The Trading Bot Rug incident has been a hot topic these days. Many people are puzzled as to why Trading Bot, a popular PVP hot chicken on the chain, relies on a centralized hosting method that is obviously humiliating to the IQ at first glance?
The question is, how should high-performance chains resolve the conflict between high-frequency trading matching needs and decentralization?
Will UTONIC 's AVS+MPC security enhancement service be a tradeoff solution?
1) Although users have been afraid of centralization for a long time, with the prevalence of high-performance trading chains, AI Agents, and PVP on the MEME chain, a Bot-based trading paradigm that cares more about performance matching has made all of this "desensitized", not to mention the safety factor of Trading Bot. Any platform that can successfully buy or sell based on Fomo emotions will have a good reputation.
However, after the Dexx incident, it is estimated that many people will put "security" first, because sacrificing security in exchange for efficiency may end up in vain.
2) So, why do public chains such as Solana and Ton, which focus on high performance, still need to do centralized matching transactions, and why does Trading Bot sacrifice decentralization in pursuit of efficiency?
Simply put: Since chains such as Ton and Solana focus on high-performance matching, users interact with chain server nodes at a single point, which can easily lead to failures due to transaction congestion during peak hours, resulting in a bad experience.
Trading Bot is equivalent to pre-packaging and matching off-chain, and finally collectively confirming on the chain. Therefore, the delay perceived by ordinary users can reach milliseconds, and it can also reduce the possibility of orders entering Mempool and being MEV.
The disadvantage is that this type of pre-processing matching requires a centralized account batch packaging design, with a single entity initiating aggregated chain transactions, while avoiding the decentralized independent chain-on-chain behavior of users, so it will rely on a decentralized asset custody method.
3) This has something in common with the Pre-Confimation mechanism that the Ethereum ecosystem is exploring. The core logic is to have as many pre-processing and matching links as possible before the transaction is put on the chain. In this case, there is a tradeoff method that can take into account both decentralized security verification and high performance efficiency.
In the following, Utonic shares a Restaking-based AVS security consensus enhancement model + MPC multi-signature sharding private key management method to explore providing a decentralized custody solution for Trading Bot. I will analyze it along the lines of:
1. MPC is a multi-signature encrypted asset custody solution. Users, Bot platform parties, and Utonic AVS verifiers each control a portion of the private key shards. If the signature threshold is set to 2/3, instant transactions are completed by the Bot server and users in collaboration, while the sensitive links of some special asset withdrawals are completed by the AVS verification network and users.
This is actually equivalent to a hierarchical management of asset application scenarios, giving the Bot platform more permissions in real-time high-frequency transactions, and giving the AVS platform more permissions when it affects asset security.
2. The Ton public chain adopts the sharding architecture design of Workchain, which naturally supports multi-chain structure. As an application-specific chain serving Applicaiton, the verification mechanism must take into account the complex real-world App landing scenarios.
The AVS mechanism in the Ton ecosystem is similar to the EigenLayer AVS mechanism in the Ethereum ecosystem, both of which provide a secure consensus layer for a wider range of specific application scenarios in a more flexible and secure output manner. Ton's flexible verification rules and sharding scalability will shorten the time it takes to intervene in the AVS consensus layer, meeting the needs of high-frequency matching transactions of Trading Bot.
3. MPC alone will also give people a centralized visual sense that the multi-signature governance committee controls the private key, but the AVS network is a decentralized security consensus model guaranteed by the Restaking underlying chain consensus mechanism. By default, it is equivalent to the security consensus at the chain level. Therefore, the combination of MPC+AVS can give Trading Bot a tradeoff matching solution.
However, MPC has processes such as private key sharding, multi-party computing, and signature combination, and AVS node verification requires message transmission and consensus matching. Compared with the purely centralized Bot solution, there will definitely be a certain possibility of delay.
However, considering the polarized Rug incident, this kind of enhanced security consensus at the expense of a certain degree of efficiency is very necessary. The key is that MPC is more flexible in multi-signature asset management, and can set up fast, standard and strict channels for small transactions, ordinary transactions and large transactions respectively.
In addition, AVS is also a lightweight consensus solution that flexibly captures the additional verification capabilities of nodes. The combination of the two will explore more fragmented trading application scenarios and provide Trading Bot with an optimization direction that takes into account both efficiency and security.
