Vitalik Buterin’s transaction was sandwiched; after bots spent $1.14 million, they suffered losses

ETH1.44%
XDB-2.5%

Vitalik Buterin Sandwich Attack

According to an analysis report by CoinDesk on May 8, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin’s XDB token exchange transaction on April 30 was sandwiched by the MEV bot jaredfromsubway.eth. The bot deployed $1.14 million worth of WETH, but after deducting Gas fees, it actually incurred a loss.

Attack details: transaction amount, execution path, and profit/loss

Based on Etherscan on-chain data and CoinDesk’s analysis, Buterin’s original transaction was: swapping 26,654 XDB tokens (worth about $3.86) for 0.00197 ETH (worth about $4.56). Before and after Buterin’s transaction, jaredfromsubway.eth conducted approximately $1.14 million worth of WETH activity via SushiSwap and Uniswap V2—buying XDB before Buterin’s trade to push up the price, and selling after the transaction executed.

According to CoinDesk’s analysis, after deducting $5.14 in Gas fees, the bot’s actual loss was incurred. CoinDesk noted that this case shows jaredfromsubway.eth continuously scans all pending transactions in the public mempool to find attack opportunities, regardless of whether they have profit potential.

jaredfromsubway.eth: on-chain data and historical record

According to CoinDesk’s report and public on-chain records, jaredfromsubway.eth became widely known during the 2023 Ethereum meme coin frenzy, and in April 2023 at its peak it accounted for 7% of the entire network’s Gas fees. CoinDesk’s report shows that as of the time of the report, the bot had accumulated more than $7 million in profits through hundreds of thousands of transactions, and it continued operating even after multiple interventions such as contract upgrades, mempool filtering, and developer attempts to drain its funds.

Ethereum MEV data and encrypted mempool roadmap progress

According to CoinDesk’s report, sandwich attacks on Ethereum account for about 51% of the total MEV transactions, and the total extracted MEV amount has already exceeded $1.2 billion.

According to CoinDesk’s report, over the past few months, Buterin has continued pushing the “encrypted mempool” proposal and listed it as a priority for Ethereum’s 2026 technical roadmap. The aim is to limit bots’ ability to read pending transactions early in order to respond to toxic MEV behavior.

FAQ

What is the data source for this sandwich attack, and which block did it occur in?

Based on CoinDesk’s analysis published on May 8, 2026, and Etherscan on-chain data, the attack record was in Ethereum block 24993038, occurring on April 30, 2026.

How much capital did jaredfromsubway.eth deploy in this attack, and did it ultimately profit?

According to CoinDesk’s analysis, jaredfromsubway.eth used about $1.14 million worth of WETH to manipulate the XDB price through SushiSwap and Uniswap V2; after deducting $5.14 in Gas fees, the attack resulted in an actual loss for the bot, and Buterin’s loss is estimated to be only a few cents.

What specific solutions has Vitalik Buterin proposed regarding Ethereum’s MEV problem?

According to CoinDesk’s report, over the past few months, Buterin has continued pushing the encrypted mempool proposal and listed it as a priority for Ethereum’s 2026 technical roadmap, with the goal of limiting bots’ ability to read pending transactions in the public mempool.

Disclaimer: The information on this page may come from third parties and does not represent the views or opinions of Gate. The content displayed on this page is for reference only and does not constitute any financial, investment, or legal advice. Gate does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information and shall not be liable for any losses arising from the use of this information. Virtual asset investments carry high risks and are subject to significant price volatility. You may lose all of your invested principal. Please fully understand the relevant risks and make prudent decisions based on your own financial situation and risk tolerance. For details, please refer to Disclaimer.
Comment
0/400
No comments