2026-01-17 06:28:13

LUNC and USTC have significant architectural differences in their trading mechanisms. Compared to Ethereum, which has a public mempool and is more susceptible to front-running and sandwich attacks by bots, LUNC employs a different trading exposure design. This difference greatly reduces the likelihood of retail traders experiencing similar front-running attacks on LUNC. The choice of chain design directly impacts the system's risk profile — this is not just a technical difference but also relates to the security of users' transactions.

ETH-0,12%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TheShibaWhisperer

· 3h ago

Speaking of LUNC, this mechanism is indeed interesting. The ETH's open mempool setup is really just a backdoor for MEV bots, constantly being exploited by predators, it's so annoying.

View OriginalReply0

SmartMoneyWallet

· 3h ago

It sounds like the LUNC mempool design can evade traps, but the real issue is whether the liquidity is deep enough... Having concealment alone is useless.

View OriginalReply0

DAOdreamer

· 3h ago

lunc's architecture design is indeed impressive. Hiding the memory pool makes it less easy for the clamp robot to do whatever it wants... It's much safer than the transparent design of ETH.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterXiao