►
From YouTube: This is MEV by sxysun | Devcon Bogotá
Description
Visit the https://archive.devcon.org/ to gain access to the entire library of Devcon talks with the ease of filtering, playlists, personalized suggestions, decentralized access on Swarm, IPFS and more.
https://archive.devcon.org/archive/watch/6/this-is-mev/
MEV has largely been a field where engineering drives science, it’s now time for science to drive engineering: we present an axiomatic formalization of MEV, the theory based on it, and the new applications that it enables.
Speaker(s): sxysun
Skill level: Advanced
Track: Cryptoeconomics
Keywords: MEV,mechanism design
Follow us: https://twitter.com/efdevcon, https://twitter.com/ethereum
Learn more about devcon: https://www.devcon.org/
Learn more about ethereum: https://ethereum.org/
Devcon is the Ethereum conference for developers, researchers, thinkers, and makers.
Devcon 6 was held in Bogotá, Colombia on Oct 11 - 14, 2022.
Devcon is organized and presented by the Ethereum Foundation, with the support of our sponsors. To find out more, please visit https://ethereum.foundation/
A
A
From
the
last
talk
we
get
we
arrived
at
this
slide
and
having
a
test
for
non-mev
news,
but
in
this
talk
I'm
done
talk
about
you
know
sorry,
but
this
formulation
of
a
movie
is
meat
so
specifically
what
it
means.
Why?
Because
it's
like
a
party
guy,
you
know
a
guy
at
the
corner
of
a
party
thing.
They
don't
know.
This
is
not
Mev,
while
the
other
people
all
of
us
are
like.
Yes,
we
know
and
we
don't
care
it's
a
good
name,
and
it's
you
know.
Memes
are
important.
A
So
some
common
pitfalls
on
this
on
the
world
on
the
definition
of
the
word,
and
maybe
is
that
we
give
up
on
the
clarity
of
the
notion
we
over
formalize
it
such
that
we
lose
some
memes
right
with.
It
is
no
longer
a
mean
term
and
it's
lost
in
and
we
are
getting
lost
in
the
detail
of
the
real
value
of
defining
mevs.
A
B
A
Yeah
so
so
to
start,
we
see
that
so
so
why
Al
Capone's
Mafia
is
Mev
so
because
Mafia
extractable
value
you
know,
CCM
arises
from
arises
when
one
agent
or
Collision
of
Agents
gains
an
asymmetric
knowledge
of
another
agent's
private
information.
So
this
condition
sounds
really
exists
on
a
symmetric
sophistication
between
agents.
So
very
easy
examples
include
sandwich
internalized
front
running
or
in
traditional
Finance.
A
We
see
that
people
trading
one
strategy
is
actually
people
trading
on
the
limiting
other
booths
in
Balance,
so
which
is
essentially
a
form
of
one
Asian
gaining
knowledge
of
another
agent's
utility
or
intent
right.
When
you
see
more
bid
than
us
on
the
books,
then
you
take
the
best
us
and
you
make
the
best
bit
so
then
evil
deities
are
more
like.
Why
is
it
that
maybe
so
monologue
is
terrible?
Value
is
a
value
that
was
surrendered
to
the
monologue
IE
on
coordination
within
your
mechanism,
your
allocation
mechanisms
for
people's
preferences.
A
A
So
you
have
a
kind
of
a
shrink
transaction
quality
trilemma,
and
there
are
of
course
many
other
examples
for
so,
for
example,
in
the
traditional
high
frequency
trading
arms
race
example,
people
the
mark,
the
cost
that
market
maker
spends
on
arms
race
gaining
latency
advantages
was
channeled
as
charging
higher
spreads
for
users,
so
the
externality
is
transferred
from
sophisticated
agents
to
unsophisticated
agents.
There
are
some
other
examples,
and
so
finally,
Louis
XVI.
A
Value
arises
from
the
fact
that
the
coordinator,
so,
for
example,
the
sequencer
or
the
validator
has
the
ultimate
power
of
deciding
what
the
ordering
or
the
allocation
of
specification
on
status.
