MEV-Boost is a Faustian bargain. It allows validators to auction block-building rights to a competitive market of specialized builders like Flashbots and bloXroute, boosting rewards by 50-100% but surrendering control over transaction ordering and censorship resistance.
liquid-staking-and-the-restaking-revolution
Blog
MEV-Boost is a Double-Edged Sword for Ethereum Stakers
MEV-Boost delivers outsized rewards by outsourcing block production to a trust-minimized relay network. This creates a dangerous dependency on a nascent builder cartel, introducing systemic risk and ceding critical protocol control.
introduction
THE DILEMMA
Introduction
MEV-Boost outsources block production to maximize staker revenue, but cedes critical network control to a specialized builder market.
The builder market centralizes risk. A handful of dominant builders (e.g., Titan Builder, beaverbuild) and relays (e.g., Flashbots, Agnostic) process the majority of blocks, creating systemic points of failure and potential for censorship that contradicts Ethereum's credibly neutral ethos.
Evidence: Post-Merge, over 90% of Ethereum blocks use MEV-Boost. However, the top three builders consistently produce >50% of these blocks, demonstrating the protocol's inherent centralizing pressure.
key-trends
MEV-BOOST: PROTOCOL NECESSITY VS. STAKER RISK
Executive Summary: The Core Tension
MEV-Boost outsources block building to specialized searchers, creating a market that optimizes validator revenue but centralizes a core protocol function.
01
The Problem: The Lazy Validator Dilemma
Running a competitive, in-house block builder is complex and resource-intensive. For solo stakers and small pools, it's economically irrational.
- >90% of blocks are built via MEV-Boost, creating systemic reliance.
- Relay cartel risk: A handful of entities (e.g., BloXroute, Flashbots, Ultrasound) control the flow of profitable blocks.
- Censorship vector: Relays can technically filter transactions, undermining neutrality.
>90%
Blocks Built
~5
Dominant Relays
02
The Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
Ethereum's endgame is to bake PBS directly into the protocol consensus layer, removing the trusted relay intermediary.
- Eliminates trust: Validators commit to blocks via cryptographic commits, not off-chain promises.
- Preserves decentralization: Opens the builder market to anyone, not just whitelisted relays.
- Long-term roadmap: Core to the Verkle Trees / EIP-4844 scaling vision, but likely 2-3 years out.
0
Trusted Relays
2-3 yrs
Timeline
03
The Interim Fix: SUAVE & Competitive Builder Markets
Projects like Flashbots SUAVE aim to decentralize the builder market before enshrined PBS is live.
- Shared mempool: Creates a neutral, cross-chain space for transaction inclusion.
- Decentralized relay network: Reduces cartelization by allowing permissionless block submission.
- Competitive pressure: Forces builders to compete on fee transparency and execution quality, not just relationships.
Multi-Chain
Scope
Permissionless
Goal
04
The Revenue Reality: Why Stakers Can't Quit
MEV revenue is not marginal; it's essential for validator economics, especially post-merge.
- ~20-50% of rewards for sophisticated stakers come from MEV-Boost.
- Without it, validators face >10% lower APR, making them non-competitive.
- This creates a prisoner's dilemma: optimal individual choice (use Boost) leads to suboptimal systemic risk (centralization).
20-50%
Reward Boost
>10%
APR Penalty
market-context
THE DATA
The Inescapable Reality: MEV-Boost Dominance
MEV-Boost's near-total adoption centralizes block production while delivering critical revenue to validators.
MEV-Boost adoption is 99%. Over 99% of Ethereum blocks are built via MEV-Boost, making it a de facto standard. This creates a single point of failure and censorship risk, but validators cannot afford to opt out.
Revenue drives centralization. The relay cartel (e.g., BloXroute, Ultra Sound, Agnostic) and builders (e.g., beaverbuild, Rsync) capture the value chain. Stakers receive payments but cede control, creating a principal-agent problem.
PBS is the structural flaw. Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) outsources block construction complexity. This optimizes for efficiency but embeds centralizing forces into the protocol's economic layer, a trade-off Ethereum accepted.
Evidence: In Q1 2024, MEV-Boost delivered over 40% of validator rewards. Solo stakers ignoring this free money face a 30%+ APR disadvantage versus optimized operators.
MEV-BOOST: PROS & CONS
The Builder Cartel: A Data Snapshot
Comparing the trade-offs for solo stakers and staking pools using MEV-Boost relays.
| Key Metric / Feature | Using Top-3 Relays | Using All Relays | Running Your Own Builder |
|---|---|---|---|
Avg. Monthly MEV Reward Boost |
| 5-10% |
|
Censorship Resistance | |||
Top-3 Builder Market Share |
| N/A | N/A |
Required Technical Overhead | Low | Low | Very High |
Avg. Proposal Success Rate |
| ~95% | Variable (< 90%) |
Relay Trust Assumption | High (Tee, Reth) | Mixed | None |
Primary Risk | Centralization & Censorship | Lower Rewards | Orphaned Blocks & Slashing |
deep-dive
THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD
The Systemic Risk Architecture
MEV-Boost centralizes block production, creating systemic risk for Ethereum's staking ecosystem.
MEV-Boost centralizes block building. The protocol outsources block construction to a competitive market of builders, but relay selection is dominated by a few entities like Flashbots, BloXroute, and Manifold. This creates a single point of failure for validators who rely on these relays for censorship resistance and revenue.
Validators face a revenue trap. Stakers must use MEV-Boost to remain competitive, as proposer-builder separation (PBS) captures over 90% of extractable value. This forces them into a system where their block proposal rights are mediated by a handful of relays, undermining the network's credibly neutral foundation.
The risk is a relay cartel. If the top three relays collude, they control the majority of Ethereum blocks. This centralization vector is more dangerous than mining pool centralization because it directly controls the content and ordering of the chain. The in-protocol PBS delay in Ethereum's roadmap is the structural fix.
Evidence: In Q1 2024, over 99% of MEV-Boost blocks flowed through just five major relays. The failure of a single major relay would immediately slash the revenue of thousands of validators, demonstrating the system's fragility.
risk-analysis
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
The Four Horsemen of MEV-Boost Risk
MEV-Boost outsources block building to a competitive market, but its design creates systemic risks that threaten Ethereum's decentralization and staker sovereignty.
01
Relayer Censorship
The dominant relayers like BloXroute and Flashbots can filter transactions, enforcing OFAC compliance and creating a two-tier network. This directly violates Ethereum's credo of credible neutrality.
- ~90% of blocks are built by OFAC-compliant relays.
- Stakers who use these relays are de facto participants in censorship.
- Creates legal liability for validators in regulated jurisdictions.
~90%
Censored Blocks
0
Legal Safe Harbor
02
Builder Monopolization
A handful of sophisticated builders like Jito Labs and Titan capture the vast majority of MEV, centralizing block production power and extractive value.
- Top 3 builders control >60% of MEV-Boost blocks.
- Creates an information asymmetry where builders profit at the direct expense of stakers.
- Risks a re-staking-style economic attack where builders also control stake.
>60%
Top 3 Builder Share
$1B+
Annual Extracted MEV
03
The Unobservable Middleman
Relayers are a trusted black box. Stakers cannot verify if they received the highest payment for their block header, enabling stealth theft.
- Stakers blindly accept the "best" header from a relay.
- No cryptographic proof that the winning bid was truly maximal.
- Enables time-bandit attacks and other sophisticated MEV extraction that bypasses the staker.
0
Bid Verifiability
100%
Trust Assumption
04
Protocol Brittleness
MEV-Boost is a complex, off-protocol patch. Its failure modes—like relay downtime or builder collusion—directly threaten chain liveness and stability.
- Single relay failure can cause a significant drop in block production.
- Incentives are misaligned; builders profit from chain re-orgs.
- Contrast with PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) in the protocol, which bakes these safeguards into consensus.
~500ms
Critical Latency
High
SysAdmin Risk
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE ALIGNMENT
The Bull Case: Why We Tolerate This Risk
MEV-Boost's risk is tolerated because its economic benefits are non-negotiable for staker profitability and network security.
Profitability is non-negotiable. Solo stakers and pools require MEV-Boost revenue to compete with centralized exchanges. Without it, the validator yield collapses, centralizing stake with the few who can afford to operate at a loss.
