How Does Front-Running Affect Transactions on a DEX?

The decentralized finance landscape has transformed dramatically over the past several years, with decentralized exchanges becoming the backbone of cryptocurrency trading for millions of users worldwide. The global decentralized exchange market generated USD 3.4 billion in revenue in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 39.1 billion by 2030, growing at an explosive compound annual growth rate of 54.2 percent. Yet beneath this remarkable growth lies a persistent challenge that affects every trader who interacts with these platforms: front running in DEX transactions.

Front running represents one of the most pervasive forms of value extraction in decentralized finance. Unlike traditional financial markets, where such practices are strictly regulated and often illegal, front running in decentralized exchanges operates in a gray area that exploits the fundamental transparency of blockchain technology. When you submit a trade on a decentralized exchange, your transaction doesn’t execute immediately. Instead, it enters a public waiting area called the mempool, where it remains visible to anyone monitoring the network before being confirmed on the blockchain.

This transparency, while essential for maintaining trust in decentralized systems, creates an opportunity for sophisticated actors to observe pending transactions and position themselves to profit at your expense. The practice has evolved from a minor nuisance to a billion-dollar industry, with estimates suggesting that MEV-related extractions exceeded $1.3 billion during 2024 and 2025 alone. Understanding how front-running affects your DEX transactions isn’t just academic knowledge; it’s essential information for anyone participating in decentralized finance.

Understanding Front Running in Decentralized Exchanges

Front running in cryptocurrency refers to a practice where someone with advanced knowledge of pending transactions places their own trade to benefit from information that isn’t yet reflected in market prices. In traditional finance, front running typically involves brokers or insiders using privileged client information to place personal orders first, a practice that’s both unethical and illegal. In the world of decentralized exchanges, the dynamic shifts considerably because the information advantage comes not from insider access but from the public nature of blockchain transactions themselves.

When you initiate a swap on a platform like Uniswap, your transaction is broadcast to the network and waits in the mempool for a validator to include it in the next block. During this window, which can last from seconds to minutes depending on network congestion and gas fees, your pending transaction is visible to anyone running the right software. Specialized bots continuously scan this mempool, looking for profitable opportunities to exploit.

The mechanics become clear when you consider how automated market makers price assets. DEXs using the AMM model, which includes most major platforms, determine prices based on the ratio of assets in liquidity pools. When you place a large buy order, it will move the price upward. A frontrunner who sees your pending transaction can place their own buy order with a higher gas fee, ensuring their transaction executes first. This pushes the price up before your trade completes, meaning you receive fewer tokens than you expected. The frontrunner then sells immediately after your transaction, pocketing the difference.

The Technical Foundation of DEX Front Running

To truly grasp front-running in DEX transactions, you need to understand the infrastructure that makes it possible. Every blockchain network maintains a mempool, essentially a staging area where transactions wait to be processed. On Ethereum and similar networks, validators or miners choose which transactions to include in the next block and in what order. While transactions are typically ordered by gas price, with higher paying transactions receiving priority, this creates a system where position in the block can be purchased.

Block builders and validators hold significant power in this ecosystem. They can add, remove, or reorder transactions within blocks they produce. This capability, known as Maximal Extractable Value or MEV, represents the maximum profit these actors can extract by strategically manipulating transaction order. Previously called Miner Extractable Value before Ethereum’s transition to proof of stake, MEV has become a fundamental challenge that shapes the entire blockchain ecosystem.

The transparency of public mempools means that specialized searchers, as they’re known in the MEV ecosystem, can analyze pending transactions in real time. These searchers run sophisticated algorithms that identify profitable opportunities faster than any human trader could. When they spot a large pending swap that will impact prices, they calculate whether front running would be profitable after accounting for gas costs and risks. If the math works out, their bots execute trades within milliseconds.

Types of Front-Running Attacks in Decentralized Finance

DEX transaction manipulation takes several distinct forms, each with its own mechanics and impact on traders. Understanding these attack types helps you recognize when you might be vulnerable and take appropriate protective measures.

Pure Front Running

In its simplest form, front running occurs when an attacker observes an unconfirmed transaction in the mempool that will impact asset prices and acts on this information before the original transaction processes. The attacker uses a higher gas price to guarantee their transaction enters the block first. Consider a scenario where you’re about to purchase a significant amount of Ethereum on a decentralized exchange. A front-running bot detects your order waiting in the mempool and immediately submits its own buy order with a substantially higher gas fee. The bot’s transaction executes first, purchasing ETH at the original lower price. Your transaction then executes at the now elevated price. The bot can immediately sell at this higher price or wait for further appreciation.

