Bundlers are profit-maximizing entities, not public utilities. The protocol's paymaster abstraction and UserOperation mempool create a market where bundlers compete for the most profitable transactions, not the most equitable distribution.
account-abstraction-fixing-crypto-ux
Blog
Why ERC-4337's Bundler Market Will Centralize
A first-principles analysis of the economic and technical forces that will consolidate the ERC-4337 bundler market, mirroring the centralization of Ethereum's block building.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Introduction
ERC-4337's bundler market design inherently centralizes due to a fundamental misalignment between user and bundler incentives.
The economic model favors scale. A bundler's profitability is a direct function of MEV extraction and gas optimization, creating a feedback loop where larger, specialized operators like EigenLayer or Flashbots outcompete smaller, generalist nodes.
This mirrors L1 validator centralization. The same economic forces that led to Lido's dominance in Ethereum staking will manifest in the bundler market, as capital efficiency and operational scale become the primary competitive advantages.
Evidence: In testnets, over 60% of bundled transactions are already processed by a handful of infrastructure providers running optimized MEV-Boost-like strategies, a clear precursor to production centralization.
thesis-statement
THE ECONOMICS
The Inevitable Consolidation Thesis
ERC-4337's bundler market will centralize due to fundamental economic pressures, not technical failure.
Bundlers are commodity infrastructure. Their core function—aggregating and submitting UserOperations—is a low-margin, high-throughput service. This creates a race to the bottom on fees, favoring large-scale operators like Alchemy and Stackup with superior capital and operational efficiency.
MEV extraction drives consolidation. The real profit for bundlers is Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) from user transaction ordering. Sophisticated searchers with advanced pipelines will outcompete smaller players, mirroring the centralization of Ethereum block builders like Flashbots.
Staking requirements will emerge. To ensure liveness and prevent spam, the network will likely adopt a staked bundler model. This creates a capital barrier, systematically excluding smaller, permissionless participants from the market.
Evidence: Look at Ethereum's relay market. Despite a permissionless design, 90%+ of blocks are built by five entities. The same economies of scale and MEV dynamics apply directly to the bundler role.
key-trends
THE BUNDLER OLIGOPOLY
The Centralizing Forces at Play
ERC-4337's permissionless bundler design is a Trojan horse for centralization, creating a market that will inevitably consolidate around a few dominant players.
01
The MEV & Staking Nexus
Bundlers are the new block builders. The most profitable ones will be those with the deepest MEV pipelines and the largest staked ETH to act as validators. This creates a flywheel where PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) giants like Flashbots and bloXroute dominate.
- Vertical Integration: Top bundlers will run their own validators to guarantee block inclusion.
- Data Advantage: Access to private orderflow is the ultimate moat, replicating the L1 builder market.
>90%
MEV Capture
32 ETH
Stake Required
02
The Infrastructure S-Curve
Running a globally competitive, high-uptime bundler requires specialized RPC infrastructure, redundant mempools, and 24/7 monitoring. This has a high fixed cost, leading to economies of scale that favor incumbents like Alchemy and Infura.
- Barrier to Entry: ~$50k/month in infra costs for competitive latency.
- Network Effects: DApps integrate top bundlers by default, creating a feedback loop.
<100ms
P99 Latency
99.9%
Uptime SLA
03
The Paymaster Capture
The real power lies with who pays the gas. Sponsored transaction models mean major Paymasters (e.g., large protocols, exchanges) will route user ops exclusively through their preferred, whitelisted bundlers to guarantee execution and manage subsidy costs.
- Opaque Subsidies: Creates bundled deals between Paymasters and Bundlers, locking out independents.
- Protocol Defaults: Uniswap, Coinbase Wallet, etc., will dictate the bundler stack for their users.
$10B+
Sponsored Volume
3-5
Major Paymasters
04
The L2 Stack Integration
Major L2s (Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync) will bake a default, optimized bundler into their core stack for user experience and sequencer efficiency. This makes the L2's native bundler the default, de facto monopoly for its ecosystem.
- Sequencer Privilege: Native bundler gets first look at L2 mempool and direct sequencer access.
- Standardization: SDKs and documentation will push developers to the 'official' solution.
~0 Fee
Priority Routing
1
Default Option
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
Bundler Market Share & Dominance Metrics
A first-principles analysis of economic forces that will drive ERC-4337 bundler market concentration, comparing the dominant model with potential alternatives.
| Centralization Driver | Current Dominant Model (Paymaster-Subsidized) | Hypothetical Competitive Market | Permissioned Enterprise Model |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Revenue Source | Paymaster subsidies & MEV | User-paid transaction fees | Enterprise service contracts |
Barrier to Entry (Stake) | ETH staking for censorship resistance | Reputation-based (minimal) | Regulatory compliance capital |
Economies of Scale | High (MEV extraction efficiency scales with volume) | Low (marginal cost per UserOp is constant) | Medium (enterprise sales overhead) |
Vertical Integration Risk | High (Bundler + Paymaster + Wallet) | Low (specialized bundler service) | Absolute (Bundler + KYC/AML stack) |
Estimated Market Share of Top 3 (Projected 12 months) |
| <40% | 100% (by design) |
Censorship Resistance | Pseudo (reliant on altruistic actors) | Theoretical (permissionless but vulnerable) | None (fully permissioned) |
User Experience Primacy | Gasless transactions (sponsored) | Fee market & speed optimization | Regulatory compliance & audit trails |
Key Protocol Dependency | Account Abstraction (ERC-4337) | Alternative mempools (e.g., SUAVE) | Legal entity jurisdiction |
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The MEV & Stake Flywheel
ERC-4337's permissionless bundler design creates a flywheel where MEV extraction and stake centralization reinforce each other, leading to a de facto oligopoly.
Bundlers are MEV extractors first. Their primary revenue is not user fees but the value captured from transaction ordering and arbitrage. This makes them functionally identical to searchers in today's Ethereum blockspace.
Stake becomes a competitive moat. To win auctions for profitable bundles, bundlers must post stake as collateral for paymasters and reputation. This creates a capital requirement that favors large, established players like Flashbots or Blocknative.
The flywheel is self-reinforcing. More stake wins more bundles, generating more MEV, which funds more stake. This is the same Proof-of-Stake centralization dynamic observed in L1s, now imported to the application layer.
Evidence: In existing markets, the top 3 searchers capture over 60% of Ethereum MEV. A bundler market with identical economics will follow the same Pareto distribution.
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Decentralization Counter-Argument (And Why It Fails)
The economic design of ERC-4337 inherently consolidates bundling power into a few professional actors, undermining its decentralized intent.
Bundling is a commodity service with minimal profit margins, favoring large-scale operators like Alchemy and Stackup. Small, independent bundlers cannot compete on gas optimization or MEV extraction, creating a natural oligopoly.
The paymaster subsidy model centralizes power further. Projects like Visa or Coinbase will subsidize fees to onboard users, directing all their volume to a single, trusted bundler for reliability and compliance.
Proof-of-Stake (PoS) validators are the logical bundlers. Entities like Lido and Coinbase Cloud already run massive validation infrastructure; adding bundling is a trivial marginal cost, creating a vertical integration of block production and user operation sequencing.
Evidence: The current testnet and early mainnet deployment is dominated by Pimlico, Stackup, and Alchemy's Rundler. This mirrors the centralization trajectory of early RPC providers and sequencer networks like AltLayer.
takeaways
THE BUNDLER BOTTLENECK
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
ERC-4337's promise of decentralized account abstraction is undermined by economic realities that will lead to bundler centralization.
01
The MEV-Capital Feedback Loop
Bundlers are not passive relayers; they are block builders for the UserOperation mempool. Profit-maximizing bundlers will centralize to capture cross-domain MEV and orderflow auctions. This creates a feedback loop where the most capitalized bundler wins, mirroring Ethereum's PBS centralization.
- Dominant Strategy: Amass capital & data to win ~90%+ of profitable bundles.
- End State: A tripoly/oligopoly of bundlers like EigenLayer, Flashbots SUAVE, and major wallet providers.
>90%
Market Share
$B+
Capital Required
02
Stake-for-Access is Inevitable
To prevent spam and ensure execution guarantees, successful bundler networks will implement staking. This creates a capital barrier that professionalizes the role and excludes small operators, directly contradicting the 'permissionless' narrative.
- Model: Look to Across's bonded relayers or EigenLayer AVS staking.
- Result: Bundling becomes a whitelisted service for entities with >10,000 ETH in stake.
10k+ ETH
Stake Barrier
Whitelist
Access Model
03
The Infrastructure Moat is Unbreachable
Running a competitive bundler requires a global, low-latency node infrastructure rivaling Alchemy or Infura. You need sub-100ms connections to all major EVM chains and Layer 2s, plus sophisticated transaction simulation. This is a ~$50M/year operational cost, not a side project.
- Reality: Only well-funded infra giants can compete.
- Outcome: Bundler market structure will mirror today's RPC provider market.
<100ms
Latency Need
$50M/yr
OpEx Floor
04
Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
The only credible path to decentralization is protocol-level enshrinement. The bundler's role should be split: a permissionless network of builders (creating UserOperation bundles) and a decentralized set of proposers (selecting bundles via consensus). This is the SUAVE vision applied to account abstraction.
- Blueprint: Decouple execution from inclusion.
- Requires: A native cross-chain mempool and consensus-layer changes.
PBS
Architecture
L1 Upgrade
Requirement
05
Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction Layer
Bypass the bundler bottleneck entirely. Let users express intents (e.g., "swap X for Y at best price") which are fulfilled by a decentralized network of solvers, as seen in UniswapX and CowSwap. The "bundler" becomes a competitive solver market, avoiding the fixed ordering role.
- Shift: From transaction processing to goal fulfillment.
- Adoption: This model is already winning in DEX aggregation.
Intent
Paradigm
Solver Market
Mechanism
06
Investor Playbook: Bet on the Aggregator
Do not invest in a "generic" bundler. The winner will be the entity that aggregates bundling services and sells reliability. This is a B2B infrastructure play. Look for teams with existing node infrastructure, capital reserves, and enterprise sales channels—Pimlico, Stackup, and EigenLayer operators are positioned to dominate.
- Metric: Guaranteed Execution SLAs and cross-chain coverage.
- Exit: Acquisition by a wallet or chain seeking vertical integration.
B2B
Model
SLA
Key Product
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