Redistribution is a bundler problem. Protocol-level solutions like CowSwap or UniswapX create a coordination failure between the searcher submitting the bundle and the entity capturing the value. The bundler, which controls transaction ordering and pays for execution, is the natural economic agent to implement redistribution.
account-abstraction-fixing-crypto-ux
Blog
Why MEV Redistribution Must Start at the Bundler Layer
Current MEV redistribution models are architecturally flawed. Capturing and returning value to users requires integration at the bundler, not just the block builder. This is the critical design frontier for account abstraction.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Redistribution Mirage
MEV redistribution fails when it's a protocol-level afterthought instead of a core bundler function.
Retroactive airdrops are inefficient capital. Projects like EigenLayer attempt post-hoc redistribution, but this creates speculative governance tokens instead of real-time fee discounts. Users want their MEV rebated on the transaction they just signed, not a promise of a future airdrop.
The evidence is in failed experiments. Early MEV-sharing DAOs collapsed because their off-chain coordination couldn't enforce on-chain outcomes. A successful model embeds the redistribution logic directly into the bundler's payment flow, as seen in nascent designs from Flashbots' SUAVE or private RPC services.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Bundler is the New Mempool
The user-centric intent model redefines transaction ordering, making the bundler the critical control point for MEV capture and redistribution.
Bundlers control execution flow. In an intent-based system, users submit desired outcomes, not signed transactions. The bundler's role is to find the optimal path, which grants it the same order-flow privileges a validator has in a traditional mempool.
MEV extraction moves upstream. The auction for order now happens at the bundler layer, not the block builder. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate this, where solvers compete on price, not just speed, to fill user intents.
Redistribution is a bundler feature. A bundler that captures MEV via order flow auctions can programmatically return value. This creates a direct fee/MEV rebate mechanism to the user, a structural improvement over opaque validator extractors.
Evidence: Ethereum's PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) created a professional MEV market. The intent-centric bundler is the ERC-4337 equivalent, but with the added capability to enforce fair redistribution as a core protocol rule.
key-trends
MEV REDISTRIBUTION
The Architectural Shift: From Builders to Bundlers
The current MEV supply chain is broken, extracting value from users to enrich a centralized cartel of builders and proposers. The only viable fix is to embed redistribution logic at the bundler layer.
01
The Problem: Builder-Centric Cartels
Today's PBS model funnels ~90% of MEV profits to a handful of builders like Flashbots and bloXroute. Proposers get a cut, but users and applications see zero benefit, creating a toxic, extractive ecosystem.
- Centralized Control: Top 3 builders control >80% of blockspace.
- Value Leakage: Billions in MEV are siphoned away from dApps and their users.
>80%
Market Share
$1B+
Annual Extract
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Order Flow
Bundlers, as the first point of user contact in ERC-4337, can enforce fair execution by routing orders through intent-based solvers like UniswapX and CowSwap. This shifts power from block builders to the transaction origin layer.
- User Sovereignty: Express what you want, not how to do it.
- Competitive Solving: Solvers (e.g., Across, 1inch Fusion) compete to fulfill the intent, driving efficiency.
~500ms
Solver Latency
15-30%
Better Prices
03
The Mechanism: Enshrined Redistribution at Origin
A compliant bundler must embed a redistribution smart contract that captures MEV at the source and programmatically allocates it. This creates a verifiable, on-chain settlement layer for value sharing.
- Direct Rebates: Surplus can be returned to the user's wallet.
- Protocol Treasury: A portion can fund the dApp or public goods (e.g., via Gitcoin).
100%
On-Chain
-99%
Extraction
04
The Blueprint: SUAVE as a Cautionary Tale
Flashbots' SUAVE aims to be a universal mempool and block builder. This is the wrong abstraction—it reinforces builder centrality. The correct model is a network of compliant bundlers (inspired by EigenLayer's restaking) that commit to redistribution, making extraction economically non-viable.
- Avoids Centralization: No single point of failure or control.
- Credible Neutrality: Rules are enforced by smart contracts, not a corporate entity.
1
Critical Flaw
N
Bundler Nodes
05
The Incentive: Aligning Bundler & User Economics
Without a redistribution mandate, bundlers are incentivized to sell order flow to the highest-bidding builder. A slashing mechanism for non-compliance, backed by staked assets, aligns bundler rewards with user outcomes.
- Staked Security: Bundlers post bond; misconduct leads to slashing.