Sandwich Attacks: The Most Common Threat

Sandwich attacks represent the most prevalent and damaging form of DEX front running. In this attack pattern, a malicious actor places two transactions around your trade: one order immediately before and one immediately after. The term “sandwich” describes how your transaction gets squeezed between the attacker’s orders.

The process unfolds in three stages. First, the attacker identifies your large pending trade and places a buy order just before yours with a higher gas fee. This front-run transaction pushes the price upward. Second, your transaction executes at this artificially inflated price, meaning you receive fewer tokens than anticipated. Third, the attacker’s back-run transaction sells the tokens they just acquired at the price your transaction pushed the market to, locking in their profit at your expense.

Research indicates that sandwich attacks constitute more than 20 percent of all Maximal Extractable Value on the Ethereum network. Between May 2020 and April 2022, the network experienced over 450,000 sandwich attacks, resulting in attackers profiting approximately 60,000 ETH. More recent data from EigenPhi shows that sandwich attacks averaged more than 4,400 per day from October 2022 through September 2024.

Displacement Attacks

Displacement attacks involve the attacker completely replacing your transaction rather than simply moving ahead of it. In this scenario, the attacker copies your profitable transaction, submits it with a higher gas price, and effectively steals the opportunity you identified. This type of attack is particularly common in scenarios involving arbitrage opportunities, liquidations in lending protocols, or any situation where a specific action has immediate profit potential.

Back Running and Arbitrage

Not all MEV extraction is purely predatory. Back running involves placing a transaction immediately after another to capture value created by price movements. While this can harm users in certain contexts, arbitrage back running actually provides benefits to the broader market by equalizing prices across different exchanges and liquidity pools. Arbitrage bots that spot price discrepancies between Uniswap and other exchanges buy on the cheaper venue and sell on the more expensive one, bringing prices into alignment.

The Financial Impact of Front Running on DEX Users

The scale of value extraction through front running in decentralized exchanges has grown dramatically alongside the expansion of DeFi itself. What began as a relatively obscure phenomenon has evolved into an industry extracting billions of dollars annually from unsuspecting traders.

According to data from multiple sources, the scale of MEV on global blockchains grew from under $100 million in 2020 to over $1.1 billion by the end of 2024. On Ethereum specifically, sandwich attacks account for roughly 66 percent of all MEV activity, making it the dominant form of value extraction. The impact extends beyond Ethereum to other chains as well. Analysis of Solana revealed that sandwich bots extracted between $370 million and $500 million over a 16 month period.

These aggregate figures translate into real losses for individual traders. In a particularly striking example from March 2025, a crypto trader was targeted while making a stablecoin swap worth $220,764. Within just eight seconds, an MEV bot front-ran the transaction, leaving the trader with only $5,271. The bot extracted over $215,500 in profits by manipulating the liquidity pool, representing a loss of nearly 98 percent.

The impact falls disproportionately on smaller traders. Research from data analyst Lekos revealed that 75 percent of losses from MEV bot activities stem from transactions under $20,000. This contradicts the assumption that front running primarily affects large whale transactions. In reality, the high volume of smaller trades provides ample opportunity for bots to extract value across thousands of victims daily.

Comparing Front-Running Attack Types and Their Characteristics

Different types of front-running attacks in decentralized exchanges present varying levels of risk and employ distinct mechanisms to extract value from traders.

Attack Type	Mechanism	Impact on Traders	Frequency	Prevention Difficulty
Sandwich Attack	Places buy before and sell after the victim’s transaction	Higher slippage, reduced tokens received, and direct financial loss	Over 4,400 daily on Ethereum	Moderate
Pure Front Running	Single transaction placed ahead with higher gas	Price moves against the trader before execution	Common on large trades	Moderate
Displacement	Copies and replaces the profitable transaction entirely	Complete loss of arbitrage or liquidation opportunity	Common in arbitrage scenarios	High
Suppression	Floods network to delay the victim’s transaction	Missed trading windows, failed transactions	Less common, resource-intensive	Moderate
Arbitrage Back Running	Exploits price differences after large trades	Generally neutral, helps price discovery	Approximately 60% of MEV activity	Low priority to prevent
Liquidation Racing	Front runs liquidation opportunities in lending protocols	Faster liquidation for borrowers, lost fees for competitors	Approximately 30% of MEV	Beneficial for protocol health
JIT Liquidity	Adds liquidity just before a large swap, removes after	Extracts fees without impermanent loss risk	Growing on concentrated liquidity DEXs	Protocol design dependent

How Automated Market Makers Enable Front Running

The vulnerability of decentralized exchanges to front-running attacks stems largely from how automated market makers function. Understanding this connection reveals why the problem is so persistent and what technical solutions might address it.

