Censorship is a protocol failure. It occurs when transaction ordering or validation is controlled by a minority, not by the decentralized network rules. This control stems from centralized infrastructure like dominant RPC providers or sequencer cartels.
comparison-of-consensus-mechanisms
Blog
Centralization Is How Censorship Creeps into Consensus
A technical analysis of how concentrated validator power and MEV infrastructure create the precise technical choke points that enable transaction filtering, undermining censorship resistance from within.
introduction
THE CENSORSHIP VECTOR
Introduction
Consensus layer centralization creates a single point of failure for censorship, undermining the core promise of permissionless systems.
The attack is economic, not cryptographic. Validators or sequencers on networks like Solana or Arbitrum face regulatory pressure to censor. Their centralized business structure makes them vulnerable targets, unlike a truly distributed validator set.
Proof-of-Stake exacerbates the risk. High capital requirements for staking on Ethereum or Cosmos chains lead to validator concentration. A handful of entities like Lido or Coinbase can collude to filter transactions, creating a de facto whitelist.
Evidence: After the OFAC sanctions on Tornado Cash, over 45% of Ethereum blocks were built by compliant validators, demonstrating how social consensus can override Nakamoto Consensus.
key-trends
CENTRALIZATION IS HOW CENSORSHIP CREEPS INTO CONSENSUS
Executive Summary: The Three Choke Points
Decentralization is a spectrum, not a binary. These three systemic vulnerabilities are where permissionless systems become permissioned.
01
The Problem: The Client Monoculture
>90% of Ethereum validators run Geth or Prysm. A critical bug or a state-sponsored exploit in a single client can halt the chain. This is not a theoretical risk; past bugs have caused chain splits.
- Single Point of Failure: A consensus failure in the dominant client is a network failure.
- Coordination Attack Vector: Regulators can pressure a handful of core dev teams.
- Stifled Innovation: New clients struggle for adoption against entrenched network effects.
>90%
Geth/Prysm Share
1 Bug
To Halt Chain
02
The Problem: The MEV Cartel Problem
Block building is centralized by a few professional searchers and builders (e.g., Flashbots). Validators outsource block production for higher rewards, ceding censorship power. This creates a regulatory choke point for transaction filtering.
- Censorship-For-Profit: Builders can exclude OFAC-sanctioned addresses to avoid legal risk.
- Extractable Value: Centralized sequencing captures value that should go to users or validators.
- Opaque Markets: The MEV supply chain is a black box for most users.
~80%
Builder Market Share
$1B+
Annual MEV
03
The Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
Ethereum's core protocol must formally separate block proposal from construction. This cryptographically enforces validator sovereignty, preventing builders from coercing consensus. It's the endgame for credible neutrality.
- Force Decentralization: Validators cannot outsource their censorship resistance.
- Open Marketplace: Creates a permissionless, competitive block building market.
- Protocol-Level Guarantee: Censorship becomes a social consensus failure, not a technical inevitability.
100%
Validator Sovereignty
T+2 Years
Roadmap Horizon
04
The Solution: Diversified Execution & Consensus Clients
Client diversity is existential security. The goal is no client >33% share. This requires funding, rigorous testing, and incentive alignment for stakers to run minority clients. Think Nethermind, Lighthouse, Teku.
- Byzantine Fault Tolerance: The network survives the failure of any single client.
- Reduced Coordination Risk: Attacks require compromising multiple independent teams.
- Resilient Roadmap: Prevents a single entity from dictating protocol development.
<33%
Target Max Share
5+
Healthy Clients
05
The Problem: Infrastructure Centralization
~60% of Ethereum nodes run on centralized cloud providers (AWS, Google Cloud). RPC endpoints like Infura and Alchemy serve most dApp traffic. This recreates the web2 trust model at the infrastructure layer.
- Geopolitical Risk: A government can pressure AWS to deplatform nodes.
- Data Availability Reliance: Creates a single point of failure for light clients and rollups.
- Privacy Leak: Centralized RPCs can profile and censor user transactions.
~60%
On AWS/GCP
2 Providers
Dominant RPCs
06
The Solution: Permissionless Light Clients & Altruistic Builders
The merge enables efficient sync via light clients (e.g., Helios). Combined with altruistic block building and P2P networks, this dismantles the infrastructure monopoly. Users verify chain state directly, no trusted RPC needed.
- Trustless Verification: Light clients cryptographically verify headers against consensus.
- Censorship-Resistant RPC: Distributed P2P networks replace centralized gateways.
- User Sovereignty: The base layer is directly accessible, restoring the peer-to-peer promise.
