MEV supply chain centralization is the primary threat. Block builders, relay operators, and searchers now form integrated cartels that dictate transaction inclusion and order, bypassing the decentralized validator set.
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog
Why the 'MEV Supply Chain' is a Threat to Chain Neutrality
The MEV supply chain—searchers, builders, and relays—is vertically integrating. This creates centralized choke points that can dictate which transactions and protocols succeed, undermining the foundational principle of chain neutrality.
introduction
THE THREAT
Introduction
The MEV supply chain is centralizing transaction ordering, eroding the foundational promise of chain neutrality.
Chain neutrality is a myth under this model. The economic incentives of proposer-builder separation (PBS) ensure validators select the highest-paying block, not the most neutral one, creating a pay-to-play environment.
Protocols like Flashbots and bloXroute demonstrate this power. Their dominance in block building on Ethereum means a handful of entities control the sequencing of billions in DeFi volume across Uniswap and Aave.
key-trends
THE CENTRALIZATION VECTOR
Executive Summary
The MEV supply chain, once a niche concern, now dictates transaction ordering across major chains, creating a centralized point of failure that undermines the foundational promise of blockchain neutrality.
01
The Problem: Builder-Dominance
A handful of builders like Flashbots and bloXroute control the majority of block production on Ethereum and its L2s. This centralizes the power to censor transactions and extract value, making chain neutrality a function of their profit motives.
- >80% of Ethereum blocks are built by a few entities.
- Creates a single point of failure for transaction censorship.
- Neutrality is outsourced to off-chain, opaque systems.
>80%
Block Share
1-3
Dominant Entities
02
The Solution: SUAVE
Flashbots' own proposed solution, SUAVE, aims to decentralize the MEV supply chain by creating a separate mempool and decentralized block builder network. It's an admission that the current model is broken, but its success hinges on widespread adoption and avoiding re-centralization.
- Creates a neutral, cross-chain mempool.
- Decouples block building from proposing.
- Unproven at scale; risks forming new cartels.
0
Chains Live
Cross-Chain
Target Scope
03
The Consequence: L2 Neutrality Failure
L2s (Optimism, Arbitrum, Base) inherit Ethereum's sequencer-level MEV risks. Their promised low fees and fast finality are predicated on a centralized sequencer, which is a de facto MEV cartel. Users trade sovereignty for UX, making the chain a product, not a neutral platform.
- Single sequencer controls transaction order.
- MEV is captured by the L2 team/validator.
- Vitalik's 'enshrined rollups' proposal is a direct response to this flaw.
1
Active Sequencer
100%
Order Control
04
The Alternative: Intent-Based Architectures
Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across bypass the toxic public mempool entirely. Users submit intents (desired outcome) rather than transactions (specific execution path), delegating routing to a solver network. This neutralizes frontrunning but centralizes trust in solvers.
- Removes frontrunning and sandwich attacks.
- Shifts competition from latency to optimization.
- New centralization risk: the solver cartel.
~$10B+
Volume Protected
>50%
Better Prices
05
The Metric: Time-to-Neutrality
The critical benchmark for any chain is how long a censored transaction can be delayed. In a neutral chain, it's one block (~12s on Ethereum). With builder dominance, it can be indefinite. This metric exposes the lie of 'decentralization' at the execution layer.
- Ethereum Goal: ~12 seconds.
- Current Reality: Minutes to indefinite if top builders collude.
- Measures the real cost of using a chain.
12s
Ideal
∞
Risk
06
The Endgame: Enshrined Sequencing
The logical conclusion is to bake neutrality into the protocol layer. Ethereum's PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) is a step, but enshrined rollups and fully enshrined sequencing push critical functions into the consensus layer. This trades scalability complexity for guaranteed neutrality—a bet that sovereignty is the ultimate product.
- Moves trust from off-chain cartels to consensus.
- Sacrifices some execution-layer flexibility.
- The only way to guarantee neutrality at scale.
L1
Trust Anchor
Protocol
Guarantee
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL REALITY
The Core Argument: Neutrality is a Protocol Illusion
Protocol-level neutrality is a theoretical ideal that disintegrates under the economic pressure of the MEV supply chain.
Protocols are not neutral. Their execution is mediated by a for-profit supply chain of searchers, builders, and relays. This chain optimizes for extractable value, not fairness, creating predictable transaction ordering biases.
The MEV supply chain centralizes power. Entities like Flashbots, bloXroute, and Jito Labs control critical infrastructure (relays, block builders). Their private orderflow deals with exchanges like Coinbase create a two-tiered system that violates the base layer's promise.
Neutrality is an endpoint property. The protocol's deterministic state transition is neutral, but the path to inclusion is not. This is the critical distinction architects miss when evaluating chains like Solana or Arbitrum.
Evidence: Over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by a cartel of three builders, and Jito's Solana MEV capture exceeds $200M annually. This is not a bug; it's the logical endpoint of permissionless block space markets.
POST-MERGE ETHEREUM
The Centralization Dashboard: MEV-Boost Relay & Builder Market Share
This table quantifies the centralization risks in Ethereum's PBS infrastructure, showing how market share concentration in relays and builders creates systemic threats to chain neutrality.
| Centralization Metric | Relay Market (Top 3) | Builder Market (Top 3) | Threshold for 'High Risk' |
|---|---|---|---|
Dominant Market Share (30d Avg.) |
|
|
|
Censorship-Compliant Blocks (Post- OFAC) |
|
|
|
Geographic Jurisdiction Risk | USA, Germany, Finland | USA, Germany, British Virgin Islands | Single Legal Regime |
Client Diversity (Execution + Consensus) | Low (Geth + Prysm Dominant) | Extremely Low (Proprietary Tech) | High (No Client > 33%) |
Proposer-Builder Collusion Potential | |||
Block Withholding Attack Viability | |||
Time to 51% Attack (Theoretical) | < 6 months | < 3 months |
|
deep-dive
THE THREAT TO NEUTRALITY
How Vertical Integration Creates Choke Points
The consolidation of MEV extraction, sequencing, and bridging into single entities centralizes control and undermines the foundational neutrality of blockchains.
Vertical integration centralizes power. When a single entity like Flashbots controls the builder, the relay, and the proposer-builder separation (PBS) infrastructure, it dictates transaction ordering and value capture across the chain.
Choke points enable censorship. A vertically integrated sequencer for an L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism can filter transactions, creating a regulatory attack surface that contradicts the chain's permissionless promise.
MEV supply chain consolidation is the risk. The same actors running Jito validators on Solana, operating CowSwap solvers, and providing Across bridge liquidity create systemic points of failure and rent extraction.
Evidence: Over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by a handful of builders, and L2 sequencers like those on Arbitrum have unilateral power to reorder or censor transactions before batch submission.
case-study
MEV THREAT TO NEUTRALITY
Case Studies in Supply Chain Power
The MEV supply chain, dominated by a few specialized actors, is creating systemic risks that undermine the foundational promise of a neutral, permissionless execution layer.
01
The Builder Cartel Problem
~90% of Ethereum blocks are built by just three entities (Flashbots, bloXroute, beaverbuild). This centralization creates a single point of failure and censorship.\n- Risk: Builders can blacklist transactions or entire protocols.\n- Impact: Neutrality is a policy decision, not a protocol guarantee.
>90%
Block Share
~3
Dominant Builders
02
The Sealed-Bid Auction Failure
PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) relies on trust in relay integrity. The OFAC-compliance of major relays like Flashbots and bloXroute demonstrates the flaw.\n- Problem: Validators are economically forced to use censoring relays for maximal revenue.\n- Result: The supply chain enforces regulatory policy at the infrastructure layer.
99%+
OFAC-Compliant
$B+
Enforced TVL
03
Cross-Chain MEV Monopolies
Generalized cross-chain messaging protocols like LayerZero and Axelar are becoming MEV supply chain chokepoints. The sequencer of the destination chain (e.g., Ethereum) can extract value from the entire cross-chain intent.\n- Threat: Neutrality breaks when a single chain's builders control the settlement of many others.\n- Example: A Solana->Ethereum bridge transaction is vulnerable to Ethereum block builders.
10+
Chains Integrated
1
Settlement Choke Point
04
Solution: SUAVE - A Neutral Mempool
Flashbots' SUAVE aims to decentralize the MEV supply chain by creating a shared, encrypted mempool and decentralized block builder network.\n- Mechanism: Separates transaction preference (user) from execution (network).\n- Goal: Break the builder cartel by commoditizing block building and enforcing credibly neutral order flow auctions.
0
Preferred Builders
Encrypted
Flow
05
Solution: Intent-Based Architectures
Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across shift the power dynamic. Users express desired outcomes (intents), not transactions, which are fulfilled by a competitive network of solvers.\n- Neutrality: The winning solver is chosen based on best execution, not prior relationships.\n- Impact: Reduces the extractable surface for traditional searcher/builder MEV.
