I recently came across some interesting chatter about on-chain data tools. You can just slap a label on it and call it “evidence”? Honestly, I’ve always felt that scrubbers can be scrubbed out—and then scrubbed back in again too. Whether it’s actually lagging or not is really hard to say.

Anyway, circling back to MEV: I’m pretty direct about it. Those “queue-jumping” operations, put simply—you think it’s fair competition, but in reality they’ve already been using you as “fuel” from the start. Especially when it comes to liquidations: I calculate the collateralization ratio pretty carefully. But no matter how carefully I do it, it still can’t stop them from directly changing the order of your transactions on-chain. You place an order, intending to wait for a safer moment—only for the liquidity to get pulled away, and it just blows you up. This isn’t queue-jumping at all; it’s clearly setting a trap for you.

I don’t really believe those “data tools” can solve this problem end to end. Even if they label everything as thoroughly as possible, they still can’t trace the true intentions of all anonymous arbitrageurs. In any case, that’s just how I’ve gotten used to it. Now when I do lending, I keep the collateralization ratio as high as possible, leave enough of a safety cushion, and don’t get greedy for that small spread—otherwise if you get “queue-jumped” during liquidation, you won’t even have time to cry. Forget it—let it be for now.