Showing 1–7 of 7 results for author: Schertenleib, E

Non-Atomic Arbitrage in Decentralized Finance

Authors: Lioba Heimbach, Vabuk Pahari, Eric Schertenleib

Abstract: The prevalence of maximal extractable value (MEV) in the Ethereum ecosystem has led to a characterization of the latter as a dark forest. Studies of MEV have thus far largely been restricted to purely on-chain MEV, i.e., sandwich attacks, cyclic arbitrage, and liquidations. In this work, we shed light on the prevalence of non-atomic arbitrage on decentralized exchanges (DEXes) on the Ethereum bloc… ▽ More The prevalence of maximal extractable value (MEV) in the Ethereum ecosystem has led to a characterization of the latter as a dark forest. Studies of MEV have thus far largely been restricted to purely on-chain MEV, i.e., sandwich attacks, cyclic arbitrage, and liquidations. In this work, we shed light on the prevalence of non-atomic arbitrage on decentralized exchanges (DEXes) on the Ethereum blockchain. Importantly, non-atomic arbitrage exploits price differences between DEXes on the Ethereum blockchain as well as exchanges outside the Ethereum blockchain (i.e., centralized exchanges or DEXes on other blockchains). Thus, non-atomic arbitrage is a type of MEV that involves actions on and off the Ethereum blockchain. In our study of non-atomic arbitrage, we uncover that more than a fourth of the volume on Ethereum's biggest five DEXes from the merge until 31 October 2023 can likely be attributed to this type of MEV. We further highlight that only eleven searchers are responsible for more than 80% of the identified non-atomic arbitrage volume sitting at a staggering $132 billion and draw a connection between the centralization of the block construction market and non-atomic arbitrage. Finally, we discuss the security implications of these high-value transactions that account for more than 10% of Ethereum's total block value and outline possible mitigations. △ Less

Submitted 8 April, 2024; v1 submitted 3 January, 2024; originally announced January 2024.

Comments: In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) 2024

The Potential of Self-Regulation for Front-Running Prevention on DEXes

Authors: Lioba Heimbach, Eric Schertenleib, Roger Wattenhofer

Abstract: The transaction ordering dependency of the smart contracts building decentralized exchanges (DEXes) allow for predatory trading strategies. In particular, front-running attacks present a constant risk for traders on DEXes. Whereas legal regulation outlaws most front-running practices in traditional finance, such measures are ineffective in preventing front-running on DEXes due to the absence of a… ▽ More The transaction ordering dependency of the smart contracts building decentralized exchanges (DEXes) allow for predatory trading strategies. In particular, front-running attacks present a constant risk for traders on DEXes. Whereas legal regulation outlaws most front-running practices in traditional finance, such measures are ineffective in preventing front-running on DEXes due to the absence of a central authority. While novel market designs hindering front-running may emerge, it remains unclear whether the market's participants, in particular liquidity providers, would be willing to adopt these new designs. A misalignment of the participant's private incentives and the market's social incentives can hinder the market from adopting an effective prevention mechanism. We present a game-theoretic model to study the behavior of traders and liquidity providers in DEXes. Our work finds that in most market configurations, the private interests of traders and liquidity providers align with the market's social incentives - eliminating front-running attacks. However, even though liquidity providers generally benefit from embracing the market that prevents front-running, the benefit is often small and may not suffice to entice them to change strategy in reality. Thus, we find that inert liquidity providers might require additional incentives to adopt innovative market designs and permit the market's successful self-regulation. △ Less