100+
Competing Solvers
$B+
Volume Protected
06
Solution: Enshrined PBS & Prover-Builder Separation
The long-term fix is protocol-level enforcement of neutrality. Vitalik's proposed Enshrined PBS and Prover-Builder Separation for ZK-Rollups bake anti-censorship and decentralization into the consensus layer.\n- Core Idea: The protocol, not a cartel, defines and enforces the rules of the auction.\n- Outcome: Removes the trusted relay from the critical path.
L1 Consensus
Enforcement Layer
Trustless
Relay Replacement
counter-argument
THE THREAT TO NEUTRALITY
The Rebuttal: Isn't This Just Efficient Markets?
The MEV supply chain centralizes infrastructure control, creating a systemic threat to chain neutrality that efficient markets cannot resolve.
Efficient markets require neutral rails. The MEV supply chain—from searchers to builders to relays—is a vertical stack that centralizes transaction ordering. This is not price discovery; it's infrastructure capture.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) failed. PBS was designed to separate block building from validation. In practice, builders like Flashbots SUAVE and Titan Builder dominate, creating new central points of failure.
Neutrality is a public good. Chains like Ethereum promise a neutral execution environment. When Jito Labs controls 40% of Solana blocks, the chain's rules are no longer protocol-defined but supply-chain-defined.
Evidence: The OFAC compliance of dominant relays like Flashbots Relay demonstrates how external pressure can censor transactions, bypassing the protocol's permissionless design.
future-outlook
THE THREAT
The Path Forward: Enshrining PBS and Breaking Choke Points
The current MEV supply chain centralizes control, creating systemic choke points that undermine blockchain neutrality and user sovereignty.
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) is a necessary but insufficient step. It outsources block building to a competitive market but leaves the final proposer role as a single, auctionable point of failure. This creates a centralized choke point where the highest bidder dictates transaction inclusion and ordering for the entire chain.
The MEV supply chain is consolidating. Specialized builders like Flashbots and bloXroute compete, but their output funnels through a handful of dominant relay operators. This relay oligopoly controls the critical information flow between builders and validators, creating censorship and liveness risks.
Chain neutrality is compromised when a single entity can profitably exclude transactions. The OFAC-compliant relay dominance post-Merge demonstrates this. The path forward requires enshrining PBS in-protocol to eliminate the trusted relay layer and designing credibly neutral ordering rules that resist manipulation.
takeaways
THE MEV SUPPLY CHAIN THREAT
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
The professionalization of MEV extraction is creating centralized choke points that undermine the foundational promise of decentralized networks.
01
The Problem: Sealed-Bid Auctions & Exclusive Order Flow
Builders like Jito Labs and Flashbots operate private mempools, creating a two-tiered market. This segregates users into 'dumb pipes' (public mempool) and 'VIP lanes' (private channels).
- Result: Retail trades are front-run, while institutional flow gets priority execution.
- Impact: ~80%+ of Ethereum blocks are now built by a handful of entities, centralizing block production.
80%+
Blocks Controlled
2-Tier
Market Created
02
The Solution: SUAVE - A Neutral, Chain-Agnostic Mempool
SUAVE proposes decoupling the mempool and block building from any single execution layer. It acts as a decentralized intent expression and fulfillment network.
- Mechanism: Users express preferences (price, privacy). Solvers compete to fulfill them across chains.
- Outcome: Breaks the builder monopoly, realigns incentives towards user optimality, not extractive efficiency.
Chain-Agnostic
Design
Intent-Based
Paradigm
03
The Hedge: Invest in Intent-Centric Infrastructure
The architectural shift from transaction-based to intent-based systems is inevitable. This creates massive opportunities in new primitives.
- Protocols to Watch: UniswapX (intent-based swaps), CowSwap (batch auctions), Across (intent-driven bridging).
- Builder Play: Design dApps that abstract complexity, letting users specify what they want, not how to do it.
New Primitive
Intent
$10B+
Market Potential
04
The Reality: Validator Centralization is the Root Risk
Even with perfect MEV mitigation, staking centralization (e.g., Lido, Coinbase) gives a few entities ultimate control over transaction ordering and censorship.
- Data Point: Lido commands ~33% of Ethereum stake, approaching the 'cartel' threshold.
- Implication: Chain neutrality fails if a small committee can be coerced or bribed to reorder/block transactions.
33%
Stake Concentration
Sovereign Risk
Primary Threat
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