Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
account-abstraction-fixing-crypto-ux
Blog

Why P2P Bundling Networks Are Inevitable

Account abstraction's killer app isn't gas sponsorship—it's a decentralized execution layer. Centralized bundlers are a temporary, dangerous bottleneck. This analysis argues that peer-to-peer bundling networks are the necessary, trust-minimized infrastructure for the next billion users.

introduction
THE INEVITABILITY

Introduction

P2P bundling networks are the necessary evolution of MEV infrastructure, shifting value capture from centralized sequencers to a competitive, permissionless market.

Centralized sequencer extraction is unsustainable. Today's dominant rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism operate as single-operator sequencers, creating a single point of failure and capturing all transaction ordering value. This model contradicts the decentralized ethos of Ethereum L2s and creates a massive, centralized rent.

P2P bundling unbundles the sequencer. Networks like SUAVE and Flashbots transform block building into a competitive auction. Builders compete to create the most valuable block from a shared mempool, driving efficiency and returning value to users through better execution, similar to how UniswapX abstracts liquidity sourcing.

The economic incentive is undeniable. The MEV supply chain currently leaks billions in value to a few entities. A permissionless network of builders and searchers, connected via a shared mempool, creates a more efficient market. This is the same force that drove the rise of DEX aggregators like 1inch.

Evidence: The Searcher-Builder-Proposer separation is already here. Ethereum's post-merge PBS landscape and Flashbots' dominance prove the model works at L1. Rollups are merely the next logical layer for this architectural pattern to manifest, preventing the re-centralization of the stack.

deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE

The Inevitable Logic of P2P Bundling

P2P bundling networks are the necessary architectural evolution to solve MEV extraction and liquidity fragmentation across blockchains.

Centralized sequencers are rent extractors. They capture value by controlling transaction ordering, a flaw inherent to the current rollup-centric scaling model. P2P bundling networks like SUAVE and Astria decentralize this function, returning value to users and builders.

Cross-chain intents require coordination. Isolated blockchains and rollups create a fragmented liquidity landscape. Solving this requires a neutral, shared sequencing layer that can execute complex workflows across domains like Ethereum, Solana, and Arbitrum.

The market is already moving. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract execution through intents and solvers. P2P bundling is the generalized infrastructure layer that turns these application-specific solutions into a public good.

Evidence: Flashbots' SUAVE testnet processes over 200,000 intents daily, demonstrating demand for credibly neutral, cross-domain block building separate from execution.

WHY P2P IS INEVITABLE

Bundler Landscape: Centralized vs. P2P Future State

Comparison of current centralized bundler models against the emergent P2P network paradigm, highlighting the fundamental trade-offs in security, cost, and decentralization.

Core Feature / MetricCentralized Bundler (e.g., Alchemy, Blocknative)P2P Bundler Network (e.g., SUAVE, Shutterized Bundlers)Hybrid / Staked Pool (e.g., EigenLayer AVS, AltLayer)

Censorship Resistance

MEV Extraction Surface

100% to operator

< 5% to searcher (via commit-reveal)

Varies by pool rules

User Op Inclusion Latency Guarantee

< 1 sec

~2-5 sec (consensus round)

< 2 sec

Infrastructure Cost per 1M Ops

$200-500

$50-150 (distributed)

$150-300

Required Stake per Node

0 ETH

32+ ETH (validator bond)

1-10 ETH (AVS stake)

Trust Assumption

Single operator honesty

1-of-N honest majority

Committee honesty

Primary Failure Mode

Central point of failure

Liveness fault (slashing)

Correlated slashing event

Protocol Examples

Ethereum P2P (current), Stackup

SUAVE, Anoma, Shutter Network

EigenLayer, AltLayer, Brevis coProcessors

counter-argument
THE COMPLACENCY TRAP

The Lazy Counter-Argument: "But It Works Fine Now"

Current centralized bundling is a temporary, subsidized convenience that masks fundamental economic and security flaws.

Centralized sequencers are subsidizing failure. Today's low fees are a user acquisition cost, not a sustainable equilibrium. The economic model of a centralized sequencer relies on future MEV extraction and token appreciation to offset current losses, creating a ticking time bomb for user costs.

The "works fine" illusion ignores systemic risk. A single point of failure like a centralized sequencer is a constant security liability. The industry learned this with Mt. Gox and CEX custodians; it will relearn it with sequencer downtime or censorship, which protocols like Arbitrum and Optimism have already experienced.

P2P networks solve the principal-agent problem. In a centralized model, the sequencer's profit motive (MEV) directly conflicts with user best execution. A peer-to-peer bundling network like a decentralized version of Flashbots SUAVE aligns incentives, forcing competition among builders to improve, not degrade, transaction outcomes.

Evidence: The mempool is the precedent. Ethereum's public mempool was "fine" until MEV bots extracted billions. The advent of private order flows to Flashbots protectors proved the market demands better execution. P2P bundling is the logical next step, moving from trusted relays to a trust-minimized marketplace for block space.

protocol-spotlight
THE P2P BUNDLING THESIS

Protocols Building the Inevitable

The current MEV supply chain is a cartel. P2P bundling networks are the inevitable, decentralized alternative.

01

Flashbots SUAVE: The Centralizing Cartel Killer

The Problem: ~90% of Ethereum MEV is captured by a few centralized builders and relays, creating systemic risk and rent extraction. The Solution: A decentralized, pluggable block-building network that separates execution, consensus, and privacy. It commoditizes the builder role.