So
by
specification
on
state
I
specifically
mean
which
specification
or
property
does
the
next
day
satisfy
you
can,
for
those
of
you
familiar
with
programming
languages,
you
can
see
that
this
directly
links
into
the
you
know,
formal
verification.
You
have
a
program
and
the
specification
that
the
next
state
must
satisfy.
A
So
then
we
can
see
that
Mev
arises
from
three
distinct
properties,
the
mafia's
monologue
and
the
Monarch.
So
now
a
little
bit
more
formalized
suppose
that
m
is
the
monarching.
Our
unions
over
or
our
gaming
and
W
is
the
social
welfare
function.
Then
we
know
that
the
monologue
kick
straddle
value
equals
the
welfare
that
is
achievable
by
the
best
possible
mechanism
for
our
game
to
allocate
specifications
on
State
minus
the
welfare
of
the
current
Monarch
and
the
monarchy
V
equals
to
the
of
the
current
Monarch
minus
the
welfare
that
that
already
existed.
A
You
know
in
the
original
game
in
without
our
current
Monarch
has
a
coordinator,
so
you
can
see
those
closely
tied
to
the
idea
of
externalities
right
and
then
from
our
definition.
We
know
immediately
that
Monarch,
EV,
plus
monologue
extractable
value,
equals
the
wealth
of
the
best
possible
mechanism
in
our
in
our
game,
minus
the
welfare
of
the
original
game.
So
so
it
equals
the
constant
right.
So
it
is
so.
A
The
malloc
UV
plus
monarchy
V,
is
innate
to
the
game
e
and
does
not
depend
on
Virtual
on
our
choice
of
the
mechanism
and
and
finally
defining
a
mafia.
Ev
is
a
little
bit
hard
but
harder,
but
the
intuition
in
the
mafia
if
it
depends
on
the
specific
sophistication
details
or
the
power
of
agents
that
is
existent
in
m.
So
what
this
means
is
that
how
much
exposed
knowledge
or
last
look
One
agent
can
have
over
other
agents
or
their
coalitions.
A
So
then
we
can
see
that
those
three
values
have
very
have
distinct
sources
and
those
sources
of
value
are
non-overlapping.
Thus
we
can
call
them.
You
know
our
new
definition.
Collectively,
three
EV
Mafia
monologue,
Monarch
extractable
value.
You
know
it
forms
the
sum
type,
it's
perfection,
so
then,
from
what
this
implies
is
that
the
resolution
recipe
right
future
is
in
our
hands.
We
know
that
Mafia
plus
model
plus
Monarch
is
100
of
the
Mev
and
that
monarchy,
V
plus
monarchy
V,
equals
to
the
constant,
depending
only
on
the
original
game.
A
But
the
percentage
of
malloc
versus
Monarch
depends
on
M
our
our
choice
of
the
mechanism.
So
you
can
already
see
that
there
is
a
nice
link
with
the
notion
of
price
of
Anarchy
In
traditional
mechanism
design
here
right,
although
in
traditional
mechanism
design,
of
course,
like
the
you
know,
there
are
theories
you
want
bonds,
so
they
have
so
they
Define
price
of
energy
as
like
the
division.
But
now
we
are
interested
in
values.
A
So
you
know
I
kind
of
Define
it
as
difference
and
then
finally,
we
can
see
that
Mafia
UV
is
also
a
constant
depending
on
choice
of
them.
So
since
the
sources
are
distinct,
we
can
adjust
the
percentage
of
the
three
variants
of
MAV
by
transforming
one
form
of
Mev
into
another,
but
in
our
designing
of
a
better
mechanism,
app
so
I
argue
that,
ideally,
we
should
have
zero
percent
Mafia
zero
percent,
malloc
and
100
Monarch,
where
the
monarchs
profits
are
distributed.
A
A
So
then
there
are,
of
course,
some
caveats
as
to
our
choice
of
Monarch
and
our
definitions.
So
as
we
can
see
that
the
welfare
of
the
game
without
the
mechanism
depends
on
E
right.
So
now
we
assume
that
the
mechanism
represents
a
domain
or
a
builder
or
some
just
some
Coalition
of
Agents.
Then
we
can
give
a
kind
of
and
have
a
notion
of
Internet
domain
correlation
Factor
K,
where
k
equals
one
if
the
mechanism
is
monopolistic
across
all
domains.
So
here
we
are
kind
of
cheating
a
bit.
A
We
are
including
time
as
another
domain,
so
K
is
kind
of
like,
and
this
discounted
and
dimensional
preference
curve
and
an
example
of
the
prismic
curve.
You
can
see
on
the
top
right
corner
and
then
k
equals
zero.
If
the
mechanism
is
powerless,
so
then
what
this
implies
is
that
by
forming
a
larger
Collision
means,
the
correlation
has
a
higher
K,
and
this
enables
them
to
do
more,
credible
extortions.
A
So
what
this
means
is
that
the
Monarch
is
red
value
for
your
Collision
of
Agents.
You
know
forming
the
mechanism
m
equals
to
K
multiplied
by
the
original
monarchy.
Family
Medicine
forms
the
grand
Coalition.
So
then,
of
course
this
implies.
The
users
can
also
be
the
Monarch
if
they
have
a
large
enough
K
right
and
similar
probability,
researchers
or
Builders.
A
So
then,
however,
the
okay,
so
so
there
are
some
caveats
to
the
choice.
You
know
how
much
coalitions
can
you
have
right?
So
you
can
imagine
this
formalized
as
a
corporate
game
where
the
core
of
the
game
might
not
exist
if
we
have
too
many
inter
inter
domain
correlations.
So
this
kind
of
reminds
us,
as
the
you
know,
original
notion
of
there
exists
anatomicity
of
coordination
and
in
and
efficiency-
and
this
also
relates
back
to
you
know-
a
notion.
A
I
would
like
to
call
the
incompleteness
theorem
of
Meb
ratio,
so
you
can
see
that
the
game
e
cannot
continue
if
there
is
not
enough
competition.
What
this
means
is
that
you
can
increase
the
coordination,
but
it
does
not
always
increase
if
efficiency
of
the
allocation
in
reality
and
even
if
you
try
to
eliminate
the
efficiencies
caused
by
your
extra
coordination
by
using
some
another
credible
commitment
or
coordination
device
in
The
Meta
game,
then
you're
just
transferring
the
monologue,
its
credible
value
in
the
original
game
to
the
Monarch
in
the
rapt
game
right.
A
So
this
kind
of
provides
a
ground
for
us
to
refute
any.
You
know
previous
ideas
by
Virgil
Griffiths
and
his
whole
ethereum
as
game
changing
technology
argument.
So
then,
the
coming
back
to
this,
the
specific
value
of
the
correlation,
Factor
K,
depends
on
how
we
set
up
the
game.
We
can
throw
out
these
from
different
monarchs.
Ultimately,
we
want
to
choose
the
best
mechanism
and
and
start
that
is
most
incentive
along
with
long-term
prosperity
and
is
most
capable
of
coordination.
So
you
can
see
there's
a
trade-off
over
here
and,
of
course
like.
A
Why
do
we
want
a
manner?
Why
do
we
need
this
meme
right?
Why
can't
we
just
go
the
formalization
reality
in
a
full
formalization
throwing
Mass
equations.
So
the
reason
for
this
monarchy
abstraction
is
because
the
outcome
in
contrary
to
traditional
mechanisms
and
the
outcome
in
Mev
is
not
common
knowledge
and
depends
on
each
agent's
private
information,
which
the
other
agent
don't
have
priority.
Don't
have
priority
Mev
time,
which
is
the
allocation
time
or
like
block
building
time.
A
So
it
is
hard
to
analyze
the
equivalence
in
this
game,
especially
when
there
is
exists
and
a
smear
as
symmetry
in
the
sophistication
of
Agents.
So
thus
we
reduce
the
guarantee
of
of
our
mechanism
to
just
have
some
some
bounce,
like
some
some
loose
bounds
on
the
incentive,
compatibility
and
the
individual
rationale.
A
So
then,
now
to
concretize
things,
we
provide
some
case
studies.
So
specifically,
we
say
that
there's
we
know
that
there
has.
It
has
been
vanilla.
First,
come
first
serve
and
frequent
batch
auction
style.
First
come
first,
where
we
increase
the
fairness
granularity
within
the
receive
other
fairness
protocols.
So
what
they
specifically
means
is
that
instead
of
reporting
a
strict
ordering
by
the
receive
all
the
time
of
the
transaction,
each
individual
node
now
reports
a
partial
ordering
to
the
leader
of
the
ordering
consensus
protocol.
A
So
what
this
concrete
means
is
that
you
know
you
just
take
the
smaller
than
to
smaller
or
equal
to
and
then
after
aggregating,
each
individual
knows
preference.
The
Monarch.
In
this
case
the
leader
of
the
consensus
protocol,
gets
a
week
ordering
by
first
come
first
serve,
and
then
there
are,
of
course
we
know
there.
There
must
exist
some
other
batches
in
it,
which
is
caused
both
by
the
conducted
paradoxes
and
the
initial
partial
being
reported
by
each
individual
node.
A
So
now
the
Monarch
tries
to
resolve
the
order
of
the
on
or
the
batches
using
auctions
right.
So
this
is
why
it's
free
from
Dash
auction
and
then
in
reality.
Why
is
this
model
like?
Let's
speak
into
some
datas?
We
see
that
in
reality,
it's
over
65
of
the
unit
volume
is
comes
from
Arbitrage,
it's,
you
know,
maybe
statistical
and
among
the
other
35,
it's
a
big,
a
few
few
market
makers.
A
So
what
this
means
is
that
the
MAV
activity
constitutes
a
huge
amount
of
ethereum
activity
and
the
burst
period
on
ethereum,
which
arises
from
public
information
reviews
so,
for
example,
some
price
discoveries
having
some
binance
for
some
people,
some
wells
and
The
unpride
Hectic
transaction
into
the
public
member,
then
once
once
it
this
kind
of
event
happens.
It
takes
around
1.2
seconds
and
and
75
of
the
conflict
of
preferences
on
ethereum
conflict
presence
is
meaning
that
there
is
a
conflict
within
what
specifications
should
the
next
day
satisfy?
A
You
know
it
happens
less
than
four
percent
of
the
time,
and
so
this
means
that
vanilla
first
come
first
serve
compared
with
frequent
batch
auction.
First
compressor
will
be
pairing
the
action
activity
tonalities,
which
cause
worse
ux,
higher
fees
for
users
or
centralization
in
the
nodes,
from
12x
more
conflict
of
preferences.
So
you
know,
bursts
of
periods
per
preferences
are
significant
and
just
adding
some
partial
ordering
just
covering
that
little
four
percent
window
you
can
mitigate
most
of
the
negative
externalities
on
the
domain.
You
can
take
value
back
from
the
monologue
right.
A
So
if
we
use
the
three
EV
framework
to
compare
those
two
protocols,
we
can
see
that
they
have
the
same
Mafia
right
and
and
for
marlocks
the
the
first.
The
vanilla
version
has
much
more
monologue
because
the
vanilla
version
nobody
can
express
their
preferences
in
a
short
burst
period,
which
constitutes
most
of
the
activity
right.
A
That
does
not
coordinate
any
of
the
first
period,
Mev
right
and
then
burst
period,
and
maybe
you
know
typical
cases
include
like
permission,
SMU
price,
Discovery
automatic
so
and
then
so,
as
you
can
see
from
the
graph
on
the
right
right
like
we
are
transforming
the
mafia
slowly
into
the
model
aquarium
where
the
value
is
transferred
to
the
user.
So
the
users
have
the
same
payoff.
You
know
same
bad
payoff
and
then
from
the
Monarch,
it's
strictly
worse
right,
but
better
definition,
but
also
vanilla
versions
from
the
ROM
on
work
right.
A
So
in
in
latency
games
you
pay
more
to
AWS
or
Google
Cloud,
because
you
know
you
need
to
play
latency
games
and
SAS
and
the
Monarch
you
know.
Google
and
Amazon
are
obviously
nothing
incentive
aligned
with
crypto
or
like
whichever
domain
you
adopt
your
audience
and,
of
course
it's
more
centralized
because
camera
is
like
fan.
A
Okay,
so
now
come
some
concrete
examples.
Let's
see
you
know
transformation
of
three
if
it
does
really
actually
capture
most
of
the
existing
and
maybe
Notions
that
we
have
so
for
transforming
Mala
to
Monarch.
We
see
that
one
form
of
this
is
a
spread
charged
charged
by
market
maker
Bridges
from
Monarch
to
Mafia.
We
see
that
if
in
traditionally,
if
in
previous
ethereum
profile
work,
the
miners
were
to
go
Rogue
and
still
bundles,
they
need
to
be.
A
Wait
what
okay
and
then
from
Mafia
to
malloc
the
transformation.
So,
for
example,
you
go
from
a
public
member
model
to
a
vanilla.
First,
come
first
serve
right,
you
eliminated,
so
you
don't
have
that
information,
but
you
have
that
you
know
on
coordination,
you
have
a
a
very
bad
allocation
of
preferences,
which
increases
monologue
and
then
from
malloc
to
Mafia.
You'll,
see
that
so,
for
example,
if
a
malicious
coordinator
were
to
pocket
all
of
the
Surplus
with
that
that
it
generates
from
optimizing
the
ordering
or
just
existing,
you
know
from
coordination.
A
So
this
case
you
you,
you
go
from
yeah
and
then
what
we
can
do
to
go
from
Mafia
to
monarchies
to
have
programmable
privacy
right.
So
in
this
case,
for
example,
SGS
you
can
still
do
bundle
merging
or
block
building
or
preference
aggregation.
Despite
that,
you
don't
have
a
Elementary
symmetry
in
the
information
and
then
finally
come
on.
The
current
model
of
Dow
governance
is
a
form
of
transforming
the
Monarch
to
the
malloc,
which
is
not
good
right.
A
So
so
so
what
this
means
is
that
so
that
exists
for
coordination
right,
but
then,
but
launching
a
dollar
token
and
then
allowing
it
to
distribute
under
bad
economics
or
like
whatever
you're
you're,
creating
a
Ponzi
which
creates
more
monologue
right.
You
could
have
got
that
to
a
monarch
stage,
but
then,
through
more
decentralization,
you
have
recreated
his
monologue
in
The
Meta
game
of
the
token
game
right.
So
this
reminds
us
of
the
previous
example
of
the
non-monatonic
relation
between
decentralization
and
coordination
and
efficiency
in
the
mechanism.
A
So
then
some
implications
of
three
EV
right
concretize.
This
idea,
what?
Why
is
it
useful?
So
then
the
solution
recipes
how
to
achieve
zero
percent
zero
percent
and
distribute
to
100.
We
can
solve
Mafia
EV
using
programmable
privacy,
which
allows
for
expressivity
and
agents
can
control
how
the
information
is
used
along
the
path
of
the
determination
of
the
outcome
buys
among
narc.
Also.
This
relates
to
the
traditional
mechanism
designs
idea
of
the
definition
of
How
It's.
A
What
how
expressive
a
mechanism
is
right
and
then
concretely
what
this
means
is
that
you
can
devise
a
mechanism
for
discovering
the
unsophisticated
user's
preferences
and
helping
them
to
communicate
this
preference
to
the
coordinator
or
to
the
mechanism,
and
then
we
can
solve
malark
historical
value
by
just
increasing
memory,
efficiency
right.
We
can
eliminate
the
price
of
energy
while
via
refinement
of
society
or
I.E
specialization
of
Labor.
So
what
you
can
see
you
know
in
in
this
example
is
like
a
contrary
to
the
idea
of
monarchy.
A
Has
the
idea
of
a
slack
right
so
slack
is
arises
from
coordination
where
it's?
Basically,
you
you
allow
somebody
to
have
enough
modes
or
like
period
where
they
can
grind
on
the
higher
payoffs,
and
this
is
only
allowed
if
you
have
a
highly
coordinated.
You
know
specialization
of
Labor
in
your
society
and
then
finally
Monarch
his
travel
value.
How
do
we
division
its
value
right,
so
the
value
division?
We
should
division
it
in
such
a
way
such
in
that
we
maximize
this
welfare
or
the
future
returns.
A
So
what
this
means
is
that
you
probably
shouldn't
focus
on
giving
tiny
Kickbacks
to
the
existing
one
percent
of
users,
but
instead
of
focusing
onboarding,
the
invisible
99
percent
of
users
as
as
Monarch
expressable
value
or
like
I
mean
in
general,
grows
super
linearly
with
respect
of
compared
with
the
number
of
other
flow.
That's
existent
on
your
domain
right.
So,
for
example,
the
ways
you
can
do
this
is
through
investment
into
what
is,
or
some
some
idea
like
ritual
active
public
goods
funding.
And,
of
course
this
was
the
original
idea
by
feral
living
as
well.
A
Right
like
the
the
idea
is
that
you
can.
There
are
99
of
users
that
would
have
come
to
your
domain,
a
few
other
things
you
know
fairly,
but
yeah
yeah.
So
so
it's
it's
been
on
as
a
narrative
and
then
yeah,
and
so
so
then
specific
implementations.
We
know
that
3ev
was
defined
by
the
source
of
value
at
their
distinct.
So
the
thing,
however,
the
sink
of
those
value
are
different,
so,
for
example,
the
mafia
Extra
Value
sometimes
thinks
into
into
Monarch
right.
A
So,
for
example,
when
there
is
a
sandwich,
the
and
then
two
very
competent
atomic
structures
in
the
various
things
to
the
Monarch,
which
is
the
validators
and
then
the
think
of
value
impacts,
the
source
of
value,
so
I
argue
that
by
controlling
the
sink
of
the
value
we
are
control
we
can
already.
We
can
also
impact
on
the
source
of
the
value,
whether
the
magic
of
credible
commitments.
So
some
example
credible
commitments,
I'm
not
going
to
explain
that
you
can
like
hit
me
up
later
after
this
talk.
A
Examples
include
Builders
as
roll-up
or
if
they,
you
have
a
special
Builder
Innovation,
where
you
grind
on
the
expressivity
of
the
building
language
or
you
have
a
decentralization
of
building.
You
use
sdx
tokens
to
align
the
incentives
or
like
some
more
fancy
things,
but
all
of
those
conditions
on
all
of
those
Solutions
can
conditions
are
low
enough.
Interdomain
correlation
Factor
right
remember
from
before.
A
Once
you
have
too
much
correlation
or
too
much
coordination,
then
you
can't
possibly
you
know,
have
a
good
mechanism
or
like
it's
very
hard
to
do
so
so,
and
that
allow
a
low
enough
factor
means
that
you
have
high
enough
competition,
which
means
the
market
is
contestable.
So
I
claim
that
having
more
competition
in
the
game
by
incentivizing
having
more
competition
in
the
game
is
Right
curve,
behavior
and
optimizing
the
ordering
by
learning
more
about
the
preference
microstructures
and
then
grinding
on
the
design
of
the
mechanism
is
mid
curve.
A
So
contestibility
is
an
important
tool
and
it
can
only
be
realized
if
we
design
the
initial
Market
in
such
a
way
that
it
is
not
centralizing.
What
this
means
is
that
in
reality,
what
this
means
is
that
there
should
not
like
like.
We
should
definitely
devise
a
mechanism
that
were
exclusive
exclusive.
Other
flow
within,
like
this
provide
some
philosophical
foundations.
For
the
previous
talk
right,
I
said
it's
mid.
Now,
it's
time
to
you
know,
show
some
real
work
for
show
some
real,
like
tests
for
non-ammy
venis.
A
So,
for
example,
the
utterance
of
the
sentence,
access
Mev,
has
a
presupposition
test
that
there
must
exist
again
e
and
then
like
allocation
or
other
protocol
M,
and
that
within
M
and
E,
using
the
three
EV
definitions
we
can
indeed
see
that
is
constituted
by
a
type
or
multiple
types
of
the
three
EV.
So
in
so
so.
