Permissionless access is a myth because block production is a centralized oligopoly. The capital requirements and specialized hardware for competitive MEV extraction create insurmountable barriers to entry.
security-post-mortems-hacks-and-exploits
Blog
The Centralizing Force of MEV and the Myth of Permissionless Finance
A technical autopsy of how Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) has evolved from a theoretical concern into a powerful centralizing force, creating insurmountable barriers to entry and forming a privileged class of extractors that contradicts the foundational promise of open, permissionless participation.
introduction
THE DATA
Introduction: The Permissionless Lie
The economic reality of MEV extraction has systematically centralized block production, undermining the foundational promise of permissionless finance.
Validators are economic agents who route transactions to the highest bidder. This creates a proposer-builder separation (PBS) market where builders like Flashbots and bloXroute compete to create the most profitable blocks.
The 'decentralized' network is controlled by a handful of entities. Over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by three major builders, creating a centralized point of failure for the entire ecosystem.
This centralization defeats the purpose of L2s and rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism. Their security inherits the underlying L1's validator set, meaning their censorship resistance depends on a few builders.
key-trends
THE MYTH OF PERMISSIONLESS FINANCE
The Centralization Flywheel: Three Inescapable Trends
The promise of decentralized finance is being actively subverted by structural economic incentives that concentrate power, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of centralization.
01
The Problem: The MEV Cartel
Maximal Extractable Value has evolved from a theoretical concern into a dominant, centralized industry. A handful of specialized searchers and builders like Flashbots and Jito Labs control the flow of transactions, creating a de facto cartel.\n- >90% of Ethereum blocks are built by a few entities.\n- Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) formalizes, not eliminates, this power asymmetry.\n- Retail users are systematically exploited via front-running and sandwich attacks.
>90%
Block Control
$1B+
Annual MEV
02
The Problem: The Staking Oligopoly
Proof-of-Stake security models inherently favor capital concentration. Large, centralized staking providers like Lido, Coinbase, and Binance dominate validator sets, creating systemic risk.\n- Lido commands ~30% of Ethereum stake, risking network liveness.\n- Liquid staking derivatives (LSDs) like stETH create a new, centralized financial primitive.\n- The "rich get richer" dynamic erodes Nakamoto Consensus's permissionless ideal.
~30%
Lido Stake Share
$40B+
LSD TVL
03
The Problem: The Infrastructure Monoculture
Reliance on centralized infrastructure providers like AWS, Google Cloud, and Infura creates single points of failure. The "decentralized" network runs on a handful of centralized data centers.\n- ~60% of Ethereum nodes run on cloud providers.\n- RPC endpoints and indexers are controlled by a few entities, enabling censorship.\n- This creates regulatory attack vectors and undermines credibly neutral execution.
~60%
Cloud Nodes
Majority
RPC Centralization
deep-dive
THE REALITY
Anatomy of an Oligopoly: How MEV Gatekeeps Access
Permissionless finance is a myth because MEV extraction creates a centralized, capital-intensive cartel that controls block production.
MEV is an oligopoly. The specialized hardware and capital required for profitable extraction concentrate power with a few entities like Flashbots and bloXroute. These searchers and builders control transaction ordering, acting as de facto gatekeepers for block space.
Access is not permissionless. Retail users and small validators cannot compete with sophisticated MEV bots. This creates a two-tiered system where the economic majority—ordinary users—subsidizes the profits of a technical minority through arbitrage and liquidation losses.
Centralization is structural. The PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) model, while elegant, entrenches builder dominance. Builders like Flashbots Builder and Titan Builder win blocks by offering the highest bid, which requires aggregating the most profitable MEV. This creates a feedback loop favoring the largest, most connected players.
Evidence: Over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by just five entities, and Flashbots' MEV-Boost relays have consistently facilitated over 80% of post-Merge blocks. This is not a decentralized marketplace; it is a cartel.
MEV SUPPLY CHAIN ANALYSIS
The Builder Monopoly: Quantifying Centralization
A comparison of the dominant entities and their influence across the MEV supply chain, highlighting the concentration of power that challenges permissionless ideals.
| Metric / Entity | Flashbots (SUAVE) | Jito Labs | bloXroute | EigenLayer (Restaking) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Builder Market Share (Last 30d) | 33% | 42% | 8% | N/A (Infra) |
Proposer Payment Share (PBS) |
|
| 15% | N/A |
Relay Market Share | 32% | 28% (Jito Relay) | 22% | N/A |
Control Over Order Flow | via MEV-Share / SUAVE | via Jito Bundles | via Boost API | via AVS Operators |
Vertical Integration Risk | ||||
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) Bypass | Possible (Enshrined PBS needed) | Possible (Enshrined PBS needed) | Possible (Enshrined PBS needed) | N/A |
Avg. Extractable Value per Block | $0.85 | $1.20 | $0.30 | TBD (EigenDA/Other) |
Censorship Resistance Score (1-10) | 4 (OFAC compliant) | 6 | 7 | 3 (Slashing Risk) |
case-study
THE CENTRALIZING FORCE OF MEV
Case Studies in Exclusion: When the Slippery Slope Became a Cliff
MEV extraction has evolved from a theoretical concern into a structural force that actively undermines permissionless guarantees, creating new financial gatekeepers.
01
The Flashbots Monopoly: Private Order Flow as a Weapon
The dominant MEV-Boost relay network, while solving for chain stability, created a new central point of failure. >90% of Ethereum blocks are built by a handful of entities with access to private order flow. This creates a two-tiered system where retail users are systematically disadvantaged, receiving worse execution and subsidizing sophisticated players.
- Centralized Censorship: Relays can and have excluded transactions based on OFAC sanctions.
- Economic Exclusion: Searchers pay for priority, creating a pay-to-win front-running market.
- Data Asymmetry: Private mempools (e.g., Flashbots Protect, BloXroute) fragment liquidity and transparency.
>90%
Blocks Influenced
OFAC
Censorship Vector
02
Solana's Jito Effect: Validator Capture via MEV Redistribution
Jito's liquid staking token (JTO) and MEV redistribution model created a powerful economic flywheel that risks validator centralization. Validators are incentivized to run Jito-Solana clients to capture and share MEV, creating a winner-take-most dynamic. This centralizes block production power and creates systemic risk, as seen in the network's repeated outages influenced by dominant client software.
- Client Centralization: A single MEV-optimized client can become a de facto standard.
- Staking Centralization: MEV rewards distort the staking economic game, favoring large, sophisticated operators.
- Protocol Risk: Network stability becomes tied to the correct operation of a for-profit MEV entity.
JTO
Flywheel Token
Winner-Take-Most
Market Dynamic
03
Cross-Chain MEV: The New Frontier for Cartels
Arbitrage and liquidation opportunities spanning Ethereum, Avalanche, and Polygon are captured by specialized cross-chain searchers. This requires capital, infrastructure, and speed that only a few possess, turning a multi-chain world into a playground for cartels. Bridges and liquidity pools become MEV extraction points, with costs ultimately borne by end-users through worse exchange rates.
- Infrastructure Moats: Running high-performance nodes across multiple chains is a significant barrier.
- Liquidity Fragmentation: MEV searchers exploit price discrepancies faster than retail can react.
- Bridge Dominance: Protocols like LayerZero and Axelar become critical chokepoints for cross-chain intent.
Multi-Chain
Cartel Scale
Bridges
Extraction Point
04
The 'Solution' That Centralizes: Exclusive Order Flow Auctions
Proposed solutions like CowSwap's solver competition and UniswapX's fillers often replace one centralizing force with another. While they protect users from harmful MEV, they create a whitelist of privileged solvers with exclusive order flow. This shifts power from validators to a new cabal of off-chain actors who control routing and execution, embedding rent-seeking into the protocol layer.
- Solver Oligopoly: Competition converges to a few entities with best execution algorithms.
- Protocol-Locked Flow: Order flow is bundled and sold as a product to the highest bidder.
- Opaque Execution: Users trade transparency ('worst-case' slippage) for potential better rates, trusting a black box.
Whitelist
New Gatekeepers
Off-Chain
Power Shift
counter-argument
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
Counterpoint: Isn't This Just Efficient Market Making?
MEV extraction is not a neutral market force but a structural flaw that concentrates power and undermines permissionless guarantees.
MEV is a tax on user transactions, not a fee for service. The value extracted from front-running and sandwich attacks is a direct transfer from retail users to sophisticated operators, creating a negative-sum game for the network.
Permissionless access is a myth for block production. The capital and technical requirements to run a competitive MEV-Boost relay or searcher operation create insurmountable barriers to entry, centralizing power with entities like Flashbots, bloXroute, and Titan.
Ethereum's PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) formalizes this hierarchy. Builders like Flashbots and beaverbuild now control transaction ordering, turning validators into passive fee collectors and creating a new centralization vector at the builder layer.
Evidence: Over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by five entities, and Flashbots' MEV-Boost relays have censored OFAC-sanctioned transactions, demonstrating that economic efficiency supersedes neutrality.
takeaways
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
MEV and infrastructure dependencies are silently re-centralizing the stack, undermining the core promise of permissionless finance.
01
The MEV Cartel: Builders & Proposers
Post-PBS, the builder market is dominated by a few entities (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute). The proposer-builder separation is a myth; vertical integration is the reality.\n- Top 5 builders control >80% of Ethereum blocks.\n- Relays act as centralized trust points and censorship vectors.
>80%
Block Share
~3
Dominant Relays
02
RPC Endpoints: The Silent Gatekeeper
Application access to the chain is mediated by RPC providers (Alchemy, Infura, QuickNode). Their centralized failure modes are systemic risks.\n- >50% of Ethereum traffic routes through a handful of providers.\n- Geo-blocking and transaction filtering are trivial to implement.
>50%
Traffic Share
Single Point
Of Failure
03
Sequencers: The New L2 Kings
Rollups tout decentralization but operate with a single, centralized sequencer (e.g., Optimism, Arbitrum, Base). This grants them total transaction ordering power.\n- ~0s finality for users, but 7-day challenge period for true decentralization.\n- Sequencer failure halts all L2 transactions and withdrawals.
1
Active Sequencer
7 Days
Escape Hatch
04
Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction
Shift from transaction-based to outcome-based models. Let users express what they want, not how to do it. This abstracts away frontrunning and complex execution.\n- UniswapX, CowSwap, Across use solvers competing on fulfillment.\n- Reduces MEV surface and improves price execution for end users.
~$10B+
Volume Processed
Best Execution
User Guarantee
05
Solution: Decentralized Physical Infrastructure
Combat RPC/Builder centralization with permissionless node networks and peer-to-peer relays. Incentivize hardware at the edge.\n- Ethereum's P2P DHT and client diversity are foundational.\n- Projects like Lava Network aim to commoditize RPC access.
1000s
Node Targets
Fault-Tolerant
Architecture
06
Solution: Shared Sequencing & Force
Move L2 sequencer duties to a decentralized network of validators, enabling cross-rollup atomic composability and credible neutrality.\n- Espresso Systems, Astria, Shared Sequencer collectives.\n- Mitigates single-operator risk and captures cross-domain MEV for the ecosystem.
Multi-Rollup
Atomicity
Ecosystem MEV
Redistribution
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