Solana sandwich attacks ‘way down’: Anza’s Max Resnick
This is a segment from the Lightspeed newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.
When Anza’s lead economist Max Resnick came on Lightspeed recently, I asked him a question that frequently gets brought up in conversations about Solana’s economics: What should be done about the sandwich attack problem?
His answer surprised me. “The sandwiching rate [is] way down,” Resnick said.
Solana’s speed makes it an ideal venue for timing games at the expense of unsophisticated users. A sandwich attack happens when a toxic market participant both frontruns and backruns a trade to profit at the expense of the trader.
Sandwiching has historically been a big concern for Solana and its developers. In early 2024, Solana infrastructure shop Jito shut down its mempool over sandwiching concerns. A couple months later, the Solana Foundation cut suspected sandwichers from its stake delegation program. Jito’s DAO also voted to blacklist malicious validators from its stake pool.
None of these fixes turned out to be panaceas, however, and the sandwich attacks continued.
But the story Resnick tells is that sandwich attacking was blunted not by blacklisting bad actors — who may be able to re-emerge with a different online identity — but by improving Solana’s code.
Basically, sandwich attacks are numbers games for the attackers.
In 2024, when landing transactions on Solana was much more difficult, transactions were sprayed widely to validators in hopes of getting user transactions to the blockchain. This meant toxic validators saw a lot of transactions and had more chances to frontrun them. As Solana’s transaction “targeting” has improved, fewer validators see each transaction on average, so sandwichers have fewer opportunities to mess with transactions, Resnick said.
Disclaimer: The content of this article solely reflects the author's opinion and does not represent the platform in any capacity. This article is not intended to serve as a reference for making investment decisions.
You may also like
Hashrate orders are booming, why is "AI trading" falling out of favor? JPMorgan reveals the time lag between AI investment and productivity realization
Joseph Lupton from the JP Morgan Global Economic Research Team pointed out in a research report on November 10 that recent improvements in labor productivity have been driven more by capital deepening and increased intensity of factor utilization. The broad efficiency gains from AI, resulting from process reconstruction, data integration, and organizational adjustments, will still take time to materialize. This means orders for chips, servers, and electrical equipment may grow first, but continuous investment returns for computing power operators and end users may not arrive at the same pace.
AI investment enters the "Trough of Disillusionment", the next 18 months will be a life-or-death test!
Goldman Sachs believes that the AI investment cycle is currently in the "trough of disillusionment," but this is not the first time. The core contradiction lies in the fact that the business models of new cloud computing providers are highly dependent on end-user returns from AI spending, while currently "there are basically zero companies that can attribute profits to AI." Social Capital founder Palihapitiya has clearly defined an 18-month key window, during which the market will decide which AI business models are sustainable and which are not.

Anthropic's Core Concern: Revenue Can Be Withdrawn at Any Time, but Computing Power Costs Are Locked in for up to 20 Years
Zheshang Securities believes that Anthropic's revenue is mainly based on usage-based billing, with remaining performance obligations covering only about 5.1 months of annualized revenue, while compute power costs are already locked in with $895.4 billion in irrevocable commitments, some extending as far as 2045. Revenues can be reduced at any time, but costs are non-exitable, creating a highly asymmetric maturity gap between the two—this is the company's real core constraint.

Triple Pressure from the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Congress; Goldman Sachs: Liquidity Crisis May Occur in 2027
Goldman Sachs warns that the reserve ratio of bank assets has dropped to around 11%, only slightly above the crisis trough of 2019. In the second half of 2027, a deadlock in debt ceiling negotiations will force the Treasury to rebuild the TGA, triggering a "perfect storm" of a sharp drop in reserves and a surge in T-bill supply; combined with stalled money market fund buying, this will create a huge liquidity black hole. The Federal Reserve could be forced into the awkward position of lowering interest rates and launching large-scale bond purchases to rescue the market.

