Recently, someone asked me again: who does on-chain "cutting in line" actually hurt? Basically, it’s about who controls the order of transactions. You think you're just swapping tokens, but in reality, you're competing with a bunch of faster bots for the same liquidity pool; the most direct victims of cutting in line are often not "everyone," but those who set large slippage and don’t watch their gas fees, unaware that their trade price has been eaten away. More covertly, project teams/LPs see their prices being manipulated back and forth, fees seem to increase but the curve looks worse, and in the end, when users complain "why is this so scammy," it’s not that the contract is broken, but that the ordering has shattered the user experience.

My colleague was also complaining a couple of days ago about NFT royalties—platforms say they need liquidity, creators say they need income... I think it’s quite similar to MEV: whoever can decide the "transaction order/rule execution" can re-divide the cake. Anyway, my current approach is quite cautious: if I can use a private channel, I won’t force my transactions into the public mempool; don’t be greedy with parameters, and don’t see yourself as a retail investor with immunity. The phrase "on-chain fairness" sounds grand, but in your wallet, it just means being less likely to be the one "easily sniped."