@yuge69@nix_eth@RJFieldsofGold user says "I want to buy token for X"
price is lower than X.
jared buys token, sells it to user for X.
Jared makes a small profit, user pays the price they specified. They weren't robbed, just as they wouldn't have been stealing if the price moved in their favor.
@thatVEXEDguy mostly not an issue anymore since most wallets default to private transactions, not to mention protocols like cowswap and matcha are sandwich-free.
@nix_eth@RJFieldsofGold I think there's a big difference between skimming slippage (which users can just set lower btw) and engineering a trap to wipe out somebody's entire wallet.
yes imo.
sandwich works because a person says "I'm willing to trade X of A for at least Y of B", and there's room to move the price to give them a worse (but still acceptable, as specified by the user) fill.
exploiting Jared used an elaborate scheme to commit theft.
not at all the same.
@SH13LDS7 kind of...people are agreeing to a minimum output and if there's wiggle room between their minimum and the quote then Jared steps in to take advantage
If you've been in this space long enough, you have probably been sandwiched by jaredfromsubway.
No doubt you've heard of him.
Today, he was beaten at his own game to the tune of ~$14M.
1/๐งต
@effereum_eth it may want the optionality to trade through uniswap forks, if the liquidity is there. I think the more appropriate check would be ensuring that approvals set during the bundle are cleared by the end.
4/ The attacker used this to their advantage, deploying over a hundred fake Uniswap V2-style pairs and fake ERC20 tokens. The pairs implemented the normal Uniswap pair interface and appeared to have deep liquidity, but the liquidity was in attacker-controlled fake wrapper tokens.
@effereum_eth they have to:
- look like a real pool
- offer Jared real profits on backruns
- not consume Jared's approvals in the process
it was just a really good bait and Jared took it