ANTHILLAsk your own question
Answer · confidence: partial

How much do sneaky bots that jump ahead of trades cost everyday users on crypto swap sites?

Research question: What have researchers measured about front-running and extraction costs that hit ordinary users on decentralized exchanges?

The records show that on Ethereum, attacked traders lost on average 0.27% of their initial transaction value to front-runners, versus only 0.04% on Polygon 2, and front-running bots profited up to 26 times more in aggregate on Ethereum Layer 1 than on Polygon Layer 2 6. One study estimated that Ethereum participants would need to pay an average of $0.21 more per transaction, or nearly $7.2 million per month, to undo the effects of MEV reordering 4, but it also found that only about 0.24% of reordering losses come from sandwich attacks 12. A 2026 study found that its slippage controller raised the failure rate of benign transactions by 1.85 percentage points, a cost borne by ordinary users 10. Later work on rollups found that naive sandwich detection overstated the activity, with most flagged patterns being false positives and a negative median net return 5, and the newest such finding is dated January 27, 2026, about nine months before October 2026 1; researchers also reached inconsistent conclusions about the size of user impact overall 19.

Checked 2026-10-21. Only documented and supported facts are used.
Dig deeper on this question

Sources

[1] supported
The researchers conclude that sandwiching is endemic and profitable on Ethereum L1 but rare, unprofitable, and largely absent in rollups with private mempools.
"Our results suggest that sandwiching, while endemic and profitable on Ethereum L1, is rare, unprofitable, and largely absent in rollups with private mempools."
[2601.19570] How to Serve Your Sandwich? MEV Attacks in Private L2 Mempools
[2] supported
Attacked traders lost on average 0.27% of their initial transaction value to front-runners on the Ethereum liquidity pool, versus only 0.04% on Polygon.
"On average, attacked traders lost 0.27% of their initial transaction value to front-runners on the Ethereum pool compared to only 0.04% on Polygon."
Comparing Price Manipulation Attacks Across Layer 1 and Layer 2 Decentralized Exchange Platforms (2023)
[3] supported
Sandwich attacks exploit the combination of transparent transaction ordering, automated market maker price impact, and user slippage tolerance.
"Sandwich attacks exploit the interaction between transparent transaction ordering, automated market maker price impact, and user slippage tolerance."
Analysis and Defence against Sandwich Attacks on Decentralized Exchanges using Gated Adaptive Slippage Control (2026)
[4] supported
Ethereum network participants would need to pay an average of $0.21 more per transaction, or nearly $7.2 million per month in total, to undo the effects of the MEV agent's reordering.
"Ethereum network participants would need to pay an average of $0.21 more per transaction or a total of nearly $7.2 million per month to undo the effects of the MEV agent."
The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering
[5] supported
Using transaction-level data from major rollups, the majority of sandwich patterns flagged by naive heuristics were false positives, and the median net return for these attacks was negative.
"We find that the majority of flagged patterns are false positives and that the median net return for these attacks is negative."
[2601.19570] How to Serve Your Sandwich? MEV Attacks in Private L2 Mempools
[6] supported
In aggregate, front-running bots profited up to 26 times more on Ethereum (Layer 1) than on Polygon (Layer 2).
"In aggregate, bots profited up to twenty-six times more on L1 than L2."
Comparing Price Manipulation Attacks Across Layer 1 and Layer 2 Decentralized Exchange Platforms (2023)
[7] supported
The front run transaction in a sandwich attack is 48% more likely to appear in the first block quartile.
"We find that the front run transaction in a sandwich attack is 48% more likely to appear in the first block quartile."
The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering
[8] supported
Naive heuristics used to detect sandwich attacks overstate how much sandwiching actually occurs on rollups.
"Third, using transaction-level data from major rollups, we show that naive heuristics overstate sandwich activity."
[2601.19570] How to Serve Your Sandwich? MEV Attacks in Private L2 Mempools
[9] supported
Sandwich attacks are extremely frequent, averaging more than one every two blocks.
"Sandwich attacks, in which a transaction is front run, are extremely frequent, averaging more than one every two blocks."
The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering
[10] supported
The same slippage controller increased the failure rate of benign labelled transactions by 1.85 percentage points, a cost borne by ordinary users.
"while increasing the failure rate of benign labelled transactions by 1.85 percentage points."
Analysis and Defence against Sandwich Attacks on Decentralized Exchanges using Gated Adaptive Slippage Control (2026)
[11] supported
Front-run marginal effects are approximately $0.11 per transaction, which is much larger than the marginal effects seen in the baseline model.
"Front run marginal effects are approximately $0.11 per transaction."
