. Notable aspects include: Blockchain Infrastructure: The token is built on the Solana blockchain, known for its capacity to handle high-speed and low-cost transactions. Supply Dynamics: DIGITAL GOLD has a maximum supply capped at 100 quadrillion tokens (100P $BITCOIN), although details regarding its circulating supply are currently undisclosed. Utility: While precise functionalities are not explicitly outlined, there are indications that the token could be utilized for various applications, potentially involving decentralized applications (dApps) or asset tokenization strategies. Who is the Creator of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? At present, the identity of the creators and development team behind DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) remains unknown. This situation is typical among many innovative projects within the blockchain space, particularly those aligning with decentralized finance and meme coin phenomena. While such anonymity may foster a community-driven culture, it intensifies concerns about governance and accountability. Who are the Investors of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? The available information indicates that DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) does not have any known institutional backers or prominent venture capital investments. The project seems to operate on a peer-to-peer model focused on community support and adoption rather than traditional funding routes. Its activity and liquidity are primarily situated on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as PumpSwap, rather than established centralized trading platforms, further highlighting its grassroots approach. How DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) Works The operational mechanics of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) can be elaborated on based on its blockchain design and network attributes: Consensus Mechanism: By leveraging Solana’s unique proof-of-history (PoH) combined with a proof-of-stake (PoS) model, the project ensures efficient transaction validation contributing to the network's high performance. Tokenomics: While specific deflationary mechanisms have not been extensively detailed, the vast maximum token supply implies that it may cater to microtransactions or niche use cases that are still to be defined. Interoperability: There exists the potential for integration with Solana’s broader ecosystem, including various decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. However, the details regarding specific integrations remain unspecified. Timeline of Key Events Here is a timeline that highlights significant milestones concerning DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): 2023: The initial deployment of the token occurs on the Solana blockchain, marked by its contract address. 2024: DIGITAL GOLD gains visibility as it becomes available for trading on decentralized exchanges like PumpSwap, allowing users to trade it against SOL. 2025: The project witnesses sporadic trading activity and potential interest in community-led engagements, although no noteworthy partnerships or technical advancements have been documented as of yet. Critical Analysis Strengths Scalability: The underlying Solana infrastructure supports high transaction volumes, which could enhance the utility of $BITCOIN in various transaction scenarios. Accessibility: The potential low trading price per token could attract retail investors, facilitating wider participation due to fractional ownership opportunities. Risks Lack of Transparency: The absence of publicly known backers, developers, or an audit process may yield skepticism regarding the project's sustainability and trustworthiness. Market Volatility: The trading activity is heavily reliant on speculative behavior, which can result in significant price volatility and uncertainty for investors. Conclusion DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) emerges as an intriguing yet ambiguous project within the rapidly evolving Solana ecosystem. While it attempts to leverage the “digital gold” narrative, its departure from Bitcoin's established role as a store of value underscores the need for a clearer differentiation of its intended utility and governance structure. Future acceptance and adoption will likely depend on addressing the current opacity and defining its operational and economic strategies more explicitly. Note: This report encompasses synthesised information available as of October 2023, and developments may have transpired beyond the research period.

463 Total ViewsPublished 2025.05.13Updated 2025.05.13

What is $BITCOIN

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 BTC (BTC) are presented below.

活动图片