Spent a bit of time this morning looking into this Based on this initial examination, I believe at least 1 relay solver may be leaking private intent data to sandwichers Looking at the RH sandwich attacks conducted by these bots(*), every single sandwich contained at least 1 victim from Relay One interesting thing to note about this is that often the swaps have multiple pools they can route through and Relay solvers do a primitive (**) form of onchain routing where they swap multiple candidate routes, reverting each one, and then selecting the best one to run. So that means the attackers have to perturb the pool just enough that they can profit but not so much that the solver routes through another pool (*) Subset of bots where 100% of sandwiches have >=1 Relay victim (search period: last 6 days) 0x44c0ba0b734d4b7705fcd07ddae9fbbc078d74dd 0x38b3f8125bbbd45b56d0c3a535b90181d7dd3880 0x2a23c6d2522f07d230abf9c7a96d703520fd222b 0x18e0efe5be1cbb4e060c26f7f16f276be4dbc38c 0x9d61ad5c82586ae118af38e1cc68c8d1ad50771a (**) by primitive onchain routing, I don't mean it in a negative way, just that it's the simplest way

achieving 3,500,000 transactions/sec fetching + parsing Solana blocks on a single machine! using jetstreamer less than 3 minutes to parse all transactions in an epoch 75Gbps machine so there's more headroom, but start hitting upstream 429s if we fetch much more

upgraded our testnet node to agave for the alpenglow migration without our trusty franken/firedancer gui, I feel a bit like I would if I walked outside without my phone or keys

Horizon (jetstreamer-horizon) is super exciting stuff With it, anyone can easily run simulations against _historical_ Solana account states Looking forward to this!

Building a Router, Part II Quoting: direct quoting vs. simulations You can start with sims (ex: LiteSVM) but you'll quickly find it doesn't scale. Native quoting is 200-3000x faster What goes in to a quote? quote = f(input, pool state, clock, route, flow) Input: direction, input amount Pool state: reserves, ticks/bins, fees, curve params Clock: slot, timestamp, epoch Route: router/profile, hop position, route source/destination Flow: caller, accounts, surrounding instructions, route shape here's a table comparing direct quoting vs. simulation execution for some propAMMs and a subset of AMMs

Some are calling it the Solana Stimulus Right now, 3.4M SOL is locked up in rent Up to $307M potentially redeemable* after SIMD-0437-5** activates * at today's exchange rate ** the reduction is 9% then 27% and ultimately 90% at stage 5

We built a router. Not meant to compete with existing routers. We need it for our upcoming solana-wide execution quality scoring. More on that in a future post Supports 10+ propAMMs and many more AMMs Still early days and a bit hungry on the CUs

Most propAMMs (and AMMs...) use a pool for every asset pair But Flint, and Aquifer before it, don't use traditional pools which means they can scale cross-asset swaps O(N) rather than O(N*N)

Currently only 3 out of these propAMMs appear to have defense against a cluster restart. Worth adding if you haven't already!

Rust source-level debugger for Solana programs inspect variables, set breakpoints, step into/over functions, etc. coming soon™️to @blueshift sbpf (which already has an assembly debugger btw) here's what stepping through a Pinocchio vault program looks like:

So how do Solana propAMMs fare against Binance? Spent some time over the weekend finding out Turns out: really, really good Took 24hr of onchain trades and compared vs. Binance VIP 1 and VIP 9 (a) does not naively rely on block timestamp. Uses shred-level timing data and is geo-aware based on leader location (b) comparison is size-aware and contemporaneous. Walks the L2 book for the same size at the same moment (c) does not naively compare onchain SOL/USDC against Binance SOL/USDT since USDC is not 1:1 with USDT (results would be clearly bimodal). Adjusts for this (d) compares executed onchain trades (>1M) not simulations. Accounts for priority and base fees paid Measured execution quality: did the propAMMs give the trader a good fill relative to executable Binance liquidity at that time? vs. Binance VIP 1: 10 bps advantage on propAMMs vs. Binance VIP 9: 2-3 bps advantage on propAMMs

If you know me, you know I'm a huge fan of onchain routing Love to see this from Titan. Their new router dynamically sources liquidity at execution time Onchain routing helps Solana go from "average fill can beat Binance VIP9" to "virtually every fill should be competitive with or better than Binance" in the video: simulated outputs without API calls (no offchain router component!) gap bps = how far output is behind best output interval bps = how far output is behind the one immediately above it

To me it looks unrelated to axios Notice how these txs are unusual: the multisig signers never used durable nonces except for the 2 exploit txs that approved the new admin The hacker created new nonce accounts on behalf of the 5 Squads signers days ago This gave him days to socially engineer the signers and collect their signatures. Since the transactions used durable nonces, they aren't limited to the standard 151 block expiry

Looks like the pool operator pushed an erroneous price (2.65 USDC/WSOL) in all oracle updates that landed in slot 409430505 this unfortunate blunder led to the nika6 arb bot profiting over 2400 SOL across multiple transactions

Simulating pAMM outputs is non-trivial. If you're checking quotes without varying these params, your sim may be incomplete Swap output depends on much more than pool state, reserves, and input size: - outer program (router) - router method - price/CU (*) - presence of extra accounts (**) - presence of other swaps and much more... (*) some pAMMs check the priority fee from the ix sysvar and adjusts bps (**) a pAMM that doesn't want to be bundled adds a surcharge (historically 1bps) if you don't include a specific vote account in the passed accounts