The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering
[12] supported
Only about 0.24% of reordering losses come from sandwich attacks; about 99.76% of losses due to reordering are not directly due to sandwich attacks.
"$7.16 million or 99.76% of losses due to reordering are not directly due to transaction reordering associated with sandwich attacks."
The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering
[13] documented
The study reports that Uniswap V2 and Uniswap V3 are the main targets of MEV extraction on decentralized exchanges, though their operating mechanisms create different conditions for attacks.
"The obtained results demonstrate that Uniswap V2 and Uniswap V3 are the primary targets for MEV extraction; however, their operational mechanisms create distinct conditions for attacks."
METHODOLOGY FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAXIMAL EXTRACTABLE VALUE (MEV) IN DECENTRALIZED EXCHANGE PROTOCOLS (2025)
[14] supported
A sandwich attack places two transactions around a large detected transaction to profit from the price impact that transaction causes on a decentralized exchange.
"A “sandwich attack” on many blockchains that enable DeFi transactions, including the Ethereum blockchain, is executed by placing two transactions around a large, detected transaction to capitalize on the expected price impact."
10-Q iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) (CIK 0002000638) 2025-11-06
[15] supported
The researchers found a clear correlation between concentrated liquidity, pricing algorithms, and how much MEV exploitation occurs.
"A clear correlation was identified between concentrated liquidity, pricing algorithms, and the scale of MEV exploitation."
METHODOLOGY FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAXIMAL EXTRACTABLE VALUE (MEV) IN DECENTRALIZED EXCHANGE PROTOCOLS (2025)
[16] supported
MEV is defined as extra profit taken by certain network participants who influence transaction ordering, because blockchains do not guarantee a predictable transaction execution order.
"Despite decentralization and transparency, blockchain networks do not guarantee a predictable transaction execution order, leading to the emergence of the phenomenon known as Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) – an additional profit extracted by certain network participants who influence transaction ordering."
METHODOLOGY FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MAXIMAL EXTRACTABLE VALUE (MEV) IN DECENTRALIZED EXCHANGE PROTOCOLS (2025)
[17] supported
The Trust's filing states that sandwich attacks and front running can have negative repercussions on DeFi users.
"such as sandwich attacks or front running that can have negative repercussions on DeFi users."
10-Q iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) (CIK 0002000638) 2025-11-06
[18] supported
Around $675M in MEV had been extracted on Ethereum before September 2022.
"Before September 2022, around $675M was extracted in terms of MEV in Ethereum."
Remeasuring the Arbitrage and Sandwich Attacks of Maximal Extractable Value in Ethereum (2024)
[19] supported
Researchers who tried to quantify how much MEV hurts ordinary users reached inconsistent conclusions about the size of that user impact.
"There have been a number of articles that have attempted to quantify this [Tit23,DGK+20] and the conclusions on the magnitude of user impact are inconsistent."
Towards a Theory of Maximal Extractable Value II: Uncertainty (2023)
[20] supported
Front-running and back-running strategies place transactions around user trades so arbitrage can profit from uninformed user order flow, and KDC22 calculated bounds on the resulting change in social welfare.
"in order to allow arbitrage trades to take advantage of uninformed user flow. This type of MEV has been well-studied and in fact"
Towards a Theory of Maximal Extractable Value II: Uncertainty (2023)
[21] supported
The paper estimates that MEV bot activity alone represented nearly $20 billion in transactions.
"This ratio translates to nearly $20 billion in transactions from MEV bot activities alone"
CoMMA Protocol: Towards Complete Mitigation of Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) Attacks (2023)
[22] supported
An MEV-explore tool estimated that about $700M of maximal extractable value had been extracted on Ethereum since 1 January 2020, and the paper argues the true total is likely much higher.
"At the time of this writing, an “MEV-explore” tool [1] estimates the amount of MEV extracted on Ethereum since the 1st of Jan 2020 to be close to $700M."
Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) Protection on a DAG (2022)
[23] supported
MEV is described as an implicit tax that uninformed users pay for using decentralized services.
"an implicit tax that uninformed users pay for"
CoMMA Protocol: Towards Complete Mitigation of Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) Attacks (2023)
[24] supported
Only about 10.7% of MEV revenue was captured through the MEV-Share and MEV-Blocker services, so these services protected only a limited number of users.
"accounting for a mere 10.7%. We conclude that these two services only protect a limited number of users, highlighting the growth potential of both services."
Remeasuring the Arbitrage and Sandwich Attacks of Maximal Extractable Value in Ethereum (2024)