Decentralization is a performance tax. A truly decentralized network of permissionless bundlers introduces latency and coordination overhead that destroys the user experience ERC-4337 aims to improve, creating a fundamental trade-off between censorship resistance and speed.
account-abstraction-fixing-crypto-ux
Blog
Why Decentralizing the Bundler is a Pipe Dream (And Why It Matters)
Account Abstraction promises a UX revolution, but its reliance on bundlers creates a fundamental vulnerability. The economics and technical demands of bundling will inevitably lead to centralization, making censorship the next major attack vector for the AA stack.
introduction
THE REALITY CHECK
Introduction
The push for a decentralized bundler network is a well-intentioned distraction that misunderstands the economic and technical realities of block building.
Economic incentives create centralization. The block builder market on Ethereum (e.g., Flashbots, Titan, bloXroute) demonstrates that MEV extraction and capital efficiency naturally consolidate block production into a few optimized, professional entities. A bundler is just a specialized block builder.
The real battle is for the block builder. Account abstraction's security depends on the succinctness property—the bundler's signature commits to the entire batch. If the underlying block builder censors or reorders that batch, decentralization at the bundler layer is irrelevant. The focus must shift to decentralizing PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation).
key-insights
THE REALITY CHECK
Executive Summary
Decentralizing the bundler is the holy grail of ERC-4337, but economic and technical realities make it a distant mirage for mainstream adoption.
01
The MEV Cartel Problem
Bundlers are the new block builders. Decentralizing them requires distributing the right to extract MEV, which is antithetical to the centralized, competitive nature of MEV markets dominated by entities like Flashbots and Jito. A truly decentralized bundler network would be outgunned and outbid.
- Economic Reality: Top searchers pay ~90% of block space via priority fees.
- Centralized Efficiency: MEV extraction thrives on low-latency, private orderflow.
~90%
MEV Block Share
1-2s
Arb Latency
02
Staking is a False Decentralization
Proposals for staked, slashed bundlers (e.g., EigenLayer AVS) create security, not liveness. A slashed bundler doesn't stop censorship; it just gets replaced. The network's liveness depends on a few profitable, high-performance operators, recreating the Lido/staking pool centralization problem.
- Liveness vs. Security: Slashing secures deposits, not transaction inclusion.
- Capital Barrier: Creates a $1B+ staking moat for credible threat.
$1B+
Staking MoAT
0
Censorship Proof
03
The P2P Pool Fallacy
A peer-to-peer mempool for UserOperations is a denial-of-service attack surface. Without a trusted, fee-paying relay, the system is vulnerable to spam. Projects like Eden Network and Taiko show that effective transaction routing requires economic gatekeepers.
- Spam Vector: P2P propagation lacks a native cost function.
- Real-World Model: All functional networks (Solana, Suave) use fee-based priority.
100k+
Spam TPS Risk
0
Native Cost
04
Why It Matters: Captive Users
If bundlers centralize, the entity controlling the dominant bundler controls user experience and extractable value. This recreates the Coinbase problem for smart accounts. Wallet providers like Safe and ZeroDev will be forced to run bundlers, making users' transaction fate dependent on a single company's infrastructure.
- Vendor Lock-in: Your wallet's bundler is your gateway.
- Protocol Risk: UniswapX-style intents shift power to off-chain solvers.
1
Critical Gateway
100%
UX Control
thesis-statement
THE REALITY
The Centralization Thesis
The economic and operational realities of block building create an insurmountable barrier to meaningful bundler decentralization.
Bundler centralization is inevitable due to the winner-takes-most economics of MEV extraction. The most sophisticated operators with the fastest connections and best orderflow will always outcompete smaller players, mirroring the centralization seen in Ethereum's PBS builders like Flashbots and bloXroute.
Decentralization theater is a security risk. A permissionless set of 1000 validators that all run identical software from a single entity like Pimlico or Alchemy provides no meaningful censorship resistance. True decentralization requires economic and client diversity, which the bundler market lacks.
The protocol's security model assumes a decentralized validator set, not bundlers. Account abstraction shifts trust from the user's wallet to the bundler. If the bundler market consolidates, the entire system's liveness depends on a handful of corporate entities, creating a single point of failure.
Evidence: Over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by four entities. The same forces apply to bundlers, where the top three providers will capture the vast majority of profitable user operations, relegating others to a low-fee, high-latency tier.
market-context
THE REALITY CHECK
The Current State of Play
Decentralizing the bundler role in ERC-4337 is economically and operationally infeasible for mainstream adoption.
Bundlers require MEV extraction to be profitable. A fully decentralized, permissionless network of bundlers, as envisioned by the ERC-4337 standard, cannot compete with the capital efficiency and latency of centralized, specialized operators like EigenLayer, Pimlico, and Stackup. These entities run optimized infrastructure and sophisticated MEV strategies that a generalized peer-to-peer network cannot match.
The economic model is broken for decentralized validators. The base fee and priority fee from a single user operation are negligible. Profit derives from cross-domain MEV and arbitrage, which requires high-frequency, capital-intensive operations. A decentralized network introduces latency and coordination overhead that destroys this profit margin.
The proof is in deployment. Every major AA wallet provider (Safe, Biconomy, Rhinestone) relies on a centralized bundler service or a whitelisted set. The public mempool is a ghost town because submitting a bundle there is economically irrational. The path to 'decentralization' will be a set of licensed, professional operators, not an open network.
THE REALITY CHECK
Bundler Centralization Metrics (Hypothetical Snapshot)
A comparison of bundler decentralization vectors across leading ERC-4337 implementations and related infrastructure, highlighting the economic and technical forces driving centralization.
| Centralization Vector | Pimlico / Stackup (Paymaster-Bundler) | Ethereum Foundation Ref. Client | Alt Layer-1 Native Bundling |
|---|---|---|---|
Bundler Client Diversity | 1 dominant implementation (Rundler) | 1 reference implementation | 1 monolithic node client |
Staked ETH Required to Censor | 0 ETH (Paymaster subsidizes) | 32 ETH (Solo Staker Minimum) | Native token stake (varies) |
Time-to-First-Block MEV (Avg) | < 2 seconds | 12 seconds | < 1 second |
% of UserOps Processed (Top 3) |
| N/A (Not in production) |
|
Cross-Domain Atomic Arbitrage Support | |||
Hardware Cost / Month (Est.) | $300 (Cloud API Server) | $1,200+ (Full Node + Validator) | Bundled in sequencer cost |
Requires Trusted Off-Chain API |
deep-dive
THE REALITY CHECK
The Inevitable Forces of Centralization
Economic and technical constraints make a fully decentralized bundler network a theoretical ideal, not a practical architecture.
Economic centralization is inevitable. Bundling requires upfront capital for gas and MEV extraction. This creates a winner-takes-most market where only large, specialized operators like Flashbots and EigenLayer AVS can compete at scale.
Decentralization degrades user experience. A decentralized validator set introduces latency and coordination overhead. Users choose speed and reliability over ideological purity, which is why centralized RPCs like Alchemy and Infura dominate.
The protocol layer is the real battleground. Instead of fighting for bundler decentralization, focus shifts to sufficient decentralization at the settlement layer (Ethereum) and enforcing credible neutrality via protocol rules that any bundler must follow.
risk-analysis
WHY DECENTRALIZING THE BUNDLER IS A PIPE DREAM
The Censorship Attack Surface
Account Abstraction's promise of a censorship-resistant user experience is undermined by the centralized bundler, creating a single point of failure for transaction ordering and inclusion.
01
The Economic Centralization Problem
Bundlers require stake and liquidity to operate profitably, creating massive economies of scale. This leads to natural centralization, similar to Proof-of-Work mining pools or L1 validator sets.
- High Fixed Costs: Requires capital for stake, RPC infrastructure, and MEV optimization tooling.
- Winner-Take-Most: Top bundlers like Stackup or Pimlico capture dominant market share, reducing network resilience.
- Regulatory Target: A few large, identifiable entities are easy points for legal pressure or OFAC compliance enforcement.
>70%
Market Share
$1M+
Stake Required
02
The MEV-Censorship Nexus
The entity that orders transactions (the sequencer/bundler) inherently controls censorship. Decentralizing this without sacrificing performance or profit is the core unsolved problem.
- Intent Solvers: Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap externalize ordering, but rely on centralized solvers for execution.
- Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS): An Ethereum roadmap concept, but its implementation for ERC-4337 bundlers remains theoretical and complex.
