Dr. changestuff or: how i learned to stop worrying and love mev-burn

[michaelsproul]

@Nero_eth

Could you expand on this case?

@Nero_eth

If the builder is not able to come up with 1001 ETH (because he only has 33 ETH (32 + 1), then the tip still goes to the proposer while 32 ETH are slashed.

I think @terence is referring to the case where the malicious builder reveals a payload that does contain a 1000 ETH opportunity, but which they exploit for their own benefit (while paying the 32 ETH slashing penalty). My understanding of mev-burn’s solution to this is that any payload that doesn’t burn the amount bid is invalid, so this payload would not become part of the canonical chain. At least that’s what I infer from the wording:

@mikeneuder

If they fail to build a valid block that burns the full 80 ETH, then their 32 ETH is slashed and the remaining 48 ETH that was supposed to be burned is ignored

And in Justin’s post:

@JustinDrake

The payload is deemed invalid (with transactions reverted) if the post-execution builder balance is not large enough to cover the payload base fee.

Is that right?