~100KB
Light Client Data
0 Trust
Assumption
thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Centralization-Censorship Feedback Loop
Economic pressure on validators creates a direct path for state-level censorship to corrupt blockchain consensus.
Censorship is an economic externality. For a validator, filtering transactions is a costless compliance action, while non-compliance risks fines or shutdowns from entities like OFAC. This creates a perverse incentive structure where the rational choice for a profit-maximizing node is to censor.
Centralization amplifies the attack surface. A network with 1000 independent validators requires 1000 separate coercion events. A network reliant on AWS/GCP infrastructure or a few dominant staking pools like Lido creates a single point of failure for regulatory pressure.
Proof-of-Stake exacerbates the risk. The capital-intensive nature of staking favors institutional players whose primary fiduciary duty is to avoid legal risk, not preserve network neutrality. This is the validator dilemma in action.
Evidence: After the Tornado Cash sanctions, over 45% of Ethereum blocks were OFAC-compliant, with compliance rates spiking in blocks built by dominant relays like Flashbots. The censorship came not from protocol rules, but from the economic reality of its centralized infrastructure layer.
CENTRALIZATION IS HOW CENSORSHIP CREEPS INTO CONSENSUS
The Censorship Risk Matrix: Ethereum's Current State
A quantitative breakdown of censorship vectors across Ethereum's consensus and execution layers, highlighting the concentration points where OFAC compliance can be enforced.
| Risk Vector | Proof-of-Stake Validators | MEV-Boost Relays | Block Builders |
|---|---|---|---|
OFAC-Compliant Block Share (30d Avg) |
|
|
|
Top 3 Entity Control | Lido (32%), Coinbase (8%), Kraken (5%) | Flashbots (68%), BloXroute (14%), Agnostic (9%) | No Public Data (Opaque Market) |
Client Diversity (Dominant Client Share) | Prysm (42%) | Lighthouse (33%) for Relay Attestations | Not Applicable |
Permissionless Entry | |||
Censorship-Resistant Design (e.g., crLists) | |||
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) Enforcement | Enforced via Consensus | Market-Driven (No Enforcement) | Market-Driven (No Enforcement) |
Slashable for Censorship | |||
Direct Regulatory Pressure Target |
deep-dive
THE PIPELINE
Anatomy of a Choke Point: From Relay to Finality
Censorship is a systemic failure, not a single point, flowing from transaction submission through block finality.
Relayer Centralization is the first failure. Most rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism rely on a single, centralized sequencer to order transactions. This creates a trivial censorship vector where the sequencer can exclude or reorder any transaction before it enters the mempool.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) fails next. On Ethereum, builders like Flashbots and bloXroute dominate block construction. They can censor transactions by excluding them from blocks, a risk mitigated but not eliminated by crLists and PBS.
Finality Gadgets are the last line of defense. A transaction is only censorship-resistant after finality. Fast-finality chains like Solana or Avalanche are vulnerable during their short confirmation window, while Ethereum's longer finality delay provides a larger window for censorship resistance through social consensus.
case-study
WHEN VALIDATORS BECOME GATEKEEPERS
Case Studies in Operational Censorship
Censorship in blockchain is rarely a protocol-level decree; it's an operational reality enforced by a handful of dominant node operators.
01
The Lido/Solana MEV-Boost Incident
In 2022, Lido's node operators, controlling ~29% of Ethereum's stake, censored OFAC-sanctioned transactions by excluding certain relays from MEV-Boost. This wasn't a protocol rule, but a centralized operational choice by a few entities.
- Revealed the soft power of staking cartels over transaction flow.
- Showed censorship can be implemented without a single line of code change to Ethereum's consensus.
29%
Stake Controlled
0
Protocol Changes
02
Infura's Geoblocking of Tornado Cash
Following OFAC sanctions, Infura and Alchemy blocked access to the Tornado Cash RPC endpoint. This instantly censored all MetaMask and web3 app users relying on these centralized infrastructure providers.
- Highlighted the centralized choke point of RPC services.
- Proved censorship is a supply-chain attack on developer tooling, not just consensus.
~90%
dApp Default Traffic
1
API Call to Censor
03
The Arbitrum Sequencer as a Single Point of Failure
Arbitrum's single, permissioned sequencer has the technical ability to censor, reorder, or delay transactions without detection. While not actively abused, the architecture creates a latent censorship vector.
- Demonstrates how optimistic and zk-rollups reintroduce centralization at the sequencing layer.
- Forces reliance on social consensus and the team's goodwill for liveness and fairness.
