The fundamental design of TradFi is that all exchanges are centralized, and sophisticated (and well-funded) trading firms pay colocation fees to get a latency edge on the competition. This is big business. The economic cost-benefit of this design is debated. Spreads are likely lower, and some intermediaries (like retail brokers) get to offer some investors (like retail investors) commission free trading thanks to payment for order flow. But the fact remains the exchanges and the sophisticated trading firms make billions of dollars from this setup, and their revenues have to come out of someone else's pocket, like large institutional investors. There are proposed solutions to fixing this issue via novel market microstructure like batch auctions, but of course the exchanges and sophisticated trading firms are against them. It's also hard to change systemwide structure, and the alternative designs have their own drawbacks. Regardless: colocation severely centralizes activity around a few venues and gives them rent-seeking monopolistic power. Tellingly, the exchanges seldom breakdown collocation profits into its own category, possibly to hide just how profitable (and high margin) it is. So...is MEV on public blockchains an issue that needs to be addressed? Absolutely. And there are very smart people working on this. At least crypto bothers to experiment with novel market structure, including speed bumps and batch auctions. But it's disingenuous to argue that TradFi's doesn't have similar issues, particularly when you are one of the winners of the existing market microstructure, and even sell infrastructure to the other winners. And you know what isn't a solution, to any problem? Designing a permissioned database that has a bunch of performative consensus and cryptography but none of the counterparty or settlement guarantees of an actual blockchain, making it 100% opaque so outsiders have no way of verifying anything (like a lack of MEV), giving this database a coin it doesn't need (since it's permissioned), then using that coin to incentivize the very powerful intermediaries who sit atop the current flawed structure to do TINO because that is supposedly the only way they could ever offer atomic swaps or 24/7 settlement. To believe that this is the only way to upgrade markets is to also believe that the very firms who are masters of low-latency trading and collocation somehow can't figure out how to make their servers not shut down at 4pm, or let people trade one ticker vs another atomically. Like, a high schooler can vibe code an excel spreadsheet to do either activity in less than a minute, but the most sophisticated financial technology companies on the planet just couldn't figure this out What they needed to get over the hump was an opaque shared database with a button that paid them to use it.