Survey of Privacy Solutions for Minimizing MEV
summary
Survey of cryptographic mitigations and where they actually trade privacy for latency or trust: commitments work as a drop‑in but impose a one‑block delay that breaks UX; zkps let applications prove validity and zkps aggregate transactions with minimal delay and good tooling; timelock encryption mirrors commitments but has fewer libraries; threshold decryption often requires quorum coordination and typically yields a one‑block decrypt lag at L1; SGX gives complete privacy but SGX relies on Intel attestation; MPC is software‑only but expensive and introduces extra trust; experimental work explores homomorphic/malleable schemes and order‑searchable encryption but these often reduce to threshold decryption.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (10)
- 0:00Intro
- 0:33Overview
- 1:45Privacy Considerations
- 3:53Solutions
- 4:21Commitments
- 5:23ZKPs
- 6:41Timelock Encryption
- 8:00Threshold Decryption
- 9:06SGX
- 11:00MPC
related talks
20mDeep Dive into Privacy Enhancing Technologies
48mSoK: Programmable Privacy
40mConfidential Computing and Privacy-Enhancing Technologies - The Landscape
37mFrontiers in Cryptography
32mBeyond Software: Hardware-Based Security
44mIntroduction to confidential computing – protecting sensitive workloads
17mPreview: Security and Privacy
01h 00mPrivacy Preserving Smart Contracts