1
Active Sequencer
~$3B
TVL at Risk
04
Bitcoin Mining Pool Censorship Pressure
Major mining pools like Foundry USA and Antpool have faced pressure to censor transactions. While they've largely resisted, their concentrated hash power (~50% combined) means a policy shift could materially impact Bitcoin's neutrality.
- Shows that Proof-of-Work is not immune to operational centralization risks.
- The threat relies on the economic incentives of a few corporate entities, not miners globally.
~50%
Hash Power Concentration
High
Political Pressure
counter-argument
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
The Builder's Defense: 'It's Just Compliance'
Centralized sequencers and validators rationalize censorship as regulatory necessity, creating a vector for systemic capture.
Compliance is the gateway. Builders of centralized sequencers like Arbitrum and Optimism argue transaction filtering is a legal requirement. This creates a single, controllable point of failure that directly precedes consensus.
The technical path is trivial. Once a censorship API exists for OFAC compliance, extending it for other state-level demands requires only a configuration change. The precedent is set.
Decentralization is the only defense. Networks with permissionless validator sets, like Ethereum's base layer, distribute this risk. Centralized L2s and alt-L1s with foundation-run validators concentrate it.
Evidence: The Tornado Cash sanctions saw OFAC-compliant blocks from Flashbots builders on Ethereum, a voluntary choice. On a centralized sequencer, this becomes a mandatory, unbypassable policy.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: Censorship Resistance for Architects
Common questions about how centralization vectors enable censorship in blockchain consensus and infrastructure.
A centralized sequencer can censor by refusing to include or reordering transactions from specific users. This single point of control, common in many L2s like early Optimism or Arbitrum Nitro, allows an operator to block OFAC-sanctioned addresses or front-run trades. Decentralized sequencer sets, as targeted by Espresso Systems or Astria, are the architectural countermeasure.
takeaways
CENTRALIZATION IS HOW CENSORSHIP CREEPS INTO CONSENSUS
Takeaways: Building Censorship-Resistant Systems
Censorship isn't a binary switch; it's a gradient defined by who controls the ordering, validation, and access layers of a network.
01
The Problem: MEV-Boost's Centralized Relay Cartel
Ethereum's PBS created a dependency on a handful of trusted relays for block building. This creates a single point of failure where a few entities can censor transactions.\n- >90% of blocks were built by just 3-5 major relays post-Merge.\n- Relays can filter transactions based on OFAC lists or arbitrary rules, undermining credible neutrality.
>90%
Relay Concentration
3-5
Critical Entities
02
The Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS)
Bake PBS directly into the protocol consensus layer, removing the need for trusted, off-chain relays. This decentralizes block building power back to the validator set.\n- Eliminates the trusted relay cartel as a censorship vector.\n- Forces competition into a permissionless, open market for block space, aligning with Ethereum's credible neutrality principle.
0
Trusted Relays
Protocol-Level
Guarantee
03
The Problem: RPC Endpoint Monoculture
Most dApps and wallets default to centralized RPC providers like Infura or Alchemy. These gateways can censor by filtering or delaying user transactions before they even reach the mempool.\n- A single provider outage can brick major dApp frontends.\n- Creates a metadata leakage honeypot, enabling surveillance and targeted censorship.
1-2
Default Providers
100%
Frontend Risk
04
The Solution: Decentralized RPC Networks & Light Clients
Shift reliance to permissionless networks of RPC nodes (e.g., Pokt Network) or embed light clients directly into wallets and dApps.\n- Eliminates single points of failure for transaction submission.\n- Preserves user sovereignty by allowing direct peer-to-peer communication with the chain, as envisioned by projects like Helios and Ethereum Portal Network.
1000+
Node Redundancy
P2P
Communication
05
The Problem: Staking Centralization & Geographic Risk
Concentration of stake in a few large providers (Lido, Coinbase) or within a single legal jurisdiction (e.g., US-based AWS) creates systemic censorship risk. A regulator can target a few entities to compromise chain liveness.\n- ~33% of Ethereum stake is via Lido.\n- >60% of nodes run on cloud providers, with heavy AWS reliance.
~33%
Stake Concentration
>60%
Cloud Hosted
06
The Solution: DVT, Home Staking, and Geographic Dispersion
Use Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) like Obol and SSV to split validator keys across operators. Incentivize home staking and diversify infrastructure away from centralized cloud providers.\n- DVT eliminates single points of failure for a validator, increasing resilience.\n- Decentralized physical infrastructure (DePIN) models for node hosting can mitigate geographic and provider risk.
N-of-M
Key Security
DePIN
Infra Model
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall