Platform Security
✅ Smart Contract Audits – Conducted by top blockchain security firms
✅ AI-Driven Risk Monitoring – Detects suspicious transactions
✅ Data Encryption – Protects user assets & privacy
While MEV can be highly profitable, it also bears significant complexity. Rapid price swings, rising gas fees, or unforeseen liquidity drops can reduce profits or cause partial reverts. ZENMEV invests in robust security measures, thorough risk analyses, and real-time automation to mitigate these dangers, ensuring user assets remain safeguarded.
Smart Contract Audits
Performed by independent security firms recognized in DeFi. All vulnerabilities reentrancy, integer overflow, access control lapses are addressed prior to mainnet deployment.
Continuous Audits: We repeat or update audits whenever critical changes or expansions occur.
AI-Driven Risk Monitoring
The same ML backbone that hunts for MEV opportunities also flags abnormal patterns. For instance, if gas fees surpass a certain threshold, ZENBOTS may pause or scale back trades to avoid net losses.
Potential “sandwich spamming” or malicious use from external user addresses is also monitored.
Data Encryption & Privacy
All sensitive user data is encrypted at rest. TLS (HTTPS) is mandatory for all web traffic.
The platform also supports advanced wallet-based logins (like hardware wallets) for maximum user protection.
Introduction: Balancing Convenience & Security
ZENMEV integrates a built-in wallet system to simplify the process of depositing and staking tokens (ETH, USDC, SOL, etc.) for MEV based yields. Traditionally, advanced MEV strategies were limited to sophisticated bots, miners, or validators. ZENMEV aims to democratize these opportunities, offering a user-friendly interface alongside robust background processes for
AI-driven MEV detection (ZENBOTS)
Transparent staking mechanics
Automatic profit distribution
Yet, no matter how streamlined the onboarding, the wallet and architecture must account for a variety of attacks or vulnerabilities from compromised user credentials to hostile infrastructure.
Why Threat Modeling?
A carefully articulated threat model helps us identify
Which adversaries or attacks are plausible.
How to mitigate or block these threats.
Where the user might have to accept some risk for the sake of UX.
Our premise is that user friction should remain minimal by default
We do not require users to have a social-account login.
Instead, we focus on strong cryptographic storage, partial key splits, and fallback measures that let each individual choose the appropriate security level. Below, we break down major threats in a typical DeFi or MEV environment and how ZENMEV addresses them.
1. Threat Landscape Overview
We categorize threats in a broad sense, understanding that real scenarios can be more complex or overlapping:
Denial of Service (DoS)
The platform is made unavailable (e.g., network outages, cloud disruptions), so users cannot access their wallet or stake.
Third-Party Web Attacks
Exploits from malicious browser extensions, XSS (Cross-Site Scripting), or keyloggers that attempt to compromise the user’s session.
Compromised User
The user’s own credentials or environment are compromised via phishing or local malware. The attacker can then impersonate the user.
Compromised DApp (Front-End)
The code that runs ZENMEV’s front-end is hijacked or is malicious by design, leading to unauthorized prompts or stealth transactions.
Malicious (or Compromised) Infrastructure
Cloud providers, bridging services, or internal servers storing partial secrets are attacked, potentially exposing user data or enabling chain-level manipulations.
Under each scenario, ZENMEV employs layered defenses while trying to keep user friction manageable. Below, we examine each case more closely.
2. Threat Scenarios & Mitigations
A. Loss of User Login Access
Definition: The user loses or forgets their ZENMEV account credentials. They cannot log in to manage or withdraw from their stake.
Impact: They may be locked out of potentially large sums staked into MEV operations.
ZENMEV Approach:
Partial Key Split: Even if the user’s client share is intact, they still need their account password. That said, if both are lost, the user might need a deeper fallback if they previously set one up (e.g., offline passkey or manual seed phrase).
B. User Credentials Compromised
Definition: An attacker acquires the user’s email+password for ZENMEV. They can log in on the official site, effectively controlling the user’s staked assets.
Impact: The attacker might unstake or claim MEV profits to their own address.
ZENMEV Approach:
Key Encryption: The actual private key is encrypted so the attacker still needs to pass any passphrase challenge if the user configured it.
Alerts & Logs: We provide dashboards that can show recent activity. If the rightful user notices suspicious claims, we can freeze or investigate.
C. ZENMEV Platform Downtime / DoS
Definition: The ZENMEV servers or front-end become temporarily inaccessible, perhaps due to cloud outages, DDoS, or other issues.
Impact: Users cannot see or manage their stake.
ZENMEV Approach:
On-Chain Access: Because the main staking logic is on the blockchain, advanced users can call the contract’s
unstake()function through block explorers if absolutely necessary.Redundant Systems: We aim to keep essential contract access consistent, with possible fallback URLs or alternative client applications if a major front-end outage occurs.
D. Malicious or Compromised Front-End
Definition: The official ZENMEV DApp is hijacked by an internal threat, supply chain hack, or malicious developer. Attackers insert code that tries to trick users into signing harmful transactions.
Impact: A large portion of stakers could be tricked into sending assets to an attacker’s address.
ZENMEV Approach
Transaction Prompts: We ensure each transaction sign request clarifies what function is being called and which assets are at risk.
Optional Additional Security: If a user set a passphrase or uses a hardware wallet, final transaction confirmation happens in a secure environment.
Emergency Shutdown: If we detect a compromised front-end build, we can revoke that version’s server credentials or provide a known safe fallback domain.
E. Infrastructure Compromise
Definition: The hosting provider, bridging API, or the internal servers that manage partial user key shares get compromised, letting attackers intercept or manipulate user data at rest.
Impact: Potential large-scale breach if the entire user base’s keys are stored in a single location.
ZENMEV Approach
Client-Side Key Splitting: We do not store the complete private key. The user’s device holds part of the secret, and the server might hold an encrypted fragment. Even if an attacker obtains the server’s share, they cannot reassemble the full key alone.
End-to-End Encryption: The user’s private key is never fully exposed to the server environment. Data at rest is encrypted with keys that the server alone cannot reconstruct.
Fallback or Recovery: If the server is permanently compromised, advanced users with an offline passkey or seed can still recover. Those who rely solely on the hosted solution must wait until we restore services, but the attacker cannot unilaterally drain keys.
3. Layered Security in ZENMEV
ZENMEV’s philosophy is to offer a default system that is straightforward yet secure enough to deter most threats, letting optional enhancements scale the solution for advanced participants:
Baseline
Email-based sign-up (no social login required or supported).
Staked funds are locked in a contract that can only be moved with valid user authentication.
Basic key splitting ensures no single party (user or server) can reconstruct the entire key alone.
Optional Extra Passphrase
If a user stakes large sums, they can set an additional passphrase for critical actions. This is not forced, but recommended for high-value accounts.
Device-Centric
All final private key assembly or signing logic occurs client-side, in an isolated environment or a secure element, reducing the risk of server manipulations.
No Social Login
Minimizes the risk that a compromised Google/Facebook/Apple account leads to immediate ZENMEV hijacking. By design, we keep credential flows more traditional, focusing on single-purpose email authentication.
4. Example Threat vs. Mitigation Table
Loss of Credentials
User forgets or loses their email password.
Email-based recovery flow, or offline seed/passphrase if set up.
Attacker Gains Credentials
Phishing or brute force on user’s ZENMEV login.
Encrypted key storage on device, optional passphrase for large transactions.
Service Downtime
ZENMEV servers are offline or under DDoS.
Direct on-chain unstake() possible for advanced users; fallback domain in some cases.
Malicious Front-End
Hacked or evil UI tries to trick user into signing.
Transparent sign prompts, passphrase-based manual confirmation, emergency kill switch for compromised front-end version.
Infrastructure Attack
Cloud / bridging service compromised, attacker obtains server-side data.
Client-side key splitting (server alone cannot reassemble user private keys), end-to-end encryption, minimal data exposure.
(This table is not exhaustive but illustrates the multi-pronged approach ZENMEV takes.)
5. Conclusion
Key Takeaways
No Social Account Logins: ZENMEV intentionally avoids linking user wallet operations to social sign-ins, reducing potential vulnerabilities if those accounts are compromised.
Layered Security: Combining partial key splitting, client-side encryption, and advanced fallback ensures both a frictionless user experience (for small stakers) and robust defense for serious DeFi participants.
Threat Model Evolution: As DeFi and MEV strategies evolve, we continue auditing, collaborating with security researchers, and refining our platform to address emerging threats.
By acknowledging these threats and systematically implementing mitigations, ZENMEV stands ready to provide a comfortable yet secure environment for MEV staking. We encourage users to weigh their own risk tolerance some might prefer simpler setups (like a single email login with a modest stake), while others might adopt advanced passphrase or hardware solutions for more extensive holdings. This flexibility ensures ZENMEV remains accessible without compromising on core security fundamentals.
Disclaimer: No security model is 100% foolproof. DeFi participants should remain vigilant about phishing, browser hygiene, and operational security. ZENMEV’s threat model is designed to minimize common pitfalls and provide a robust baseline; still, user education and prudent practices are essential for truly safe MEV involvement.
Last updated