- Sustainable Fees: Bundlers earn from fair allocation, not secret auctions.
$ETH
Staked Bond
>0
User Rebate
06
The Outcome: Protocol-Owned Liquidity & Sustainability
When MEV is captured and redistributed at the bundler, it becomes a sustainable revenue stream for the application layer. This funds protocol-owned liquidity, reduces reliance on inflationary token emissions, and turns a parasitic force into a productive one.
- DApp Treasury Growth: Continuous funding from own activity.
- Better UX: Lower effective costs and improved execution for end-users.
10-20%
Revenue Boost
0%
Inflation Tax
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL MISMATCH
Why Block Builder-Level Redistribution Fails
Redistributing MEV at the block builder level is architecturally impossible because builders are stateless, permissionless, and exist to maximize profit, not fairness.
Builders are stateless profit maximizers. A builder's sole function is to construct the most profitable block for a proposer. It has no persistent identity or stake to penalize, making enforcement of redistribution rules impossible without a trusted third party, which defeats decentralization.
Permissionless entry prevents coordination. Any entity can spin up a new builder in minutes. A cartel enforcing redistribution would be instantly undercut by a new builder offering the full bid to the proposer, creating a classic race-to-the-bottom prisoner's dilemma.
The builder-proposer separation is the flaw. The Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) design intentionally outsources block construction to a competitive market. Redistribution must be enforced upstream at the bundler or searcher layer, where economic identity and stake exist, as seen in Flashbots' SUAVE architecture.
Evidence: Builder market concentration. The top three builders control over 80% of Ethereum blocks. This oligopoly exists precisely because they optimize for extractable value, not redistribution, proving the market's natural equilibrium favors pure extraction.
ARCHITECTURAL PRIMITIVES
MEV Capture Point Comparison: Builder vs. Bundler
A first-principles comparison of where and how MEV value is captured, controlled, and redistributed in the post-merge Ethereum stack, focusing on PBS builders and intent-based bundlers.
| Critical Dimension | Builder (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute) | Bundler (e.g., UniswapX, 1inch Fusion, CowSwap) | Direct User-to-Builder |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Economic Relationship | Searcher -> Builder -> Proposer | User -> Solver/Bundler -> Builder | User/App -> Builder |
Value Capture Point | Block production (end-of-pipeline) | Transaction ordering & aggregation (mid-pipeline) | Block production (inefficient) |
Redistribution Mechanism | Priority fees to proposers; builder profits retained | Direct user rebates & solver competition | Priority fees only; maximal extractable value (MEV) lost |
User MEV Protection | None (user is not a client) | Full encapsulation via intents | None |
Expressiveness for Redistribution | Low (limited to block-level payments) | High (per-intent logic, batch auctions) | None |
Time to Finality for User | 12 sec (next slot) | < 1 sec (pre-confirmation via solver) | 12 sec (next slot) |
Typical Cost to User | Priority fee + implicit MEV loss | Negative cost (rebate > gas) or zero-fee | Priority fee + implicit MEV loss |
Architectural Prerequisite | Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) | Intent-based architecture & solver network | None (base layer) |
protocol-spotlight
MEV REDISTRIBUTION
Who's Building at the Bundler Frontier?
Bundlers are the new economic choke point. These projects are building the infrastructure to capture and redistribute value at the source.
01
The Problem: Extractors Outrun Builders
In a naive P2P mempool, searchers win by being fastest to the block builder, not by offering the best price to users. This creates a zero-sum race where value is extracted, not shared.
- ~$1B+ in MEV extracted annually on Ethereum alone.
- Latency advantages centralize profits to a few players.
- Users subsidize the entire MEV supply chain.
~$1B+
Annual Extract
<100ms
Race Window
02
The Solution: SUAVE as a Universal Solver
Flashbots' SUAVE re-architects the mempool itself. It acts as a decentralized, intent-centric block builder and marketplace, forcing competition on price, not latency.
- Decouples transaction ordering from block production.
- Enables cross-chain MEV redistribution via its own blockchain.
- Turns the bundler into a credibly neutral auctioneer for user intents.
Universal
Chain Scope
Auction-Based
Pricing
03
The Solution: EigenLayer & Shared Security for Bundlers
EigenLayer's restaking model allows bundlers to pool security and create cryptoeconomic slashing conditions. This enables new trust models beyond just software.
- Enables fast, secure cross-domain intent fulfillment without new trust assumptions.
- Slashing can punish bundlers for censorship or stealing MEV.
- Creates a shared security layer for decentralized sequencers and proposers.
$15B+
TVL Securing
Cryptoeconomic
Enforcement
04
The Solution: Anoma's Intent-Centric Architecture
Anoma flips the model entirely. Instead of transactions, users broadcast intents. Solvers (bundlers) compete to fulfill them, with MEV captured as a public good via a native redistribution mechanism.
- Intent gossip replaces transaction gossip.
- MEV is taxed and redistributed via protocol, not extracted.
- Provides a first-principles blueprint for fair ordering.
Intent-Based
Paradigm
Public Good
MEV Model
05
The Solution: Astria's Shared Sequencer Network
Astria provides a decentralized, shared sequencer layer for rollups. By controlling the pre-confirmation and ordering, it becomes the canonical bundler, enabling MEV capture and redistribution at the rollup level.
- Rollups outsource sequencing, gaining instant interoperability.
- Creates a centralized point for rollup-level MEV auctions.
- Allows value to be redirected to rollup treasuries or users.
Shared
Sequencer Layer
Rollup-Centric
MEV Capture
06
The Outcome: Bundlers as Protocol Treasuries
The endgame is bundlers that don't just pass through fees. They become profit centers that capture value and programmatically redistribute it.
- Fee subsidies back to users (see UniswapX, CowSwap).
- Revenue sharing with dApps and rollups.
- Protocol-owned liquidity funded by captured MEV.
Value Capture
New Model
Auto-Redistribute
Mechanism
counter-argument
THE BUNDLER BOTTLENECK
The Centralization Counter-Argument (And Why It's Wrong)
The bundler is the only viable, non-custodial point for MEV redistribution to prevent systemic centralization.
Bundlers are the natural monopoly. The technical requirements for building a competitive, profitable bundler create a high barrier to entry. This leads to centralization, but it is a feature, not a bug, that must be managed.
Redistribution must be protocol-native. Attempting to redistribute MEV at the application layer, like with UniswapX or CowSwap, creates fragmentation and fails to capture cross-domain value. The bundler layer is the universal settlement point.
The alternative is worse. Without bundler-level redistribution, value accrues to opaque, off-chain searcher networks. This creates a black-box economy that is more centralized and less accountable than a regulated, on-chain bundler market.
Evidence: Flashbots' SUAVE initiative validates this thesis. It explicitly moves MEV coordination and redistribution into a dedicated, transparent network layer, acknowledging the bundler's inevitable role as the economic core.
risk-analysis
MEV REDISTRIBUTION FAILURE MODES
The Bear Case: What Could Go Wrong?
Ignoring bundler-level MEV creates systemic risks that undermine the entire user-centric narrative of account abstraction.
01
The Cartelization of Bundlers
Without explicit redistribution, the most profitable MEV strategies will be captured by a few dominant bundlers like EigenLayer operators or Pimlico-backed services. This centralizes power and recreates the miner/extractor dynamic from L1s, negating AA's decentralization promise.\n- Risk: Top 3 bundlers control >60% of user ops.\n- Outcome: Extractable value flows to infrastructure, not users.
>60%
Market Share Risk
0%
User Rebate
02
The Subsidy Trap & Protocol Collapse
Protocols like UniswapX or Across use intents and subsidize fees to attract volume. If bundlers extract the MEV from these intents without returning value, the subsidy becomes a pure leak to middlemen. This unsustainable model leads to either protocol insolvency or the re-centralization of liquidity.\n- Symptom: Losing $10M+ annually in leaked MEV.\n- Endgame: Protocols abandon permissionless intents.
$10M+
Annual Leak
0
Sustainable
03
The Privacy & Censorship Vector
Bundlers with exclusive MEV access can front-run, censor, or differentially treat user operations based on profitability. A user's transaction path through ERC-4337 becomes transparent to the extractor, enabling targeted exploitation. Systems like Flashbots SUAVE aim to solve this on L1, but the bundler layer remains a blind spot.\n- Attack: Time-bandit attacks on slow user ops.\n- Result: Degraded UX and security for all.
~500ms
Attack Window
High
Censorship Risk
04
The Inevitable Fork & Fragmentation
If base-layer bundlers don't redistribute, applications will be forced to build their own captive bundling networks, fragmenting liquidity and composability. We'll see LayerZero-style balkanization, where every major app chain or rollup runs its own extractive bundler, breaking the shared mempool model.\n- Cost: 10x development overhead per app.\n- Impact: Death of a unified AA standard.
