Analytical and simulation study reveals conditions for profitable sandwich attacks in Ethereum, highlighting fee dynamics implications.
Ethereum's public mempool exposes every pending transaction to adversaries who can reorder, insert, or censor transactions for profit — a phenomenon known as Maximal Extractable Value (MEV), and the reason practitioners describe the mempool as a "dark forest." While a substantial measurement literature quantifies how much value has been extracted, comparatively little work derives closed-form conditions governing when extraction is profitable at all. This paper contributes an analytical treatment of the canonical sandwich attack against constant-product automated market makers (AMMs). We derive and numerically verify two results. First, we establish a fee-determined break-even law: a victim trade of size v against a pool of depth X is profitably sandwichable if and only if v/X > φ, where φ is the pool's fee rate, independent of the victim's slippage tolerance. Simulation across four orders of magnitude of fee tiers (0.01%–1%) matches this prediction to within 1.6% relative error. Second, we show that above break-even the victim's slippage constraint is always binding: the optimal front-run saturates the tolerance budget exactly, making attacker profit essentially linear in the tolerance parameter σ — a 5% tolerance yields 49.7× the profit of a 0.1% tolerance at fixed trade size. We further model the coupling between extraction and EIP-1559 fee dynamics, showing that a 5× demand shock produces a 6.4× base-fee excursion that decays to within 10% of baseline in 16 blocks. Together these results reframe slippage tolerance from a user-convenience setting into the primary control variable governing extractable value, and yield concrete, quantitative defense guidance. Note: This is an analytical and simulation study. All quantitative results are derived from the stated model under the stated parameters and are not empirical measurements of on-chain activity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter Ong (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: