Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) excels at maximizing block value and revenue by creating a specialized market. Professional builders like Flashbots, bloXroute, and Blocknative compete to construct the most profitable blocks using advanced strategies (e.g., arbitrage, liquidations), which proposers then simply select. This specialization leads to higher, more consistent rewards; for example, MEV-Boost, Ethereum's dominant PBS implementation, has consistently captured over 90% of post-merge Ethereum blocks, demonstrating its economic dominance.
LABS
Comparisons
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) vs Solo Block Building for MEV Extraction
A technical comparison of the Ethereum PBS model and solo block building, analyzing MEV extraction efficiency, yield distribution, and architectural trade-offs for staking protocols and validators.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The MEV Extraction Architecture Decision
A foundational comparison of centralized PBS and decentralized solo building for extracting Maximum Extractable Value.
Solo Block Building takes a different approach by maintaining full protocol sovereignty and censorship resistance. Validators construct their own blocks, directly integrating solutions like MEV-geth or MEV-rs. This eliminates reliance on third-party builders and their potential for transaction filtering, a critical concern for protocols like Tornado Cash. The trade-off is significant: solo builders typically capture 10-30% less MEV revenue than top professional builders, as they lack the same scale, data access, and optimization algorithms.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing validator yield and operational simplicity, choose PBS via MEV-Boost. If you prioritize decentralization, censorship resistance, and reducing reliance on external infrastructure, choose Solo Building. For large staking operations, a hybrid model using both is common, but the architectural choice defines your core values and risk profile.
tldr-summary
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) vs Solo Block Building
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of the dominant MEV extraction strategies, highlighting their core architectural trade-offs and ideal deployment scenarios.
01
PBS: Superior MEV Capture
Specialized builder competition: Dedicated builders like Flashbots, bloXroute, and Titan compete in a sealed-bid auction, maximizing block value. This matters for protocols seeking maximum extractable value (MEV) and fee revenue for stakers.
>90%
Ethereum Blocks via PBS
02
PBS: Censorship Resistance & Neutrality
Proposer/Builder decoupling: The proposer (validator) selects the highest-value block without viewing its contents, reducing their ability to censor transactions. This matters for OFAC compliance challenges and maintaining network neutrality, enabled by relays like the Flashbots SUAVE.
03
Solo Building: Full Control & Simplicity
Direct chain access: Validators run their own block-building software (e.g., MEV-Boost for PBS is optional). This matters for sovereign chains, niche L2s, or teams prioritizing full control over transaction ordering and inclusion without third-party dependencies.
04
Solo Building: Lower Operational Complexity
Reduced infrastructure overhead: Eliminates reliance on external builder networks and relays. This matters for smaller validator pools or new chains where the MEV market is immature and doesn't justify the complexity of a full PBS stack.
MEV EXTRACTION STRATEGIES
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison: PBS vs Solo Block Building
Direct comparison of key operational and economic metrics for block production strategies.
| Metric | Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) | Solo Block Building |
|---|---|---|
Primary MEV Revenue Recipient | Builder & Proposer (via bid) | Solo Proposer (100%) |
Required Technical Sophistication | High (Specialized builders like Flashbots, bloXroute) | Low (Vanilla node operation) |
Capital Efficiency / Risk | High (Builder bears execution risk) | Low (Proposer bears all execution & reorg risk) |
Censorship Resistance | Lower (Builder-controlled transaction ordering) | Higher (Proposer-controlled transaction ordering) |
Dominant Implementation | mev-boost (Ethereum) | Default Geth/Nethermind client |
Avg. Block Value Premium (vs. base) |
| ~ 0 ETH (base reward only) |
Market Share on Ethereum Mainnet |
| < 10% |
pros-cons-a
MEV EXTRACTION STRATEGIES
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) vs Solo Block Building
Key architectural trade-offs for validators and protocols managing maximal extractable value.
01
PBS: Enhanced Validator Economics
Specialization and Revenue Maximization: Separates block proposal from construction, allowing specialized builders (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute) to compete to create the most valuable blocks. This typically results in higher, more consistent MEV rewards for validators via bid payments. This matters for staking pools and institutional validators aiming for predictable yield.
>90%
Ethereum Blocks via PBS
02
PBS: Censorship Resistance & Neutrality
Proposer-Censorship Dilemma: In a PBS model, the proposer (validator) is obligated to select the highest bid, which may be a censoring block. This can centralize power with builders and complicate OFAC compliance. This matters for protocols prioritizing credible neutrality and decentralized block production.
03
Solo Building: Full Control & Simplicity
Sovereignty and Protocol Alignment: The validator controls the entire block production pipeline, ensuring transactions are included per their own policy (e.g., no OFAC filtering). This eliminates builder reliance and reduces systemic risk from builder centralization. This matters for ideologically-driven stakers and protocols like Ethereum's anti-censorship middleware (e.g., MEV-Boost Relay Monitor).
0%
Builder Market Share
04
Solo Building: Economic & Technical Overhead
Lower Revenue and Operational Burden: Validators must source, bundle, and optimize MEV opportunities themselves, requiring sophisticated infrastructure (searcher bots, orderflow access). This often leads to lower and more volatile rewards compared to top PBS bids. This matters for smaller validators or those without dedicated MEV engineering teams.
pros-cons-b
Proposer-Builder Separation vs. Solo Block Building
Pros and Cons: Solo Block Building
Key strengths and trade-offs for MEV extraction at a glance. PBS is the dominant model on Ethereum, while Solo Building persists on chains like Solana and Sui.
01
PBS: Maximized MEV Revenue
Access to specialized builders: Validators auction block space to professional builders (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute) who run sophisticated algorithms to extract MEV. This typically yields >90% of extractable value versus amateur attempts. This matters for validators seeking to maximize staking yield without operational overhead.
02
PBS: Censorship Resistance & Regulatory Buffer
Separation of duties: The proposer (validator) is decoupled from transaction ordering. Builders can be OFAC-compliant, while proposers can remain neutral, a critical design for protocols like Ethereum post-Merge. This matters for enterprises operating in regulated environments.
03
Solo Building: Full Control & Sovereignty
No reliance on third parties: The validator controls the entire block production pipeline, from mempool to execution. This eliminates builder fees and mitigates risks like builder centralization or collusion. This matters for protocols prioritizing maximal decentralization and validator autonomy, like Solana.
04
Solo Building: Lower Latency & Simplicity
Reduced protocol complexity: No auction mechanism or relay network is required. Blocks are built locally, which can be critical for high-throughput chains (e.g., >2k TPS on Sui) where sub-second block times make external coordination impractical. This matters for performance-centric L1s.
05
PBS: High Infrastructure & Complexity Cost
Requires robust relay network: Validators depend on trusted relays (e.g., Flashbots Relay, Agnostic Relay) for block delivery, introducing centralization vectors and operational fragility. Builder ecosystems also require significant R&D investment. This is a poor fit for new chains with small validator sets.
06
Solo Building: Suboptimal MEV Capture
Inefficient against specialists: Individual validators lack the data (private orderflows, arbitrage bots) and algorithms to compete with professional builders, leaving significant value on the table. On Ethereum, this can mean ~10-30% lower staking rewards. This matters for validators where yield optimization is the primary goal.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Solo Block Building for MEV Revenue
Verdict: The clear choice for dedicated, high-capital validators. Strengths: Maximizes profit capture by keeping 100% of MEV (e.g., arbitrage, liquidations) and priority fees. No reliance on third-party builders or auctions. Direct control over transaction ordering and block construction strategies using tools like Flashbots MEV-Boost (in solo mode) or custom MEV-geth setups. Trade-offs: Requires significant technical expertise to run a competitive builder, manage latency, and mitigate reorg risks. High capital requirements for effective bidding and block proposal. Profitability is volatile and highly competitive.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) for MEV Revenue
Verdict: Optimal for validators prioritizing consistent, reliable rewards with less operational overhead. Strengths: Outsources complex block building to specialized players (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute, Builder0x69), ensuring you capture near-optimal MEV via a competitive auction. Provides predictable, smoothed-out rewards via MEV-Boost relay payments. Reduces technical burden and infrastructure costs. Trade-offs: You cede a portion of potential MEV to the builder (the winning bid). Relies on the health and honesty of the builder/relay ecosystem. Introduces censorship resistance concerns if dominant builders filter transactions.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the architectural and economic trade-offs between PBS and solo building for MEV extraction.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) excels at maximizing validator yield and network stability by creating a specialized market for block construction. Professional builders like Flashbots, bloXroute, and Titan leverage sophisticated algorithms and private order flows to create blocks with optimal MEV. This specialization leads to higher, more consistent rewards for validators, with data from the Ethereum mainnet showing PBS capturing over 90% of block value post-Merge. It also mitigates centralization risks by preventing proposers from needing massive capital for MEV extraction infrastructure.
Solo Block Building takes a different approach by retaining full control and sovereignty over the block production process. Validators using tools like MEV-Boost's --builder flag or bespoke solutions like MEV-geth bundle directly with searchers. This strategy results in the trade-off of lower, more volatile rewards in exchange for censorship resistance and reduced reliance on external, potentially centralized builder networks. It's the preferred path for validators prioritizing ideological alignment with Ethereum's credibly neutral ethos over pure profit maximization.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing staking APR and operational simplicity, choose PBS via a relay like Flashbots or bloXroute. If you prioritize protocol-level sovereignty, censorship resistance, and contributing to a decentralized builder ecosystem, choose solo building with a configurable MEV-Boost setup or a custom solution. For most institutional validators managing large stakes, PBS offers a compelling risk-adjusted return. For protocol foundations or validators with strict compliance needs, the control of solo building is non-negotiable.
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