"Safety" comes first; sacrificing safety for efficiency may ultimately lead to a complete loss.
Written by: Haotian
In recent days, discussions surrounding the Trading Bot Rug event have been fervent. Many are puzzled as to why Trading Bots, which are currently popular on-chain PVP options, rely on a centralized custody method that seems to insult one's intelligence at first glance.
The question arises: how should high-performance chains address the conflict between high-frequency trading matching demands and decentralization? Could @UTONIC_uTON's AVS+MPC security enhancement service be a tradeoff solution?
1) Although users have long been wary of centralization, with the rise of high-performance trading chains, AI Agents, and MEME on-chain PVP trends, a bot-based trading execution paradigm that prioritizes performance has desensitized this concern. Regardless of the safety factor of Trading Bots, any platform that can successfully buy or sell in a FOMO-driven environment tends to gain a good reputation.
However, after the Dexx incident, many will likely prioritize "safety" above all else, as sacrificing safety for efficiency may ultimately lead to a complete loss.
2) So, why do high-performance public chains like @solana and @ton_blockchain still engage in centralized matching trading, and why do Trading Bots sacrifice decentralization in pursuit of efficiency?
In simple terms: since chains like Ton and Solana are designed for high-performance matching, users interact with single points and chain server nodes, making it easy to experience failures due to transaction congestion during peak times, resulting in a poor experience.
Trading Bots essentially perform off-chain pre-packaging and matching, which are then collectively confirmed on-chain, allowing ordinary users to perceive latency speeds in the millisecond range while also reducing the likelihood of orders entering the Mempool being affected by MEV.
The downside is that this type of pre-processing matching requires a centralized account to batch package transactions, initiated by a single entity, thus avoiding the independent on-chain behavior of dispersed users, leading to a reliance on a somewhat centralized asset custody method.
3) This has some similarities with the Pre-Confirmation mechanism being explored in the Ethereum ecosystem, where the core logic is to add as many pre-processing matching steps as possible before transactions go on-chain. Given this, there exists a tradeoff method that can simultaneously consider decentralized security verification and high-performance efficiency.
In the following text, Utonic shares a Restaking-based AVS security consensus enhancement model and MPC multi-signature shard private key management method to explore decentralized custody solutions for Trading Bots. I will analyze it along their lines of thought:
- MPC is a multi-signature encrypted asset custody solution where users, Bot platform parties, and Utonic AVS verifiers each hold a portion of the private key shards. If the signature threshold is set to 2/3, immediate transactions are completed collaboratively by the Bot server and the user, while sensitive aspects of special asset withdrawals are handled by the AVS verification network and the user.
This essentially represents a layered management of asset application scenarios, granting the Bot platform more permissions during immediate high-frequency trading, while giving the AVS platform more permissions when it comes to asset security aspects.
- The Ton public chain employs a Workchain shard architecture design, which naturally supports a multi-chain structure. As a service application-specific chain, it must consider the complex real-world application scenarios in its verification mechanism.
The AVS mechanism present in the Ton ecosystem is quite similar to the @eigenlayerAVS mechanism in the Ethereum ecosystem, both providing a more flexible security output method to offer a security consensus layer for broader specific application scenarios. Ton's flexible verification rules and shard scalability will allow the AVS consensus layer to intervene in a shorter time, meeting the needs of Trading Bots for high-frequency matching transactions.
- The standalone appearance of MPC may give the impression of centralized control of private keys by a multi-signature governance committee, but the AVS network is a decentralized distribution model guaranteed by the Restaking underlying chain consensus mechanism, which defaults to being equivalent to chain-level security consensus. Therefore, the combination of MPC and AVS can provide a tradeoff matching trading solution for Trading Bots.
However, MPC involves processes of private key sharding, multi-party computation, and signature combinations, while AVS node verification requires message passing and consensus matching processes. Compared to purely centralized Bot solutions, this will inevitably introduce some potential latency.
Nonetheless, considering the polarized Rug events, this sacrifice of certain efficiency for enhanced security consensus is very necessary. The key is that MPC is relatively flexible in managing assets with multi-signatures, allowing for the setting of fast, standard, and strict channels for small, ordinary, and large transactions respectively.
Additionally, AVS is also a lightweight consensus solution that flexibly captures additional verification capabilities from nodes. The combination of the two will explore more fragmented trading application scenarios, providing Trading Bots with an optimized direction that balances efficiency and security.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