Submitted 9 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

DeFi Lending During The Merge

Authors: Lioba Heimbach, Eric Schertenleib, Roger Wattenhofer

Abstract: Lending protocols in decentralized finance enable the permissionless exchange of capital from lenders to borrowers without relying on a trusted third party for clearing or market-making. Interest rates are set by the supply and demand of capital according to a pre-defined function. In the lead-up to The Merge: Ethereum blockchain's transition from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS), a fra… ▽ More Lending protocols in decentralized finance enable the permissionless exchange of capital from lenders to borrowers without relying on a trusted third party for clearing or market-making. Interest rates are set by the supply and demand of capital according to a pre-defined function. In the lead-up to The Merge: Ethereum blockchain's transition from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS), a fraction of the Ethereum ecosystem announced plans of continuing with a PoW-chain. Owners of ETH - whether their ETH was borrowed or not - would hold the native tokens on each chain. This development alarmed lending protocols. They feared spiking ETH borrowing rates would lead to mass liquidations which could undermine their viability. Thus, the decentralized autonomous organization running the protocols saw no alternative to intervention - restricting users' ability to borrow. We investigate the effects of the merge and the aforementioned intervention on the two biggest lending protocols on Ethereum: AAVE and Compound. Our analysis finds that borrowing rates were extremely volatile, jum** by two orders of magnitude, and borrowing at times reached 100% of the available funds. Despite this, no spike in mass liquidations or irretrievable loans materialized. Further, we are the first to quantify and analyze hard-fork-arbitrage, profiting from holding debt in the native blockchain token during a hard fork. We find that arbitrageurs transferred tokens to centralized exchanges which at the time were worth more than 13 Mio US$, money that was effectively extracted from the platforms' lenders. △ Less

Submitted 16 August, 2023; v1 submitted 23 January, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: This paper was accepted at the 5th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT 2023)

Short Squeeze in DeFi Lending Market: Decentralization in Jeopardy?

Authors: Lioba Heimbach, Eric G. Schertenleib, Roger Wattenhofer

Abstract: Anxiety levels in the Aave community spiked in November 2022 as Avi Eisenberg performed an attack on Aave. Eisenberg attempted to short the CRV token by using funds borrowed on the protocol to artificially deflate the value of CRV. While the attack was ultimately unsuccessful, it left the Aave community scared and even raised question marks regarding the feasibility of large lending platforms unde… ▽ More Anxiety levels in the Aave community spiked in November 2022 as Avi Eisenberg performed an attack on Aave. Eisenberg attempted to short the CRV token by using funds borrowed on the protocol to artificially deflate the value of CRV. While the attack was ultimately unsuccessful, it left the Aave community scared and even raised question marks regarding the feasibility of large lending platforms under decentralized governance. In this work, we analyze Avi Eisenberg's actions and show how he was able to artificially lower the price of CRV by selling large quantities of borrowed CRV for stablecoins on both decentralized and centralized exchanges. Despite the failure of his attack, it still led to irretrievable debt worth more than 1.5 Mio USD at the time and, thereby, quadrupled the protocol's irretrievable debt. Furthermore, we highlight that his attack was enabled by the vast proportion of CRV available to borrow as well as Aave's lending protocol design hindering rapid intervention. We stress Eisenberg's attack exposes a predicament of large DeFi lending protocols: limit the scope or compromise on 'decentralization'. △ Less

Submitted 21 June, 2023; v1 submitted 8 February, 2023; originally announced February 2023.

Comments: In Proceedings of Workshop on Decentralized Finance (DeFi@FC)

