跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.01656 · v2

AIDA: An AI Outage Registry with Evidence from On-Chain MEV

首次提交 2026-11-01 15:05
版本更新 2026-11-05 01:01
雷达观测 2026-11-05 12:13
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Generative AI coding tools have lowered the cost of writing trading software, but no systematic dataset records when these services fail. We introduce the AI Incident and Disruption Archive (AIDA), a multi-vendor registry of 5,868 deduplicated outage incidents across 30 providers from 2025 to 2026, with foundation-model incidents verified against primary status-page or postmortem URLs. Pairing AIDA with 5,041,034 verified maximal extractable value (MEV) transactions by 8,516 Ethereum addresses, their contract creations, and a 22-month Base Layer-2 panel of 1,099,593,191 swaps and 29,120 private executors, we establish two findings. First, entry into MEV expanded where code and public state suffice, as active arbitrage addresses quadrupled from late 2024 to late 2026 and liquidators grew by a third, while sandwich attackers, who need private order flow and builder access, declined. Execution nonetheless remained concentrated, with the top fifty addresses executing two thirds of verified trades. Second, AI outages stall new trading code while deployed bots keep trading. On Ethereum, addresses releasing a private executor fall to 0.67 on the day of an eight-hour disruption (0.68 for executor creations during OpenAI outage hours) and to 0.66 at lag two before rebounding on day three; on Base, operator top-level creations fall to 0.76 during OpenAI hours and executor-deploying operators to 0.88 at lag two. Non-trading creations, automated factory clones, and live arbitrage and sandwich execution across both chains remain unchanged. Cheaper code thus lowers the barrier to building MEV contracts, while private order flow, latency and capital still determine who wins execution.

作者备注:27 pages, 7 figures, 5 tables

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

仅对比实际观测的元数据,不代表 PDF 正文或实验变化。版本可能不连续;带删除线为移除,下划线为新增。

这两个版本的已观测标题、作者、分类、摘要和备注没有变化。正文是否变化请核对原文。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-05 01:01 · 最新观测版本

AIDA: An AI Outage Registry with Evidence from On-Chain MEV

Generative AI coding tools have lowered the cost of writing trading software, but no systematic dataset records when these services fail. We introduce the AI Incident and Disruption Archive (AIDA), a multi-vendor registry of 5,868 deduplicated outage incidents across 30 providers from 2025 to 2026, with foundation-model incidents verified against primary status-page or postmortem URLs. Pairing AIDA with 5,041,034 verified maximal extractable value (MEV) transactions by 8,516 Ethereum addresses, their contract creations, and a 22-month Base Layer-2 panel of 1,099,593,191 swaps and 29,120 private executors, we establish two findings. First, entry into MEV expanded where code and public state suffice, as active arbitrage addresses quadrupled from late 2024 to late 2026 and liquidators grew by a third, while sandwich attackers, who need private order flow and builder access, declined. Execution nonetheless remained concentrated, with the top fifty addresses executing two thirds of verified trades. Second, AI outages stall new trading code while deployed bots keep trading. On Ethereum, addresses releasing a private executor fall to 0.67 on the day of an eight-hour disruption (0.68 for executor creations during OpenAI outage hours) and to 0.66 at lag two before rebounding on day three; on Base, operator top-level creations fall to 0.76 during OpenAI hours and executor-deploying operators to 0.88 at lag two. Non-trading creations, automated factory clones, and live arbitrage and sandwich execution across both chains remain unchanged. Cheaper code thus lowers the barrier to building MEV contracts, while private order flow, latency and capital still determine who wins execution.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗
v1 · 2026-11-01 15:05

AIDA: An AI Outage Registry with Evidence from On-Chain MEV

Generative AI coding tools have lowered the cost of writing trading software, but no systematic dataset records when these services fail. We introduce the AI Incident and Disruption Archive (AIDA), a multi-vendor registry of 5,868 deduplicated outage incidents across 30 providers from 2025 to 2026, with foundation-model incidents verified against primary status-page or postmortem URLs. Pairing AIDA with 5,041,034 verified maximal extractable value (MEV) transactions by 8,516 Ethereum addresses, their contract creations, and a 22-month Base Layer-2 panel of 1,099,593,191 swaps and 29,120 private executors, we establish two findings. First, entry into MEV expanded where code and public state suffice, as active arbitrage addresses quadrupled from late 2024 to late 2026 and liquidators grew by a third, while sandwich attackers, who need private order flow and builder access, declined. Execution nonetheless remained concentrated, with the top fifty addresses executing two thirds of verified trades. Second, AI outages stall new trading code while deployed bots keep trading. On Ethereum, addresses releasing a private executor fall to 0.67 on the day of an eight-hour disruption (0.68 for executor creations during OpenAI outage hours) and to 0.66 at lag two before rebounding on day three; on Base, operator top-level creations fall to 0.76 during OpenAI hours and executor-deploying operators to 0.88 at lag two. Non-trading creations, automated factory clones, and live arbitrage and sandwich execution across both chains remain unchanged. Cheaper code thus lowers the barrier to building MEV contracts, while private order flow, latency and capital still determine who wins execution.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