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
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog

Why Builder Centralization Threatens Ethereum's Core Values

The enmeshment of a few dominant builders with proposers creates a de facto cartel that can censor transactions and extract maximal value, undermining the network's foundational principles.

introduction
THE THREAT

Introduction

The concentration of block production in a few professional builders is a direct attack on Ethereum's foundational principles of decentralization and censorship-resistance.

Builder centralization breaks neutrality. The Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) model, designed to distribute power, has instead created a cartel of dominant builders like Flashbots and bloXroute. These entities control the ordering of transactions, enabling Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) capture and creating a privileged financial layer.

Censorship is now a protocol-level risk. Following OFAC sanctions, compliant builders like Flashbots and Relayooor systematically excluded Tornado Cash transactions. This demonstrated that a handful of entities can enforce blacklists, undermining Ethereum's credibly neutral base layer.

The economic model is broken. The pay-to-play auction for block space favors sophisticated, capital-rich actors. This creates a feedback loop where centralized builders capture more MEV, reinvest in infrastructure, and further entrench their dominance, sidelining solo validators.

deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH

The Slippery Slope: From Efficiency to Control

The economic logic of MEV extraction structurally centralizes block building, creating a silent auction for chain control.

Builder centralization is inevitable under the current PBS model. The proposer-builder separation (PBS) framework outsources block construction to specialized entities that compete to deliver the most valuable block to a validator. This creates a winner-take-most market where scale and data access determine profitability, leading to the dominance of a few builders like Flashbots' SUAVE and Jito Labs.

Control follows economic logic. The entity that assembles the block dictates transaction ordering and inclusion. This block-building monopoly grants de facto censorship power, enabling builders to exclude transactions from protocols like Tornado Cash or prioritize their own private orderflow from searchers. Validators, incentivized by maximal revenue, become passive rubber stamps.

Ethereum's credibly neutral base layer is compromised. The network's foundational promise was a level playing field. Concentrated builder power reintroduces trusted intermediaries, allowing a small cabal to manipulate DeFi arbitrage opportunities on Uniswap or Aave, effectively taxing all users. This is the antithesis of permissionless innovation.

Evidence: Flashbots' mev-boost relay has consistently commanded over 90% of post-merge Ethereum blocks. This demonstrates the extreme centralization pressure in builder markets, where a single entity's software stack becomes the de facto standard.

CENTRALIZATION RISK ANALYSIS

Builder Market Share & Influence (Last 30 Days)

Comparison of top builders by market share, censorship resistance, and influence over Ethereum block production.

MetricFlashbots (SUAVE)Titan Builderbeaverbuild.orgrsync-builder

Market Share of Blocks Built

31.5%

20.1%

10.8%

8.3%

Top 3 Builder Concentration

62.4%

62.4%

62.4%

62.4%

Censorship Compliance (OFAC)

Avg. MEV Extracted per Block

$0.85

$0.72

$0.41

$0.38

Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) Reliance

Time to First Bundle Inclusion

< 1 sec

< 2 sec

< 3 sec

< 5 sec

Dominant Relay Used

Flashbots Relay

Titan Relay

bloxroute Max Profit

Agnostic (Multiple)

counter-argument
THE MISMATCH

Steelman: Isn't This Just Efficient Market Making?

Builder centralization is not market efficiency; it is a structural failure that commoditizes the base layer and privatizes value.

Builder centralization is market failure. The efficient market hypothesis assumes many independent actors. The builder market has collapsed to a few entities like Flashbots and Jito Labs, creating an oligopoly that extracts maximal value from users.

Ethereum commoditizes, builders privatize. The base layer's credible neutrality is a public good. Builders privatize this value by controlling transaction ordering, turning a permissionless system into a pay-to-play auction for MEV.

Evidence: MEV-Boost dominance. Over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built via MEV-Boost relays. This creates systemic risk where a handful of entities, not the protocol, dictate transaction finality and censorship resistance.

risk-analysis
THREAT ANALYSIS

Concrete Risks of a Builder Cartel

The dominance of a few centralized builders like Flashbots and bloXroute threatens Ethereum's foundational principles of neutrality and credible neutrality.

01

Censorship as a Service

Builders can systematically exclude transactions from OFAC-sanctioned addresses or competing protocols. This turns block space into a political tool, violating Ethereum's neutrality.

  • Real-world impact: ~50% of post-Merge blocks were built by OFAC-compliant entities.
  • Network effect: Censorship becomes the default as relays and RPC providers integrate with dominant builders.
~50%
OFAC Blocks
1
Policy Change Away
02

Extractable Value Centralization

A cartel can internalize MEV, creating a closed-loop system that starves validators and users. This centralizes the most profitable layer of the stack.

  • Revenue siphon: Top builders capture >80% of MEV via private orderflows and exclusive deals.
  • Stake centralization: Large staking pools are incentivized to delegate to the highest-revenue builder, creating a feedback loop.
>80%
MEV Capture
Feedback Loop
Risk
03

The Single Point of Failure

Reliance on a handful of builder APIs (e.g., Flashbots' mev-boost) creates systemic risk. An outage or exploit at one builder can destabilize the entire chain.

  • Latency arms race: Builders like bloXroute invest millions in sub-100ms infrastructure, creating barriers to entry.
  • Collusion surface: Cartel members can coordinate to manipulate auctions, undermining PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation).
Sub-100ms
Barrier to Entry
Systemic
Risk
04

Protocol Integrity Erosion

Builder logic becomes a de-facto protocol upgrade. Changes to transaction ordering or inclusion rules made off-chain by builders (e.g., via SUAVE) bypass Ethereum's governance.

  • Sovereignty loss: Core protocol values like fair ordering are outsourced to opaque, profit-driven entities.
  • Fork risk: If the builder cartel enforces rules the community rejects, it could force a contentious chain split.
Off-Chain
Governance
Chain Split
Potential
05

The L2 Capture Problem

Major rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) often default to the same centralized builder stack for sequencing. This exports Ethereum's centralization risk to its scaling layer.

  • Cross-chain MEV: Builders can exploit arbitrage across L1 and L2s they control, extracting value from the entire ecosystem.
  • Interoperability risk: A builder cartel could delay or censor cross-chain messages from competing bridges like LayerZero or Across.
Stack Reuse
Risk Vector
Cross-Chain
MEV
06

Economic Stagnation & Innovation Killzone

A cartel's control over block space allocation stifles new entrants. They can prioritize their own affiliated applications (e.g., a builder's own DEX) or suppress novel transaction types.

  • Killzone effect: Emerging DeFi primitives like CowSwap's batch auctions or UniswapX's fillers can be disadvantaged.
  • Rent extraction: The cartel becomes a tax on all economic activity, reducing the net value captured by developers and users.
Tax on Activity
Result
Innovation
Suppressed
future-outlook
THE BUILDER PROBLEM

The Path Forward: Can Ethereum Decentralize Again?

The centralization of block building in a few hands directly undermines Ethereum's censorship resistance and credible neutrality.

Builder centralization is censorship risk. The dominance of a few builders like Flashbots and bloXroute creates a single point of failure. A state-level actor or colluding cartel can censor transactions by controlling these entities, breaking Ethereum's core promise.

MEV extraction erodes neutrality. Builders prioritize profit, not fairness. This creates a two-tiered system where users paying for private order flow via services like Tornado Cash or CoW Swap receive better execution, violating the principle of equal access.

Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) is the designed fix. PBS formally separates the role of block proposal (validators) from block building (specialized entities). This prevents validators from seeing transaction order, mitigating centralization pressure and censorship.

In-protocol PBS is years away. Current implementations like mev-boost are off-protocol, creating a fragile, trusted relay layer. The delay in enshrining PBS in the protocol leaves the network vulnerable to the exact centralization it aims to solve.

takeaways
THE MEV-TO-CENSORSHIP PIPELINE

TL;DR for Protocol Architects

Builder centralization isn't just about efficiency; it's a direct threat to Ethereum's credible neutrality and permissionless access.

01

The Problem: The Builder Monopoly

A handful of builders like Flashbots' SUAVE-aligned entities and bloXroute dominate block production, controlling >80% of blocks. This creates a single point of failure for censorship and value extraction.\n- Centralized Order Flow: Relayers and searchers are forced to route through dominant builders.\n- Protocol Capture: MEV-Boost's design inadvertently incentivizes this consolidation.

>80%
Blocks Controlled
1-3
Dominant Builders
02

The Consequence: Censorship-Enabling Cartels

Centralized builders can and do implement OFAC compliance, creating a de facto blacklist at the protocol layer. This violates Ethereum's core value of credible neutrality.\n- Slippery Slope: Today it's OFAC, tomorrow it's arbitrary criteria.\n- Staking Risk: Major staking pools like Lido and Coinbase are pressured to use censoring builders.

OFAC
Compliance Layer
Credible Neutrality
Threatened
03

The Solution: PBS & In-Protocol Enforcement

The endgame is Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) enshrined in-protocol, not outsourced to MEV-Boost. This formally separates block building from proposing, enforcing permissionless access.\n- Enshrined PBS: Builds censorship resistance directly into the consensus layer.\n- SUAVE's Role: Aims to decentralize the builder market, but its success is not guaranteed.

PBS
Endgame
MEV-Boost
Interim Risk
04

The Action: Build for Decentralized Block Building

Architects must design protocols that distribute block building power. This means investing in decentralized sequencers, fair ordering, and permissionless builder networks.\n- Force Multipliers: Support EigenLayer AVSs for decentralized sequencing or Espresso Systems for shared sequencing.\n- Direct Challenge: Build alternatives that undercut the centralized builder cartel on cost and latency.

EigenLayer
AVS Leverage
Fair Ordering
Design Goal
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
Builder Centralization: Ethereum's MEV Cartel Threat | ChainScore Blog