- Timing Attacks: Even with a decentralized set, a malicious majority can delay or exclude transactions through subtle ordering.
~500ms
Latency Budget
100%
Ordering Power
03
The Client Diversity Illusion
Multiple bundler clients don't solve censorship if they all follow the same profit-maximizing rules or are operated by the same entities. True decentralization requires adversarial incentives.
- Homogeneous Software: Most bundlers run similar, open-source clients, creating a systemic vulnerability.
- Sybil Resistance is Costly: Preventing fake nodes requires stake or reputation systems, which again favor large players.
- Cross-Chain Weakness: Bridges like LayerZero and Across depend on relayers, replicating the bundler centralization problem for interop.
<5
Major Clients
1->N
Failure Mode
04
The Regulatory Kill Switch
Governments will target the centralized choke point. A decentralized network can resist; a centralized service must comply, breaking the chain's neutrality.
- OFAC Compliance: Bundlers, like Flashbots, have already implemented transaction filtering on Ethereum, setting a precedent.
- Legal Liability: Centralized operators have identifiable legal entities, making them susceptible to sanctions and takedown orders.
- User Experience Trade-off: Censorship resistance requires users to actively seek out non-compliant bundlers, destroying seamless UX.
100%
Compliance Rate
0
Legal Shield
counter-argument
THE REALITY CHECK
The Decentralist Rebuttal (And Why It Fails)
Decentralizing the bundler role is economically and technically infeasible, creating a permanent point of centralization in the ERC-4337 stack.
Decentralization is economically irrational. A competitive bundler market requires staking and slashing for censorship resistance. This creates prohibitive capital costs that kill profitability, ensuring only large, centralized entities like Coinbase or ConsenSys can operate at scale.
Technical complexity creates centralization. Bundlers must manage complex MEV extraction, gas optimization, and multi-chain state. This operational overhead favors sophisticated players, mirroring the centralization seen in Ethereum block builders like Flashbots.
The user doesn't care. End-users prioritize low fees and reliability over ideological purity. They outsource intent execution to UniswapX or CowSwap today, proving the market will centralize around performance, not decentralization theater.
Evidence: The PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) model on Ethereum L1 failed to decentralize block building. Top three builders control >80% of blocks. The same forces will dominate the bundler layer.
takeaways
THE BUNDLER REALITY CHECK
Implications for Builders and Investors
The push for a fully decentralized bundler network ignores the economic and technical realities of block building, creating misaligned incentives and hidden risks.
01
The MEV Cartel Problem
Decentralizing the bundler role without solving MEV just distributes extraction power. The same sophisticated actors (e.g., Flashbots, Jito Labs) dominating PBS on L1 will dominate the bundler market, creating a new layer of centralized rent-seeking.
- Result: User savings from account abstraction are clawed back via latent MEV.
- Builder Reality: Top 3 builders control >60% of Ethereum blocks; expect similar consolidation.
>60%
Block Share
$1B+
Annual MEV
02
The Latency Arbitrage Trap
A decentralized network of slow, independent bundlers cannot compete with centralized, low-latency operators. Fast block builders require colo-located nodes and private mempools, which are inherently centralized infrastructure.
- Critical Metric: ~100ms submission windows for optimal inclusion.
- Investor Takeaway: Back infra that optimizes for proposer-builder separation (PBS) integration, not naive decentralization.
~100ms
Window
10x
Advantage
03
Staking is Not a Security Guarantee
Slashing for liveness failures in a decentralized bundler set is economically irrational. The cost of staking capital will outweigh the marginal profit from bundling fees, disincentivizing honest participation.
- Outcome: Only large, capital-rich entities can participate, re-centralizing the network.
- Builder Mandate: Design for permissioned reputation or bonded professional operators, not proof-of-stake fairy tales.
$0
Slashing Viability
High
Barrier
04
The Vertical Integration Endgame
The winning stack will be vertically integrated: RPC > Bundler > Builder > Proposer. Projects like EigenLayer, AltLayer, and Espresso Systems are building this now. Decentralized bundlers acting alone will be commoditized and squeezed.
- Strategic Play: Control the full transaction supply chain.
- Investment Lens: Bet on infra aggregating execution, sequencing, and settlement leverage.
4 Layers
Stack Control
>50%
Fee Capture
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