In
this
sense
the
utterance
of
X
is
Mev,
has
a
presupposition
of
the
existence,
condition
of
enm
and
X
being
indeed,
instead
of
3v.
A
Thus,
if
there
does
not
exist
such
a
enm,
which
you
know
translates
into
English,
is
that
is
if
that
is
absence
of
a
monarch,
then
the
utterance
of
this
sentence
axis
and
EB
is
false
and
that's
the
X
is
not
Mev.
So
then
some
concrete
example
imagine
Kim
and
Dawn
playing
a
prisoner's
dilemma
right.
So
then
they
both
choose
to
be
trained.
Now,
Suppose,
there
isn't
a
coordinator
okay.
So
then
somebody
utters
the
sentence.
He
says
that
the
value
that
Kim
and
don't
is
extracting
apps
in
the
Monarch
I.E
1
1
is
not
Mev.
A
Then
this
then
this
value
is
indeed
not
that,
maybe
by
passing
the
presupposition
test
right.
If
we
take
a
free
game
view,
and
so
of
course
like
there
are
other
countries
like
Wittgenstein,
has
this
notion
of
a
language
game
where
the
context
depends
on
social
scene,
so
the
utterance
of
actually
some
evid.
So
this
sentence
might
be
true
as
the
context
of
the
authorency
social
and
we
might
agree
on
some
notion
of
the
game.
A
So
if
the
sentence
is
provided
without
context,
then
the
sentence
is
nonsense
and
has
no
choose
value,
thus,
ultimately,
the
test
of
Mev
conditions
on
which
philosophical
interpretation
of
language
you
agree
with.
If
you
are
Wittgenstein,
you
know
you
always
switch
with
Einstein
and
believes
that
the
utterancy
is
within
the
context
where
it
is
socially
agreeable
that
a
monarchy
exists.
So
in
the
previous
rugby
case,
remember
we
often
see.
Let's
say
that
physics
is
the
monarch
and
then
over
there
is
a
value,
is
indeed
and
EV.
A
Okay.
So
so
now
some
takeaways,
let's
change
the
language
it
came.
Are
you
tired
about
minor
or
Maximo,
where
the
grammar
isn't
even
correct,
like
like
we
say
maximum
mov
all
the
time
and
we
should
just
say
I'm
EV
and
it
conveniently
represents
a
shorthand
for
some
type
of
Mafia
malloc
monarchic
straddle
value
right.
Have
you
been
saying
a
movie
because
you
have
poor
imagination
to
come
up
with
a
replacement
term
for
miners
that
keeps
the
m
and
makes
sense
you
know
is.
Is
that
what
we
are
doing
you
know
so
then?
A
The
argument
is
that
by
changing
this
language
game
we
have
several
benefits.
We
have.
You
know
this
from.
My
formulation
gives
you
a
distinct
value
which
Origins
from
the
source
and
then
it
is
more
formalizable
and
it
is
formalizable
in
the
sense
that
you
don't
get
lost
in
the
details.
It
is
still
keeps
a
meme
and
the
formalization
and
the
proof
only
serves
as
a
social
process
to
help
people
to
understand
it.
A
And
then,
of
course,
they
settles
the
better
Mev
argument
and
the
trade-off
or
the
transformation
between
the
three
values
of
space
is
clear.
What
this
implies?
Also,
this
implies
clear
solution
recipes,
so
some
nurse
sniping
for
you
all.
That
is
that
to
research
on
how
Monarch
historical
value
can
be
distributed,
and
research
on
the
program
of
privacy,
solutions
for
Mafia,
IV
and
then
finally,
a
pre-supportation
test
and
so
to
conclude,
I
would
like
to
hypnotize
you
3v3
ev333.
B
A
Is
monarch
yeah
but,
as
I
said
like
what
we
want
is
to
shift
the
structure
of
the
game
right.
Remember
the
interdoming
Coalition
Factor!
You
can
unify
the
users
by
devising
some
mechanism
to
help
them
become
sophisticated
and
have
collective
bargaining
power.
So
that
is
what
we
ultimately
want
to
do.
Yeah.