Arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis
For me, “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis” isn’t a headline—it’s a product question that must be answered. The conditions given by Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV) are: registered arbitrageurs pay the maximum allowed WBTC by calling swapWbtcForVault, and on the Ethereum side, it follows a first-come, first-served approach. With regard to “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis,” I will base my judgment on verifiable transactions or states, rather than relying on old classifications.
What’s easy to overlook is that having a better quote doesn’t necessarily mean you will always get the Vault. The real consequence is that the ordering mechanism affects participation incentives and the cost of racing ahead. If “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis” cannot change the actual sequence of operations, then this analysis hasn’t been completed yet.
My approach will be to observe the trade failure rate and the actual number of participants, and to record the exact step where it stops upon failure as well. The conclusion of “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis” must explain who acts, when it becomes effective, and where it stops after failure. @BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby —no discussion of price, only TBV.
I will specifically preserve the original state and transaction evidence corresponding to “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis,” because the ordering mechanism affects participation incentives and the cost of racing ahead—this is the dividing line for whether the conclusion holds.
For me, “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis” isn’t a headline—it’s a product question that must be answered. The conditions given by Trustless Bitcoin Vaults (TBV) are: registered arbitrageurs pay the maximum allowed WBTC by calling swapWbtcForVault, and on the Ethereum side, it follows a first-come, first-served approach. With regard to “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis,” I will base my judgment on verifiable transactions or states, rather than relying on old classifications.
What’s easy to overlook is that having a better quote doesn’t necessarily mean you will always get the Vault. The real consequence is that the ordering mechanism affects participation incentives and the cost of racing ahead. If “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis” cannot change the actual sequence of operations, then this analysis hasn’t been completed yet.
My approach will be to observe the trade failure rate and the actual number of participants, and to record the exact step where it stops upon failure as well. The conclusion of “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis” must explain who acts, when it becomes effective, and where it stops after failure. @BabylonLabs_io $BABY #baby —no discussion of price, only TBV.
I will specifically preserve the original state and transaction evidence corresponding to “arbitrageurs must buy the Vault on a first-come, first-served basis,” because the ordering mechanism affects participation incentives and the cost of racing ahead—this is the dividing line for whether the conclusion holds.