Automated market makers replaced traditional order books with liquidity pools governed by mathematical formulas. The most common model, pioneered by Uniswap, uses the constant product formula, where the product of two token reserves must remain constant before and after any trade. When you want to swap tokens, you interact directly with these pools rather than matching with another trader. The AMM algorithm calculates the price based on the current ratio of assets in the pool.

This design creates deterministic price impacts. If you’re buying a large amount of Token A with Token B, the AMM will give you progressively worse rates as you drain Token A from the pool. The larger your trade relative to the pool’s liquidity, the more significant the price movement. This predictability is precisely what front-runners exploit.

Because pending transactions are visible in the public mempool and AMM price formulas are known, anyone can calculate exactly how a specific trade will affect prices. A front-running bot observing your pending 100 ETH purchase can compute the exact price impact, determine whether sandwiching your trade would be profitable, and execute the attack in milliseconds. The transparency that makes decentralized systems trustworthy simultaneously creates the information asymmetry that enables exploitation.

Research has consistently demonstrated this vulnerability. An audit of Uniswap revealed that front running can occur through multiple attack vectors, specifically because public blockchains expose buy and sell orders before execution. The combination of transparent mempools and algorithmic pricing creates what researchers describe as a “dark forest” where predatory bots constantly hunt for value to extract from ordinary users.

The MEV Supply Chain: Who Profits from Front Running

Understanding who benefits from DEX front running requires examining the modern MEV supply chain, a complex ecosystem of specialized actors that has evolved since Ethereum’s transition to proof of stake.

Searchers: The Hunters

Searchers are entities that run sophisticated algorithms to identify profitable MEV opportunities. They continuously monitor the public mempool, analyzing pending transactions for potential value extraction. When they identify an opportunity, such as a large swap vulnerable to sandwiching, they create transaction bundles designed to capture that value. According to one researcher, approximately 50 teams are actively involved in MEV searching, with roughly 10 dominating the scene. One notorious searcher, known as “jaredfromsubway.eth,” is associated with approximately 70 percent of all sandwich attacks on Ethereum.

Block Builders: The Architects

Block builders aggregate transactions and bundles from searchers to construct the most profitable possible block. Since Ethereum implemented Proposer Builder Separation in 2024, the roles of building and proposing blocks have been formally separated. Builders compete to create blocks that maximize value, paying validators for the right to have their blocks included. This separation was intended to democratize access to MEV but has created new centralization concerns as sophisticated builders gain advantages.

Validators: The Gatekeepers

Validators, who replaced miners after Ethereum’s merge to proof of stake, select which blocks to propose to the network. Through MEV Boost middleware, they can accept blocks from external builders rather than constructing their own. This allows them to benefit from MEV extraction without needing the technical sophistication to perform it themselves. The validator receives payments from builders in exchange for proposing their blocks.

Value Distribution

The flow of value through this supply chain reveals interesting dynamics. Analysis shows that arbitrage bots typically pay 50 to 60 percent of their profits in tips to validators, while sandwich bots only pay 15 to 20 percent, keeping a larger share of the profits for themselves. This discrepancy highlights the more extractive nature of sandwich attacks compared to other MEV forms. Since the Merge, over 526,000 ETH has been extracted through MEV, translating to nearly $1 billion at recent prices.

Real World Consequences of DEX Front Running

The effects of front running extend far beyond individual transaction losses. The practice creates systemic issues that undermine the promise of decentralized finance as a fair and accessible alternative to traditional financial systems.

Erosion of Trust

When traders consistently receive worse prices than expected, confidence in decentralized exchanges suffers. Users may perceive DeFi as rigged against them, driving potential participants back to centralized alternatives or away from cryptocurrency entirely. This trust erosion threatens the long term growth and adoption of decentralized finance.

Hidden Transaction Costs

Front-running functions as an invisible tax on every transaction. Beyond the explicit fees you pay for gas and DEX swaps, MEV extraction adds implicit costs that reduce your effective returns. For active traders, these costs compound over time into substantial sums. Research indicates that regular users bear the brunt of these events, paying higher gas fees and receiving worse execution prices.

Network Congestion

MEV bots competing for profitable opportunities flood the network with transactions, creating congestion that affects everyone. Analysis of Ethereum Layer 2 networks found that spam bots consume more than 50 percent of gas while paying less than 10 percent of fees. Between November 2024 and February 2025, Base added 11 million in gas per second throughput, with almost all of it consumed by spam bots. This wasteful activity drives up costs for legitimate users and slows down transaction processing.

Impact on Liquidity Providers

Those who supply liquidity to DEX pools face particular risks from front running. Arbitrage-driven rebalancing contributes to impermanent loss, reducing the profitability of liquidity provision. MEV rewards are captured by validators or sequencers rather than returning to the DeFi ecosystem, meaning liquidity providers bear costs without receiving commensurate benefits.

Market Fairness Concerns

Front running creates an uneven playing field where sophisticated actors with technical resources extract value from ordinary users. This dynamic contradicts the egalitarian ideals that originally motivated decentralized finance. The European Securities and Markets Authority has begun examining MEV in the context of market abuse regulations, recognizing that certain extraction methods may violate principles of market fairness and integrity.

Protection Strategies for DEX Traders

While front running remains a persistent challenge, traders can employ various strategies to reduce their exposure and protect their transactions from exploitation.

Setting Appropriate Slippage Tolerance

Slippage tolerance determines how much price movement you’ll accept before your transaction fails. Setting a lower slippage tolerance reduces the profitability of sandwich attacks against your trades. If an attacker pushes the price beyond your tolerance threshold, your transaction simply won’t execute, protecting you from a bad deal. For liquid pairs like ETH USDC, setting slippage to 0.1 to 0.5 percent provides reasonable protection while still allowing transactions to complete. More volatile or less liquid tokens may require higher tolerances.

Using Private Transaction Relays

Private RPCs represent the most effective defense against front running. These services send your transactions directly to block builders without broadcasting them to the public mempool, preventing bots from seeing and exploiting your pending trades. Flashbots Protect has emerged as the most widely used private RPC, serving 2.1 million unique Ethereum accounts and protecting $43 billion in DEX volume since 2021. The service processes over 30 million daily requests with approximately five nines of uptime.

Other private RPC options include MEV Blocker, Merkle, and Blink, each offering slightly different approaches to protection. Benchmark studies show Flashbots Protect achieving 98.5 percent success rates with excellent MEV protection, while MEV Blocker reaches 96.2 percent, and Merkle achieves 94.8 percent.

Breaking Up Large Trades

Large trades attract more attention from MEV bots because they offer greater profit potential. By splitting a significant trade into smaller chunks, you reduce the attractiveness of each individual transaction as a sandwich target. While this approach requires more transactions and higher total gas costs, the savings from avoided MEV extraction can outweigh these expenses for very large trades.

Using MEV Protected DEX Aggregators

Platforms like CoWSwap have emerged specifically to protect users from harmful MEV attacks. Rather than submitting typical swap transactions, users sign off-chain “intent to trade” messages. These trades are processed in batches at uniform prices, eliminating the transaction sequencing that enables sandwich attacks. The batch auction model fundamentally changes trading dynamics, removing the opportunity for front running by processing all trades in a fixed time period simultaneously.

Timing Considerations

Trading during periods of lower network activity can reduce MEV exposure. When the network is less congested, there’s typically less competitive bidding among MEV bots, and gas prices are lower, making sandwich attacks less profitable. However, this strategy offers limited protection against determined attackers and shouldn’t be relied upon as a primary defense.

Protocol Level Solutions and Industry Responses

Beyond individual user precautions, the DeFi industry has developed numerous protocol-level approaches to mitigate front-running in decentralized exchanges.

Proposer Builder Separation

Ethereum implemented Proposer Builder Separation in 2024 to address MEV centralization concerns. This architectural change separates the roles of block building and block proposing, allowing validators to accept optimally constructed blocks from external builders rather than needing to optimize extraction themselves. While PBS doesn’t eliminate MEV, it aims for fairer distribution of extracted value and prevents large institutional validators from outcompeting smaller operators through superior MEV extraction capabilities.

MEV Share and Refund Mechanisms

Flashbots introduced MEV Share, a protocol that allows users to earn back a portion of the MEV their transactions create. When your transaction generates extractable value, searchers bid for the right to back-run it, and a significant portion of their bid returns to you as a refund. This transforms MEV from a pure extraction into a more equitable redistribution mechanism. Users of Flashbots Protect have saved 313 ETH in MEV refunds to date through this system.

Order Flow Auctions

Order Flow Auctions represent a broader category of solutions that aggregate user swap transactions and auction them to third-party bidders for execution. OFAs can include solver batch auctions like CoWSwap, request for quote systems like Uniswap X, and execution auctions like MEV Blocker. These mechanisms have been gaining trading volume and market share as users seek protection from front-running attacks. Data shows OFAs are typically used for larger trades where MEV risk is greatest.

Time Weighted Average Price Oracles

Some DEXs have implemented time-weighted average price oracles that provide trusted price feeds less susceptible to manipulation. By smoothing prices over time rather than relying on instantaneous quotes, these systems make it more difficult for attackers to profit from short-term price manipulation.

Layer 2 Solutions

Layer 2 networks offer some inherent protection against front-running because they typically operate with centralized sequencers that control transaction ordering. This prevents classic mempool-based front running, though it introduces new trust assumptions about sequencer behavior. Research indicates that the introduction of intent-based transaction models has reduced frontrunning attacks by 29 percent.

MEV Protection Tools and Their Effectiveness

Various tools and services have emerged to help protect traders from front-running attacks, each offering different approaches and levels of protection.

Protection Tool	Protection Method	Success Rate	Additional Benefits	Best Use Case
Flashbots Protect	Private mempool, MEV Share refunds	98.5%	No failed transaction fees, MEV refunds	All Ethereum transactions
MEV Blocker	Private transaction relay	96.2%	Good execution speed	Users prioritizing speed
Merkle	Order Flow Auction	94.8%	Competitive rebates	Large DEX trades
CoWSwap	Batch auctions, intent-based	High	Coincidence of wants matching	Patient traders seeking the best price
Uniswap X	RFQ system with fillers	High	No gas fees for failed trades	Large swaps on Uniswap
Low Slippage Settings	Limits acceptable price movement	Moderate	Free, no setup required	Liquid trading pairs
Trade Splitting	Breaks large orders into smaller ones	Moderate	Reduces per-trade impact	Very large trades
Limit Orders	Executes only at the specified price	Variable	Price certainty	When willing to wait for the price

The Different Chains: Front Running Across Blockchain Networks

While Ethereum remains the primary battlefield for MEV extraction, front-running affects users across multiple blockchain networks, each with its own characteristics and vulnerabilities.

Ethereum

As the largest smart contract platform by TVL, Ethereum sees the most MEV activity by absolute volume. The network’s public mempool and relatively slow block times create ideal conditions for front-running. However, it also has the most developed protection ecosystem, with private mempools now accounting for over half of all gas usage. MEV-related risks have resulted in over $1.3 billion extracted in 2024 to 2025, though tools continue to evolve to mitigate harm.

Solana

Solana’s architecture differs significantly from Ethereum, creating different MEV dynamics. The chain doesn’t have a traditional mempool, instead pre assigning block producers, which theoretically limits validator ability to manipulate transaction orders. Additionally, Solana processes multiple transactions simultaneously rather than sequentially, making front-running technically more difficult. Despite these design choices, MEV activity remains intense on Solana. In January 2025, searchers and traders tipped validators a record $108.6 million through Jito’s MEV services. Sandwich bots have extracted between $370 million and $500 million over 16 months, demonstrating that no architecture is immune.

BNB Chain

BNB Chain hosts significant MEV activity, with several major service providers collaborating directly with validators. However, the chain has taken steps to address the problem. According to a BNB Chain DAO vote from February 2025, activities are expected to decline due to efforts to reduce malicious MEV. A new proposal will adjust the blockchain’s mempool to discourage such exploitation.

Layer 2 Networks

Ethereum Layer 2 solutions like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base present unique considerations. These networks typically operate with centralized sequencers that control transaction ordering, which can prevent traditional mempool-based attacks. However, this centralization raises different concerns about sequencer behavior and potential for insider exploitation. Analysis shows that on chains like Base, MEV spam bots consume substantial resources, with more than 50 percent of gas used by spam paying less than 10 percent of fees.

The Future of Front Running and MEV

The battle between MEV extractors and those seeking to protect users continues to evolve, with several promising developments on the horizon.

Trusted Execution Environments

Flashbots and other organizations are experimenting with Trusted Execution Environments, hardware-based isolation that prevents operators from viewing sensitive data or tampering with software. TEE-based block builders can deliver end-to-end privacy for transactions even when the builder isn’t operated by Flashbots. In December 2024, Flashbots migrated all builders, orderflow, and refunds to BuilderNet, a block building network that runs on TEEs and shares MEV with the community.

Intent-Based Architectures

Rather than submitting specific transactions, intent-based systems allow users to express what outcome they want, leaving execution details to specialized solvers. This fundamentally changes the MEV dynamic because there’s no specific transaction to front-run. Projects like Anoma and SUAVE represent the next phase of making MEV exploitation structurally more difficult.

MEV Taxation and Redistribution

A growing concept called MEV Tax proposes redistributing extracted value back to affected parties. Rather than allowing MEV to flow entirely to searchers and validators, protocols could capture and redistribute it to liquidity providers, traders, and the broader ecosystem. This approach accepts MEV as inevitable while ensuring its benefits are shared more equitably.

Regulatory Attention

Financial regulators are beginning to examine MEV practices. The European Securities and Markets Authority has started analyzing MEV in the context of market abuse principles that underpin orderly markets in traditional finance. While no specific regulations have been proposed, increased scrutiny may eventually lead to clearer rules about acceptable extraction practices.

Practical Steps to Protect Your DEX Transactions

Combining the strategies discussed throughout this article, here are actionable steps you can take today to reduce your exposure to front running in DEX transactions.

1. Configure a Private RPC

Adding a private RPC to your wallet provides immediate protection. In MetaMask, navigate to Settings, then Networks, and add a new RPC URL. For Flashbots Protect, use rpc.flashbots.net/fast. This ensures your transactions are sent directly to block builders rather than the public mempool.

2. Adjust Slippage Settings

Before confirming any swap, review and adjust your slippage tolerance. For stable pairs and high liquidity tokens, keep it at 0.1 to 0.5 percent. Only increase slippage for volatile tokens when absolutely necessary, and understand the trade-off you’re making.

3. Consider Order Flow Auction Platforms

For significant trades, consider using platforms like CoWSwap that employ batch auctions. While execution may take longer, the protection against sandwich attacks and potential for better prices through coincidence of wants matching can outweigh the wait.

4. Monitor Transaction Execution

Pay attention to whether your trades consistently execute at worse prices than quoted. If you notice a pattern of unexpected slippage, you may be experiencing front running. Tools and block explorers can help you analyze whether your transactions were sandwiched.

5. Stay Informed

The MEV landscape evolves rapidly. New protection tools emerge regularly, and best practices change as attackers adapt. Following developments from organizations like Flashbots and staying current with DeFi security research helps you maintain effective protection.

Conclusion

Front-running in DEX transactions represents one of the most significant challenges facing decentralized finance today. The practice extracts billions of dollars annually from traders, creates unfair advantages for sophisticated actors, and threatens to undermine trust in the decentralized systems that millions of people rely on for financial services.

Yet the picture isn’t entirely bleak. The DeFi ecosystem has responded to these challenges with remarkable innovation. Private mempools now handle over half of Ethereum’s gas, protecting users who take advantage of these services. Order flow auctions and batch trading systems offer structural solutions that make front running technically more difficult. Protocol-level changes like Proposer Builder Separation and MEV Share mechanisms work to distribute value more equitably, even when extraction occurs.

Understanding how front running works empowers you to protect yourself. By using private RPCs, setting appropriate slippage tolerances, choosing MEV-protected trading venues, and staying informed about best practices, you can significantly reduce your exposure to these exploitative practices. The tools exist today to make your DEX transactions substantially safer.

The evolution of MEV mitigation continues. Trusted execution environments, intent-based architectures, and potential regulatory frameworks all promise further improvements. While front-running may never be completely eliminated from decentralized systems, the trajectory points toward an increasingly fair and protected trading environment. As both individual users and the broader ecosystem adopt better practices and tools, the hidden tax of MEV extraction will continue to decline, bringing decentralized finance closer to its promise of open, fair, and accessible markets for everyone.