10x
Dev Overhead
Fragmented
Ecosystem
future-outlook
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
The Inevitable Integration: Bundlers as Intent Orchestrators
MEV redistribution is a bundler-native problem, requiring a fundamental redesign of their role from simple transaction packers to intent solvers.
Bundlers are the natural solvers. The bundler layer is the first entity to see a user's raw intent before execution. This privileged position makes it the only actor that can efficiently source liquidity, route across chains via Across or LayerZero, and guarantee fulfillment while capturing the MEV surplus.
Current designs are fundamentally misaligned. Separating the intent solver from the block builder creates a fragmented value chain. This forces protocols like UniswapX or CowSwap to outsource execution, leaking value to downstream searchers and creating redundant competition.
The bundler must internalize the auction. A bundler-as-orchestrator model internalizes the competition between solvers. It runs a sealed-bid auction for each intent bundle, selecting the optimal routing path and redistributing the captured surplus—the difference between the user's limit price and the execution cost—back to the user.
Evidence: The 85%+ fill rate for intents on Across demonstrates the demand for guaranteed execution. A bundler that natively integrates this capability, rather than treating it as a downstream service, captures the full economic efficiency of the intent.
takeaways
MEV REDISTRIBUTION
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Bundlers are the new miners; controlling the transaction ordering pipeline is the only way to systematically capture and redistribute value.
01
The Problem: Searcher-Builder Proposer Collusion
The PBS model in Ethereum L1 externalizes MEV capture to a black-box auction. Value flows to a few centralized actors like Flashbots, with minimal protocol or user benefit.\n- >90% of Ethereum blocks are built by a few entities\n- $1B+ in MEV extracted annually, largely unredistributed\n- Creates systemic risk from centralized sequencing power
>90%
Blocks Centralized
$1B+
Annual Extract
02
The Solution: Protocol-Owned Bundlers
A vertically integrated stack where the application protocol (e.g., a DEX) runs its own bundler. This captures ordering rights at the source before value leaks to the public mempool.\n- Direct fee capture: MEV and priority fees flow back to protocol treasury\n- User experience control: Guarantee fair ordering (e.g., time-boost) or privacy\n- Strategic moat: Bundler becomes a core, defensible infrastructure component
100%
Fee Capture
~0ms
Leakage Latency
03
The Blueprint: SUAVE as a Case Study
Flashbots' SUAVE validates the thesis: a dedicated mempool and decentralized block builder for cross-chain intent execution. It demonstrates the architectural shift needed.\n- Intents over TXs: Users express goals, solvers compete, value is captured in the solving layer\n- Cross-chain native: Captures MEV across domains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism\n- Redistribution levers: Fees can be directed to users, solvers, or a public good fund
Multi-Chain
Scope
Intent-Based
Paradigm
04
The Implementation: Modular Bundler Design
Architect your bundler as a modular unit separating the UserOp pool, simulation engine, and builder/proposer. This enables pluggable strategies for different L2s or altDA layers.\n- Simulation at scale: Requires sub-second execution across ~10k+ UserOps\n- Builder API compatibility: Must interface with Ethereum's PBS, OP Stack sequencers, and Arbitrum nodes\n- Trust assumptions: Decide between permissioned operator sets or permissionless proving
~10k+
Ops Simulated
<1s
Latency Target
05
The Incentive: Sustainable Protocol Revenue
MEV redistribution transforms a cost center (transaction subsidies) into a profit center. This funds development and tokenomics without relying solely on inflationary emissions.\n- Recurring revenue stream: Unlike one-time token launches or fee switches\n- Aligns with user success: Profits grow with protocol volume and activity\n- Competitive advantage: Can subsidize cheaper fees than rivals reliant on public bundlers
Revenue Stream
Model Shift
Fee Subsidy
Competitive Edge
06
The Risk: Centralization & Regulatory Attack Surface
Controlling the bundler creates a central point of failure and regulatory scrutiny. You become a money transmitter and exchange in the eyes of regulators.\n- OFAC compliance: Must censor transactions or risk sanctions (see Tornado Cash)\n- Technical centralization: Single operator failure halts the protocol\n- Community backlash: Perceived as capturing value that belongs to users
High
Regulatory Risk
Single Point
Of Failure
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