The protocol is self-correcting. The open relay/block builder market creates competition that mitigates censorship. If a relay like Flashbots censors, validators switch to BloXroute or Agnostic. This economic pressure enforces neutrality.
It externalizes complexity. MEV-Boost outsources the specialized, high-frequency trading logic to professional builders. This lets validators focus on consensus, lowering the technical barrier to participation and decentralizing the validator set.
Evidence: Post-Merge, MEV-Boost contributes 10-20% of total staking rewards. Validators who opt-out surrender this yield, creating a direct, measurable cost for rejecting the system.
future-outlook
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
The Path Forward: Enshrined PBS and Beyond
MEV-Boost's temporary success reveals the structural necessity of Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) for a healthy, decentralized Ethereum.
MEV-Boost is a stopgap. It outsources block building to a competitive market of specialized builders like Flashbots, bloXroute, and Titan, but relies on a trusted relay network. This creates a centralization vector where relays can censor transactions or fail, as seen in past outages.
Enshrined PBS solves the trust problem. By baking PBS into the protocol consensus, Ethereum eliminates the relay middleman. Builders compete directly on-chain, and proposers select the highest-value block via a cryptoeconomic commitment. This hardens censorship resistance.
The path requires new primitives. Enshrined PBS depends on crLists (censorship resistance lists) for basic transaction inclusion and a builder API for block submission. This shifts complexity from off-chain infrastructure to the core protocol.
Post-PBS, the focus is MEV distribution. With PBS enshrined, the next battle is over MEV smoothing and redistribution mechanisms, moving beyond simple extraction to protocol-level solutions that benefit all stakers.
takeaways
MEV-BOOST: RISK/REWARD ANALYSIS
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
MEV-Boost outsources block building to a competitive market, boosting validator rewards but introducing systemic dependencies and centralization vectors.
01
The Problem: The Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) Dilemma
PBS, via MEV-Boost, solves the in-protocol centralization pressure of validators needing to be sophisticated MEV searchers. However, it creates a new relay oligopoly as the critical trust layer.\n- Centralization Risk: Top 3 relays control >80% of blocks.\n- Censorship Vector: Relays can filter transactions, creating regulatory risk.
>80%
Top 3 Relay Share
~90%
Boost Adoption
02
The Solution: Enshrined PBS & SUAVE
The endgame is enshrined PBS in the protocol core, removing trusted relays. The interim path is SUAVE, a decentralized mempool and block builder market by Flashbots.\n- Trust Minimization: Eliminates relay cartel risk.\n- Composability: Creates a neutral marketplace for cross-domain MEV.
0
Trusted Parties
Multi-Chain
SUAVE Scope
03
The Reality: Builder Centralization & Maximal Extractable Value (MEV)
MEV-Boost's market concentrates block building. Jito Labs on Solana and Flashbots on Ethereum demonstrate the power—and risk—of dominant builders.\n- Revenue Dominance: Top builders capture disproportionate MEV.\n- Network Effects: Advanced orderflow auctions (OFAs) create moats.
~40%
Top Builder Share
+300%
Staker APR Boost
04
The Architect's Mandate: Design for PBS-Native Apps
Applications must be built assuming PBS. This means intent-based architectures (UniswapX, CowSwap) and MEV-aware transaction design to resist extraction.\n- User Protection: Route via SUAVE or private RPCs like Flashbots Protect.\n- Protocol Design: Use fair ordering or threshold encryption (e.g., Shutter Network).
-99%
MEV Extracted
Intent-Based
Design Paradigm
05
The Risk: Systemic Fragility & Relay Failure
The ecosystem's reliance on a few critical relays (e.g., BloXroute, Agnostic) creates a single point of failure. A relay outage can slash a validator's rewards or censor the chain.\n- Liveness Risk: Validators must manage multiple relay connections.\n- Black Swan Event: A malicious relay could cause a chain split.
<10
Critical Relays
100%
Reward Dependency
06
The Metric: Total Value Extracted (TVE) vs. APR
Architects must look beyond simple validator APR. The real metric is Total Value Extracted (TVE) from users, which is redistributed between builders, relays, and proposers.\n- Economic Leakage: MEV is a tax on users.\n- Sustainability: High TVE indicates poor application design.
$1B+
Annual MEV (TVE)
APR + X%
Staker View
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