Integrated Block Production, as seen in networks like Solana and Avalanche, excels at low-latency execution and simplified protocol design because the same entity is responsible for transaction ordering and execution. This tight coupling minimizes overhead, enabling high throughput—Solana consistently processes 3,000-5,000 TPS with sub-second finality. The model's simplicity reduces client complexity and is ideal for applications demanding predictable, fast settlement without multi-party coordination.
LABS
Comparisons
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) vs Integrated Block Production
A technical analysis comparing Ethereum's modular PBS approach with monolithic validator models from Solana and others. We evaluate MEV extraction, validator economics, and network security for protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Block Space
A data-driven comparison of the two dominant architectures for block production: Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) and the traditional integrated model.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS), pioneered by Ethereum post-Merge, takes a different approach by decoupling block proposal from construction. This creates a competitive market for block building, where specialized builders like Flashbots and bloXroute compete on MEV extraction and fee efficiency. This results in a trade-off: it enhances censorship resistance and democratizes MEV revenue but introduces protocol complexity and potential latency from the relay network required for proposer-builder communication.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing raw throughput and minimizing latency for a high-frequency dApp, choose an integrated chain like Solana. If you prioritize decentralization, robust anti-censorship guarantees, and a sophisticated fee market for a high-value DeFi protocol, choose a PBS-based chain like Ethereum. The decision hinges on whether you value performance simplicity or economic and security sophistication in your base layer.
tldr-summary
PBS vs Integrated Block Production
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
A high-level comparison of the two dominant block production architectures, highlighting their key strengths and primary trade-offs.
01
PBS: Censorship Resistance
Decouples block building from proposing: Separates the role of the validator (proposer) from the entity constructing the block (builder). This prevents a single entity from controlling transaction inclusion, making it harder for validators to censor transactions. This matters for MEV-sensitive protocols and applications requiring regulatory neutrality.
>99%
Blocks via PBS on Ethereum
03
Integrated: Simplicity & Predictability
Validator controls the full pipeline: The same entity that proposes a block also builds it, as seen in Solana, Avalanche, and most L2s. This reduces complexity, latency, and reliance on external markets. This matters for high-throughput chains where sub-second block times are critical and for developers who prefer a simpler, more predictable execution environment.
< 1 sec
Typical block time (e.g., Solana)
04
Integrated: Lower Latency & Control
Eliminates relay/bid coordination overhead: Without a PBS auction, the block producer has full, immediate control over transaction ordering and inclusion. This minimizes the time between transaction receipt and block finalization. This matters for high-frequency trading (HFT) DeFi and gaming applications where every millisecond of latency impacts user experience.
05
PBS: Centralization Risk (Builder)
Risk of builder market consolidation: In practice, a few sophisticated builders (e.g., operating MEV-Boost relays) can dominate the market, creating a new point of centralization and potential censorship. This matters for protocol architects assessing long-term decentralization and regulators scrutinizing control points.
06
Integrated: Censorship & MEV Risk
Proposer has unilateral control: A single validator can easily exclude transactions, posing a censorship risk. It also centralizes MEV capture to the validator, which can lead to toxic MEV (e.g., frontrunning) that harms users, as there's no competitive market to smooth rewards. This matters for privacy-focused apps and fair sequencing requirements.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: PBS vs Integrated Block Production
Direct comparison of key architectural and economic metrics for block production models.
| Metric | Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) | Integrated Block Production |
|---|---|---|
Censorship Resistance | ||
MEV Extraction Efficiency | Specialized (e.g., Flashbots) | Generalized (e.g., Solana) |
Validator Hardware Requirements | Low (Relies on Builders) | High (Must Build Blocks) |
Block Building Complexity | Offloaded to Builders | On Validator |
Protocol Native Implementation | Planned (ePBS) | Inherent (e.g., Aptos, Sui) |
Avg. Block Builder Profit Margin | 0.5 - 2.0 ETH | N/A |
Primary Risk | Builder Centralization | Validator Centralization |
pros-cons-a
PBS vs. Integrated Block Production
Pros and Cons: Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
A technical breakdown of the core architectural trade-offs in block production, comparing Ethereum's PBS model with the integrated approach used by Solana and others.
02
PBS: MEV Democratization & Efficiency
Enables specialized MEV markets: Professional builders (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute) compete to create optimally ordered, MEV-extracted blocks. This increases validator rewards and can fund public goods via mechanisms like MEV-Boost and MEV smoothing. This matters for maximizing staking yields and sustainable protocol funding.
>90%
Ethereum blocks via MEV-Boost
03
Integrated: Simplicity & Lower Latency
Single-role validators: The same entity proposes and builds the block, reducing coordination overhead and communication rounds. This leads to faster block finality and a simpler consensus model. This matters for high-frequency trading (HFT) DeFi and gaming applications where sub-second latency is critical.
400ms
Solana slot time
04
Integrated: Reduced Centralization Risk
Limits builder market dominance: Without a separate builder role, the power to extract and capture MEV is distributed across all validators, preventing the rise of a few dominant, centralized block-building entities. This matters for long-term validator decentralization and avoiding trusted relay dependencies.
