Just saw a frontrunning case—pretty interesting. A user interacted with a liquidity pool, trying to arbitrage, but a few MEV bots ended up blocking them in the queue. The transaction was directly reordered, and in the end they actually lost money on gas. It feels like street photography: you watch a crowd, hoping to catch a moment, only to find they’re all lining up to buy milk tea. You cut in, and then you get cursed by the people behind you.

On-chain “cutting the line,” in plain terms, is a fight over ordering rights—whoever bids higher gets to go first. But it doesn’t just affect big players; retail users in there can easily be “collaterally harmed,” too. Recently, in that re-staking debate, some people were arguing about “matryoshka dolls”—saying shared security is like stacking buffs. But at its core, isn’t it still just using ordering rights as the bargaining chip?

Honestly, I feel that for this kind of short-term game, even looking at it week by week counts as long-term. On-chain, life and death can happen in an instant—where do you even get that many quarterly plans? Whatever. As long as you can win and cover the gas costs.