Skip to content

Potential Risks

DISCLAIMER // NFA // DYOR

This analysis is based on observations of the contract bytecode. We are not smart contract security experts. This document aims to explain what the contract appears to do based on the code. It should not be considered a comprehensive security audit or financial advice. Always verify critical information independently and consult with blockchain security professionals for important decisions.

⊙ generated by robots | curated by humans

METADATA
Contract Address 0x1f2f10d1c40777ae1da742455c65828ff36df387 (etherscan)
Network Ethereum Mainnet
Analysis Date 2026-01-05

Risk Context

This is an MEV bot contract. The risks documented here are from the perspective of:

  1. Victims - traders whose transactions are sandwiched
  2. The ecosystem - broader implications of MEV extraction
  3. The operator - risks to the bot operator themselves

This contract is not designed for external interaction - "using" this contract means being victimized by it.

Risks to Victims

High Slippage Exploitation

RISK SEVERITY
Impact High
Likelihood Certain (by design)

Description: The bot specifically targets transactions with high slippage tolerance. Traders who set 5-10% slippage on volatile tokens (memecoins, new launches) are prime targets.

Mechanism:

  1. Bot detects pending swap with X% slippage tolerance
  2. Front-runs to push price by ~X%
  3. Victim executes at maximum allowed slippage
  4. Bot captures the difference

Mitigation:

  • Use private RPC endpoints (Flashbots Protect, MEV Blocker)
  • Set minimum viable slippage tolerance
  • Use DEXs with built-in MEV protection
  • Avoid trading during extreme volatility

Multi-Layer Attacks

RISK SEVERITY
Impact High
Likelihood Common

Description: Jared 2.0 introduced 5-layer and 7-layer sandwich attacks that can target multiple victims in a single block.

Mechanism:

5-Layer Attack:
1. Add liquidity (front)
2. Victim A swap
3. Manipulation swap (centerpiece)
4. Victim B swap
5. Remove liquidity (back)

Observations:

  • Multiple victims share the extraction burden
  • Liquidity manipulation is harder to detect than simple swaps
  • Profit calculations become more complex
  • Standard "sandwich detection" tools may miss these patterns

Mempool Transparency

RISK SEVERITY
Impact Critical
Likelihood Certain

Description: All pending transactions in the public mempool are visible to MEV bots. The bot monitors the mempool 24/7 for profitable opportunities.

Observations:

  • There is no expectation of privacy in the public mempool
  • Every pending transaction is a potential target
  • Time-sensitive transactions are especially vulnerable
  • Large swaps relative to pool liquidity are high-value targets

Ecosystem Risks

Market Efficiency Tax

RISK SEVERITY
Impact Medium
Likelihood Ongoing

Description: MEV extraction acts as a tax on DeFi activity. An estimated $22M+ was extracted by jaredfromsubway alone during peak activity.

Observations:

  • MEV extraction increases effective transaction costs
  • Retail traders bear disproportionate burden
  • Sophisticated traders use private channels, leaving retail exposed
  • Creates barrier to DeFi adoption for casual users

Centralization Pressure

RISK SEVERITY
Impact Medium
Likelihood Ongoing

Description: MEV extraction rewards sophisticated actors with capital and infrastructure, potentially centralizing DeFi activity.

Observations:

  • Builder relationships (Beaverbuild, Titan) create dependencies
  • Private channels create information asymmetry
  • Small traders cannot compete with MEV infrastructure
  • May push activity to centralized venues with better execution

Operator Risks

Private Key Compromise

RISK SEVERITY
Impact Critical
Likelihood Low

Description: If the operator's private key (0xae2Fc4...FaE13) is compromised, all funds accessible to the bot could be stolen.

Observations:

  • Contract has no recovery mechanism
  • No multisig protection
  • Single point of failure
  • ~145 ETH currently in operator wallet

Regulatory Risk

RISK SEVERITY
Impact Unknown
Likelihood Unknown

Description: MEV extraction may face regulatory scrutiny as front-running in traditional markets is illegal.

Observations:

  • No legal precedent for on-chain MEV extraction
  • Pseudonymous operation provides some protection
  • $22M+ in extraction could attract attention
  • Jurisdiction unclear for decentralized protocols

Smart Contract Risk

RISK SEVERITY
Impact High
Likelihood Low

Description: Bugs in the bot contract could result in loss of funds during execution.

Observations:

  • Unverified code prevents public audit
  • Complex bytecode harder to verify
  • Multi-DEX integration increases attack surface
  • Failed transactions waste gas but don't lose principal

Technical Observations

Access Control

OBSERVATION STATUS
Single authorized caller △ Single point of failure
Hardcoded in bytecode ☑ Cannot be changed
tx.origin check ☑ Prevents flash loan attacks
No admin functions ☑ No upgrade risk

Contract Design

OBSERVATION STATUS
Stateless design ☑ No reentrancy risk
No storage slots ☑ Gas efficient
Unverified source △ Cannot audit original code
Jump table dispatch △ Non-standard, harder to analyze

External Dependencies

DEPENDENCY RISK
Uniswap V2/V3 Low - battle-tested protocols
Balancer V2 Low - audited, widely used
Curve Low - long track record
DODO Medium - less battle-tested
Block builders Medium - reliance on third parties

Summary

The Jared 2.0 MEV bot is designed to extract value from other users' transactions. From a technical perspective, the contract appears well-designed for its purpose:

For Victims:

  • ☒ No protection if using public mempool
  • ☒ High slippage settings are exploited by design
  • △ Multi-layer attacks harder to detect

For the Operator:

  • ☑ Robust access control
  • ☑ Stateless design reduces vulnerabilities
  • △ Single point of failure (private key)
  • △ Regulatory uncertainty

For the Ecosystem:

  • ☒ Extracts value from retail traders
  • △ Pressures toward centralization
  • ☑ Pushes development of protection tools