05
PBS: Complexity & Relay Trust
Introduces new trust assumptions: Proposers rely on trusted relays (like Flashbots Relay) to deliver valid blocks honestly. This creates a potential centralization vector and adds protocol complexity. This matters for security architects who prioritize minimal trust surfaces and simpler client implementations.
06
Integrated: MEV Centralization & Inefficiency
Concentrates MEV capture: Validators with the best infrastructure (e.g., colocation, custom software) capture most MEV, leading to unequal staking rewards and potential centralization. The lack of a competitive market also leads to less efficient block packing and lower overall network value extraction.
pros-cons-b
PBS vs. Integrated Block Production
Pros and Cons: Integrated Block Production
Key architectural trade-offs for block production, comparing the dominant Ethereum model with the simpler, integrated approach.
01
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) - Pros
Decentralization & Censorship Resistance: Separates block proposal from construction, preventing a single entity from controlling transaction inclusion. This is critical for protocols like Ethereum (post-Merge) and Solana (Jito) requiring robust neutrality.
MEV Market Efficiency: Creates a competitive marketplace for block space via builders (e.g., Flashbots, BloXroute). This can lead to higher validator rewards and more sophisticated transaction ordering.
02
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) - Cons
Protocol Complexity: Introduces significant overhead with relay networks, builder software, and bidding logic. This increases the technical barrier to entry for validators.
Relay Centralization Risk: The ecosystem often relies on a few dominant relays (e.g., Flashbots Relay, Ultrasound Relay), creating a potential single point of failure or censorship.
03
Integrated Block Production - Pros
Simplicity & Predictability: The validator node handles proposal and construction in a single, unified process. This reduces infrastructure dependencies and is ideal for chains like Polygon PoS and Avalanche C-Chain prioritizing developer onboarding speed.
Lower Latency: Eliminates the multi-party communication (proposer → relay → builder). This can result in faster block finality for high-throughput chains like Sui and Aptos.
04
Integrated Block Production - Cons
Validator Centralization Risk: Entities with superior resources (better MEV extraction software, data feeds) gain an outsized advantage, potentially leading to stake concentration.
Inefficient MEV Capture: Without a specialized builder market, extracted MEV is less optimized, potentially leaving value on the table that could otherwise be returned to the protocol or stakers.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Integrated Block Production for Architects
Verdict: Choose for maximal control and simplicity in early-stage or niche chains. Strengths: Direct control over block ordering and fee capture simplifies economic modeling and MEV strategy. No reliance on a competitive builder market, which is ideal for new chains (e.g., early Avalanche, Polygon) or application-specific rollups (e.g., dYdX v3, early Arbitrum Nova) where builder liquidity is low. The monolithic design reduces protocol complexity and integration points. Weaknesses: Limits specialization and scalability. Your team is responsible for all optimization (e.g., transaction ordering, bundle construction), which can become a bottleneck as demand grows.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) for Architects
Verdict: Mandatory for scaling high-throughput, competitive ecosystems like Ethereum L1 or general-purpose L2s. Strengths: Enables a competitive market of specialized builders (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute) to optimize block space, maximizing extractable value (MEV) for validators and improving user experience via MEV smoothing. Decouples consensus from execution, a core tenet of modular blockchain design. This is the standard for Ethereum post-EIP-1559 and is being adopted by rollup stacks like OP Stack and Arbitrum Orbit. Weaknesses: Introduces systemic complexity, reliance on external builder infrastructure, and potential for centralization in the builder market.
PROPOSER-BUILDER SEPARATION
Technical Deep Dive: MEV Flows and Validator Economics
The architecture of block production fundamentally shapes validator incentives, censorship resistance, and the distribution of MEV. This section compares the dominant PBS model with integrated alternatives.
PBS's primary advantage is specialization and MEV democratization. It separates the role of proposing a block (validators) from building it (specialized builders), creating a competitive market for block space. This allows validators to capture fair value for MEV without needing sophisticated infrastructure, while builders compete to create the most profitable blocks using techniques like Flashbots' MEV-Boost, Jito's bundles on Solana, or the native PBS design in Ethereum's roadmap.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A final assessment of PBS versus integrated block production, guiding CTOs on the optimal architectural choice for their protocol.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) excels at maximizing block value and specialization, creating a competitive market for block building. This separation allows specialized builders like Flashbots to aggregate MEV and optimize transaction ordering, often increasing validator rewards by 20-50% post-EIP-1559. The decoupled architecture also enhances censorship resistance by distributing power and enabling solutions like MEV-Boost and MEV-Share. However, it introduces protocol complexity and potential centralization risks among a few dominant builders.
Integrated Block Production takes a different approach by embedding block construction directly into the validator's role, as seen in Solana, Avalanche, and pre-merge Ethereum. This results in a simpler, more cohesive protocol stack with lower latency and fewer points of failure. The trade-off is reduced specialization; validators must handle the full technical burden of MEV extraction and optimization, which can lead to suboptimal block values and increased centralization pressure on high-performance node operators.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing validator revenue, fostering a robust MEV ecosystem, and enhancing censorship resistance through market design, choose a PBS-aligned chain like Ethereum. If you prioritize protocol simplicity, lower latency, and a unified validator experience and are willing to manage MEV complexity in-house, choose an integrated model like Solana. For new L1s, the decision hinges on whether to outsource complexity (PBS) or maintain full control (integrated).
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