  • Universal Preference Environment allows any user to express complex intents.
  • Decentralized block building via a peer-to-peer network of competing solvers.
90%+
Cartel Share
0
Central Relays
02

Jito: Solana's Bundling Primitive

The Problem: On Solana, unbundled transactions compete chaotically, leading to failed trades and wasted compute. The Solution: A native, protocol-level bundler that aggregates user transactions into a single, atomic bundle for execution.

  • Jito Bundles guarantee atomicity and priority, eliminating front-running.
  • MEV redistribution via JitoSOL distributes extracted value back to stakers, not just searchers.
~500ms
Bundle Latency
$200M+
MEV Redistributed
03

The Intent-Based Future (UniswapX, CowSwap)

The Problem: Users specify low-level transactions (how), exposing them to MEV and poor execution. The Solution: Users declare high-level outcomes (what), and a decentralized network of solvers competes to fulfill them optimally.

  • UniswapX outsources swap routing to a permissionless network of fillers.
  • CowSwap uses batch auctions and coincidence of wants to eliminate MEV and improve prices.
10-50 bps
Price Improvement
0 Gas
Failed Trades
04

Economic Inevitability: The 10x Cost Reduction

The Problem: Centralized MEV supply chains add layers of rent extraction (builders, relays, searchers), inflating end-user costs. The Solution: P2P networks collapse this stack, creating a direct market between users and block producers.

  • Eliminates intermediaries, passing savings directly to users/validators.
  • Competitive solver markets drive efficiency, similar to Across and LayerZero for cross-chain intents.
-50%
User Cost
10x
Market Efficiency
05

Modularity Wins: Specialized Execution Layers

The Problem: Monolithic L1s must optimize for everything, creating a one-size-fits-none execution environment. The Solution: Dedicated P2P bundling networks become specialized execution layers for intents, orders, and MEV.

  • Separation of concerns: L1 for consensus/settlement, P2P network for optimal execution.
  • Enables application-specific chains (Approllups) to outsource complex transaction ordering.
1,000+ TPS
Specialized Throughput
Modular
Stack Design
06

The Privacy Mandate: Encrypted Mempools

The Problem: Public mempools are free-for-all sniping grounds, making DeFi toxic for large traders. The Solution: P2P networks with encrypted transaction flow, enabling fair execution without information leakage.

  • Threshold Encryption (e.g., Shutter Network) blinds transactions until block inclusion.
  • Solves front-running at the network layer, not just the application layer.
100%
Blinded Tx
$0
Sniping Losses
takeaways
THE P2P BUNDLING THESIS

TL;DR for the Time-Poor Architect

The MEV supply chain is consolidating. Here's why decentralized, peer-to-peer bundling networks will win the infrastructure layer.

01

The Problem: Vertical Integration by Builders

Monolithic builders like Flashbots SUAVE and Jito are becoming the new rent-seeking intermediaries. They control order flow, extract value, and create single points of failure and censorship.

  • Centralizes MEV Capture: Builder market share is consolidating.
  • Creates Systemic Risk: A bug or attack on a dominant builder threatens chain liveness.
  • Reduces Searcher Profit: Value accrues to the integrated entity, not the edge.
>80%
Builder Dominance
1
Point of Failure
02

The Solution: Decentralized P2P Marketplace

A network where independent searchers and solvers connect directly, facilitated by a decentralized relayer network. Think CowSwap or UniswapX model, but for generalized transaction bundling.

  • Unbundles the Stack: Separates discovery, solving, and execution roles.
  • Democratizes Access: Any searcher can compete for order flow via open auctions.
  • Incentivizes Specialization: Solvers compete on execution quality, not just capital.
P2P
Architecture
Open
Auctions
03

The Mechanism: Intents & Conditional Execution

Users submit intent-based transactions (e.g., "swap X for Y at >= price Z"), not rigid calldata. This creates a composable solution space for solvers, enabling complex cross-domain bundles.

  • Enables Atomic Arbitrage: Solvers can craft bundles across Ethereum, Solana, and layerzero-connected chains.
  • Improves UX: Users get better prices without managing gas or slippage.
  • **Foundation for Across and UniswapX-style fills.
Intent-Based
Paradigm
Cross-Chain
Scope
04

The Economic Flywheel: Stake-for-Access

Relayers and solvers stake native tokens or ETH to participate, securing the network and aligning incentives. Slashing punishes malicious behavior (e.g., censorship, frontrunning).

  • Skin in the Game: Stake ensures economic commitment to honest operation.
  • Fee Distribution: Value flows to stakers and users, not a central treasury.
  • **Creates a ~$10B+ TVL opportunity for a new staking primitive.
Stake
To Play
$10B+
TVL Potential
05

The Endgame: Credibly Neutral Infrastructure

A P2P network becomes a public good for block space, resistant to capture. It's the logical evolution from centralized builders, just as DEXs evolved from order-book CEXs.

  • Censorship-Resistant: No single entity can filter transactions.
  • Protocol-Owned Liquidity: Fees can be directed to a DAO or burned.
  • The only sustainable model for a multi-chain, multi-VM future.
Neutral
Infrastructure
Sustainable
Model
06

The Catalyst: Modular Stack Maturity

The tech is now viable: fast shared sequencers (Espresso, Astria), robust DA layers (EigenDA, Celestia), and secure bridges (layerzero, Hyperlane). P2P bundling networks assemble these primitives.

  • Solves Data Availability: Bundles can be posted cheaply to a DA layer.
  • Leverages Shared Sequencing: For fair, cross-rollup ordering.
  • Turns modularity from a risk into a competitive advantage.
Modular
Stack
Now
Viable
ENQUIRY

Get In Touch
today.

Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.

NDA Protected
24h Response
Directly to Engineering Team
10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall
NDA Protected Directly to Engineering Team
Why P2P Bundling Networks Are Inevitable | ChainScore Blog