Traditional Block Building excels at simplicity and low latency because the same validator is responsible for both selecting transactions and constructing the block. For example, in networks like Solana and pre-PBS Ethereum, this tight integration allows for sub-second block times and deterministic finality, as seen in Solana's ~400ms slot times. This model minimizes coordination overhead, making it highly efficient for high-throughput, homogeneous environments where MEV extraction is a secondary concern.
LABS
Comparisons
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) vs Traditional Block Building
A technical comparison of block production architectures, focusing on MEV extraction efficiency, validator specialization, and the centralization risks inherent in each model.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Block Production Paradigm Shift
A technical breakdown of how Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) re-architects block production compared to the traditional integrated model.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) takes a different approach by decoupling the role of the block proposer from the block builder. This results in a specialized market where builders (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute) compete to create the most profitable blocks via advanced MEV strategies, while proposers simply select the highest-paying header. The trade-off is increased protocol complexity and reliance on a robust relay network to prevent censorship, as implemented in Ethereum's post-merge roadmap with mev-boost.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing validator revenue from MEV and ensuring credible neutrality, choose a PBS-based system like Ethereum. If you prioritize deterministic performance, lower latency, and architectural simplicity for high-frequency applications, a traditional integrated model like Solana's may be preferable. The choice fundamentally hinges on whether you value economic efficiency and decentralization over raw, predictable speed.
tldr-summary
Proposer-Builder Separation vs Traditional Block Building
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key architectural trade-offs for protocol architects and infrastructure leads.
01
PBS: Censorship Resistance
Decouples block creation from validation, enabling specialized builders to compete. This matters for protocols requiring MEV smoothing (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE) and regulatory compliance where validators must remain neutral.
02
PBS: Economic Efficiency
Maximizes validator revenue via competitive, open builder markets. This matters for staking pools (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) seeking optimal yield and protocols where block space value is critical (e.g., high-frequency DeFi on Ethereum).
03
Traditional: Simplicity & Predictability
Single-entity block production reduces latency and systemic complexity. This matters for high-TPS chains (e.g., Solana, Avalanche) where sub-second finality is paramount and for new L1s avoiding PBS bootstrapping overhead.
04
Traditional: Lower Latency
Eliminates builder-proposer network hops, enabling faster block propagation. This matters for gaming and payment applications on chains like Polygon PoS, where consistent 2-second block times are a key feature.
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE COMPARISON
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) vs Traditional Block Building
Direct comparison of key architectural features for block production.
| Architectural Feature | Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) | Traditional Block Building |
|---|---|---|
MEV Extraction Control | Specialized builders compete; proposer selects highest bid. | Proposer directly controls ordering and MEV capture. |
Censorship Resistance | Relies on a competitive builder market; potential for list-based censorship. | Directly dependent on the proposer's honesty; simpler trust model. |
Protocol Complexity | High (requires relay networks, builder markets, trusted assumptions). | Low (proposer creates and broadcasts block directly). |
Hardware Requirements for Proposers | Low (can outsource compute-intensive building). | High (requires significant compute for optimal block construction). |
Primary Implementations | Ethereum (post-merge), Solana (Jito), Sui (Narwhal-Bullshark). | Bitcoin, Ethereum (pre-merge), Polygon PoS, Avalanche C-Chain. |
Block Revenue Distribution | Split between proposer (tip) and builder (MEV profit). | Proposer captures all fees and MEV. |
Time to Propagate Full Block | ~1-2 seconds (full block from relay). | < 1 second (header-first propagation common). |
pros-cons-a
PBS vs. Traditional Block Building
Pros and Cons: Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
A technical breakdown of the architectural trade-offs between PBS and integrated block production, focusing on MEV, decentralization, and operational complexity.
01
PBS: Superior MEV Management
Enables competitive, permissionless block building markets like Flashbots SUAVE, bloXroute, and Builder0x69. This separates MEV extraction from consensus, allowing specialized builders to compete on block value. This matters for protocols seeking maximal extractable value (MEV) efficiency and fairer transaction ordering via mechanisms like MEV-Boost on Ethereum.
02
PBS: Enhanced Validator Economics
Decouples capital requirements for staking from block building expertise. Validators can outsource to professional builders, earning higher rewards without operating complex MEV strategies. This matters for solo stakers and staking pools looking to maximize yield with lower operational overhead, as seen with ~90% of Ethereum blocks being built via MEV-Boost.
03
Traditional: Simpler Protocol Design
Integrated proposer/builder role reduces systemic complexity and latency. No reliance on external relay networks or builder markets. This matters for high-frequency trading DApps and new L1s like Solana and Sui, where sub-second block times and deterministic performance are critical, avoiding the multi-party coordination overhead of PBS.
04
Traditional: Stronger Censorship Resistance
Single-entity block production simplifies enforcing transaction inclusion policies. There's no builder market that could potentially collude to censor transactions. This matters for privacy-focused applications and protocols under regulatory scrutiny, as the chain's social layer can more directly hold a monolithic validator accountable compared to a fragmented builder ecosystem.
05
PBS: Risk of Centralization in Builder/Relay Markets
Can lead to oligopolistic builder markets where a few entities (e.g., top 3 builders) control >50% of block production. Relays become critical trusted intermediaries. This matters for protocols prioritizing maximal decentralization, as it introduces new points of failure and potential for cartel-like behavior, a key concern in Ethereum's PBS roadmap.
06
Traditional: Inefficient MEV Capture & Extraction
Leaves significant value on the table for generalist validators. Without a competitive builder market, MEV is captured ad-hoc, often by searcher bots, leading to higher arbitrage profits for third parties and lower staking yields. This matters for Proof-of-Stake chains aiming to maximize validator rewards and chain security from transaction fees.
pros-cons-b
ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) vs Traditional Block Building
Key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs evaluating blockchain infrastructure design.
01
Traditional Block Building: Simplicity & Control
Integrated role: Validators propose and build their own blocks, simplifying node operations and reducing reliance on external markets. This matters for newer L1s and appchains where operational simplicity and validator sovereignty are prioritized over maximal extractable value (MEV) optimization.
02
Traditional Block Building: Lower Latency
Direct construction: No auction delays. Validators can build blocks locally in <1 second, which is critical for high-frequency trading (HFT) applications on chains like Solana or Avalanche where sub-second finality is a non-negotiable requirement.
03
PBS: MEV Democratization & Efficiency
Specialized markets: Separates block proposal from construction, creating a competitive builder market. This drives ~99% of Ethereum's MEV through builders like Flashbots, reducing validator centralization risks and improving chain efficiency via advanced techniques like bundle merging.
04
PBS: Censorship Resistance
Credible neutrality: Builders compete to include the most profitable transactions, making it economically irrational to censor. This is enforced by protocols like Ethereum's inclusion lists and tools like MEV-Share, which is essential for DeFi protocols and stablecoin issuers requiring credible neutrality.
05
Traditional Block Building: MEV Centralization Risk
Validator-as-monopolist: Integrated validators capture all MEV, creating a centralizing force where the largest staking pools (e.g., Lido, Coinbase) gain compounding advantages. This is a critical weakness for permissionless networks aiming for long-term decentralization.
06
PBS: Complexity & Reliance Risk
External dependency: Introduces relay networks (e.g., BloXroute, Agnostic) as critical infrastructure. A relay failure can cause >10% drop in block inclusion rate, adding systemic risk. This complexity is a significant hurdle for enterprise validators with strict SLA requirements.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Architecture
Traditional Block Building for MEV-Sensitive DeFi
Verdict: High risk, not recommended for new deployments. Strengths: Simpler initial integration for basic swaps on chains like Solana or BNB Chain. Weaknesses: Exposes users to maximal extractable value (MEV) via front-running and sandwich attacks. Centralized sequencers in L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism can also censor transactions. This architecture fails the fairness and transparency demands of advanced DeFi (e.g., Perpetual Protocol, Uniswap V4 hooks).
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) for MEV-Sensitive DeFi
Verdict: Mandatory for competitive, high-value protocols. Strengths: Separates block proposal from construction, enabling MEV smoothing and fair ordering via protocols like Flashbots SUAVE, CowSwap's CoW Protocol, and Eden Network. PBS (via mev-boost on Ethereum) is the foundation for credible neutrality. It protects users and allows for sophisticated auction mechanisms that can return value to the protocol (e.g., MEV redistribution).
PROPOSER-BUILDER SEPARATION
Technical Deep Dive: MEV Flows and Implementation
A comparative analysis of the architectural paradigms governing block production and MEV extraction in modern blockchains, focusing on Ethereum's PBS model versus traditional integrated block building.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) decouples block proposal from block construction, while traditional building integrates both roles. In PBS (e.g., Ethereum post-4844), specialized builders (like Flashbots SUAVE, bloXroute) compete to create the most profitable block bundles, which validators (proposers) then simply select. Traditional building, used by Solana and most L1s, has the block producer (validator) directly responsible for ordering and including transactions, often using local mempools and simple fee markets.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A final assessment of PBS and Traditional Block Building, guiding infrastructure decisions based on protocol priorities.
Traditional Block Building excels at simplicity and predictable validator economics because it keeps block production and validation unified within a single entity. For example, networks like Bitcoin and pre-PBS Ethereum maintain a straightforward staking model where validators capture 100% of MEV and fees, leading to stable, predictable yields. This model reduces systemic complexity and avoids the potential for centralization points in the block construction layer, which is critical for protocols prioritizing maximum decentralization and censorship resistance over optimization.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) takes a different approach by specializing roles to maximize chain efficiency and value. This results in a trade-off: it introduces a new market (builders and relays) that can centralize but dramatically improves block space utilization. Post-PBS Ethereum, via MEV-Boost, saw block builders like Flashbots and bloXroute consistently producing blocks with over 90% inclusion of profitable transactions, increasing validator revenue by an estimated 50-100% during high-activity periods while offloading complex optimization work.
The key trade-off: If your priority is decentralization purity, protocol simplicity, and avoiding reliance on external markets, choose Traditional Block Building. This is ideal for foundational L1s or privacy-focused chains. If you prioritize maximizing validator yield, achieving optimal transaction ordering (e.g., for DeFi arbitrage), and scaling block space economics through specialization, choose PBS. This is the strategic choice for high-throughput ecosystems like Ethereum L2s (Optimism, Arbitrum) or new L1s expecting significant MEV activity.
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