Exploring Price Accuracy on Uniswap V3 in Times of Distress

Authors: Lioba Heimbach, Eric Schertenleib, Roger Wattenhofer

Abstract: Financial markets have evolved over centuries, and exchanges have converged to rely on the order book mechanism for market making. Latency on the blockchain, however, has prevented decentralized exchanges (DEXes) from utilizing the order book mechanism and instead gave rise to the development of market designs that are better suited to a blockchain. Although the first widely popularized DEX, Unisw… ▽ More Financial markets have evolved over centuries, and exchanges have converged to rely on the order book mechanism for market making. Latency on the blockchain, however, has prevented decentralized exchanges (DEXes) from utilizing the order book mechanism and instead gave rise to the development of market designs that are better suited to a blockchain. Although the first widely popularized DEX, Uniswap V2, stood out through its astonishing simplicity, a recent design overhaul introduced with Uniswap V3 has introduced increasing levels of complexity aiming to increase capital efficiency. In this work, we empirically study the ability of Unsiwap V3 to handle unexpected price shocks. Our analysis finds that the prices on Uniswap V3 were inaccurate during the recent abrupt price drops of two stablecoins: UST and USDT. We identify the lack of agility required of Unsiwap V3 liquidity providers as the root cause of these worrying price inaccuracies. Additionally, we outline that there are too few incentives for liquidity providers to enter liquidity pools, given the elevated volatility in such market conditions. △ Less

Submitted 10 November, 2022; v1 submitted 20 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Risks and Returns of Uniswap V3 Liquidity Providers

Authors: Lioba Heimbach, Eric Schertenleib, Roger Wattenhofer

Abstract: Trade execution on Decentralized Exchanges (DEXes) is automatic and does not require individual buy and sell orders to be matched. Instead, liquidity aggregated in pools from individual liquidity providers enables trading between cryptocurrencies. The largest DEX measured by trading volume, Uniswap V3, promises a DEX design optimized for capital efficiency. However, Uniswap V3 requires far more de… ▽ More Trade execution on Decentralized Exchanges (DEXes) is automatic and does not require individual buy and sell orders to be matched. Instead, liquidity aggregated in pools from individual liquidity providers enables trading between cryptocurrencies. The largest DEX measured by trading volume, Uniswap V3, promises a DEX design optimized for capital efficiency. However, Uniswap V3 requires far more decisions from liquidity providers than previous DEX designs. In this work, we develop a theoretical model to illustrate the choices faced by Uniswap V3 liquidity providers and their implications. Our model suggests that providing liquidity on Uniswap V3 is highly complex and requires many considerations from a user. Our supporting data analysis of the risks and returns of real Uniswap V3 liquidity providers underlines that liquidity providing in Uniswap V3 is incredibly complicated, and performances can vary wildly. While there are simple and profitable strategies for liquidity providers in liquidity pools characterized by negligible price volatilities, these strategies only yield modest returns. Instead, significant returns can only be obtained by accepting increased financial risks and at the cost of active management. Thus, providing liquidity has become a game reserved for sophisticated players with the introduction of Uniswap V3, where retail traders do not stand a chance. △ Less

Submitted 21 September, 2022; v1 submitted 18 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Unusual $H$-$T$ phase diagram of CeRh$_2$As$_2$ -- the role of staggered non-centrosymmetricity

Authors: Eric G. Schertenleib, Mark H. Fischer, Manfred Sigrist

Abstract: Superconductivity in a crystalline lattice without inversion is subject to complex spin-orbit-coupling effects, which can lead to mixed-parity pairing and an unusual magnetic response. In this study, the properties of a layered superconductor with alternating Rashba spin-orbit coupling in the stacking of layers, hence (globally) possessing a center of inversion, is analyzed in an applied magnetic… ▽ More Superconductivity in a crystalline lattice without inversion is subject to complex spin-orbit-coupling effects, which can lead to mixed-parity pairing and an unusual magnetic response. In this study, the properties of a layered superconductor with alternating Rashba spin-orbit coupling in the stacking of layers, hence (globally) possessing a center of inversion, is analyzed in an applied magnetic field, using a generalized Ginzburg-Landau model. The superconducting order parameter consists of an even- and an odd-parity pairing component which exchange their roles as dominant pairing channel upon increasing the magnetic field. This leads to an unusual kink feature in the upper critical field and a first-order phase transition within the mixed phase. We investigate various signatures of this internal phase transition. The physics we discuss here could explain the recently found $H$--$T$ phase diagram of the heavy Fermion superconductor CeRh$_2$As$_2$. △ Less

Submitted 26 January, 2021; v1 submitted 21 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

Journal ref: Phys. Rev. Research 3, 023179 (2021)