Builder market fragmentation is inevitable because the technical surface area for a general-purpose builder is now untenable. Managing MEV extraction, cross-chain intent routing, and specialized execution requires deep, non-overlapping expertise.
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog
Why The 'Builder Market' Must Fragment
The current MEV-Boost relay-builder duopoly is a temporary, unstable equilibrium. This analysis argues that economic pressure, protocol evolution, and new entrants will inevitably fragment the market into a competitive, specialized landscape.
introduction
THE INEVITABLE SPLIT
Introduction
The monolithic 'full-stack' builder model is collapsing under the weight of its own complexity, forcing a fragmentation into specialized markets.
The 'full-stack' builder is a fiction that ignores the reality of competitive specialization. A team optimizing for PBS auctions on Ethereum cannot simultaneously master intent-based routing for Solana users via Jupiter or Wormhole.
Evidence: The rise of Flashbots' SUAVE as a dedicated block-building market and Across Protocol's intent-centric architecture proves that vertical integration loses to best-in-class, modular components.
key-trends
WHY THE BUILDER MARKET MUST FRAGMENT
Executive Summary: The Pressure Points
Monolithic block builders create systemic risks and extractive economics. Fragmentation is a security and efficiency necessity.
01
The MEV Cartel Problem
Dominant builders like Flashbots and Titan control >80% of blocks, creating a single point of censorship and failure. This centralization defeats the purpose of decentralized proposer-builder separation (PBS).
- Risk: Regulatory capture or OFAC compliance becomes trivial.
- Outcome: Extractable value flows to a few entities, not the network.
>80%
Market Share
1
Point of Failure
02
The Latency Arms Race
Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) is a sub-500ms game. Monolithic builders with proprietary, centralized infrastructure create an unsustainable race to zero, locking out smaller players.
- Barrier: Requires colocation, custom hardware, and dark pools.
- Result: Innovation in fair ordering (e.g., FCFS, CowSwap) is stifled.
<500ms
MEV Window
$0
SMB Access
03
Solution: Specialized Intent Solvers
Fragmentation means builders compete on specific user intents, not raw block space. Projects like UniswapX and Across demonstrate this shift.
- Specialization: One solver for DEX routing, another for NFT liquidation.
- Efficiency: User gets better execution; network gets resilience and diversity.
10x+
More Solvers
-90%
Extraction
04
Solution: Decentralized Builder Networks
Protocols like EigenLayer and Espresso are enabling trust-minimized, distributed builder networks. No single entity controls the block assembly process.
- Mechanism: Distributed sequencing committees or shared mempools.
- Benefit: Censorship resistance returns, and MEV is redistributed to stakers.
1000+
Nodes
N/A
Censorship
05
The Regulatory Pressure Valve
A fragmented builder market is a regulatory moat. It's politically and technically infeasible to enforce rules across hundreds of independent, globally distributed solvers.
- Deterrent: Compliance complexity scales exponentially with fragmentation.
- Outcome: Preserves credible neutrality where monolithic models cannot.
Exponential
Compliance Cost
High
Neutrality
06
Economic Inevitability
Just as L1s fragmented into a modular stack (Execution: Arbitrum, Data: Celestia, Settlement: Ethereum), builders will fragment into a solver stack. It's the only way to scale beyond a $10B+ MEV market.
- Driver: Specialization drives efficiency and captures niche value flows.
- Endgame: A liquid market for block space construction, not just proposal.
$10B+
MEV Market
Modular
Architecture
thesis-statement
THE BUILDER MARKET
The Core Argument: Fragmentation is Inevitable
The market for block builders will fragment because specialized, application-specific architectures will outperform generalized ones.
Specialization beats generalization. A single, monolithic builder cannot optimize for every use case. The latency needs of a high-frequency DEX like dYdX are incompatible with the MEV resistance required for a privacy-focused protocol like Aztec.
Economic incentives drive divergence. Builders for rollups like Arbitrum will optimize for cheap, fast L1 settlement, while builders for app-chains like dYdX will architect for maximum throughput, creating fundamentally different technical stacks.
The data proves verticalization. Solana validators already run specialized clients like Jito for MEV extraction. This is a precursor to the full-stack fragmentation where the builder, sequencer, and execution client merge into a single, optimized vertical for a specific chain.
WHY THE 'BUILDER MARKET' MUST FRAGMENT
The Duopoly by the Numbers
A quantitative breakdown of the MEV-Boost builder market, comparing the dominant players to the competitive landscape required for a healthy ecosystem.
| Metric / Feature | Flashbots (Leader) | Titan Builder (Challenger) | Healthy Market Target |
|---|---|---|---|
Market Share (30-day avg) |
|
| < 20% per entity |
Censorship Compliance | |||
Avg. Block Value to Proposer | 0.1 ETH | 0.105 ETH |
|
Top-of-Block MEV Capture |
|
| < 60% |
Builder Fee (of MEV) | 0% | 0% | 5-15% (sustainable) |
Cross-Domain MEV (Ethereum → L2) | |||
RPC Endpoint for User Intents | |||
Time to Finality Impact | < 1 slot | < 1 slot | 0 slots (pre-confirmations) |
deep-dive
THE MARKET REALITY
The Three Forces of Fragmentation
The builder market is fragmenting due to technical, economic, and political forces that no single solution can reconcile.
Technical Specialization fragments execution. Rollups like Arbitrum and zkSync optimize for different trade-offs (cost vs. speed vs. privacy). A general-purpose builder cannot be optimal for all chains, creating a market for specialists like Flashbots on Ethereum and Jito on Solana.
Economic Incentives diverge. MEV extraction strategies are chain-specific. Builders for Cosmos app-chains, Polygon zkEVM, and Base have fundamentally different revenue models. A unified builder surrenders profit to more focused competitors.
Political Sovereignty demands control. Chains like Avalanche and Polkadot parachains will not cede block production to a neutral third party. This creates a sovereign builder market where chain-native teams like Helius on Solana capture value and enforce local rules.
Evidence: The proliferation of over 50 active rollups and app-chains has already spawned dedicated infrastructure firms like Conduit and Caldera, proving the market rejects a one-size-fits-all builder.
risk-analysis
WHY THE 'BUILDER MARKET' MUST FRAGMENT
The Bear Case: What Could Sustain the Duopoly?
The centralization of block building on Ethereum into a few dominant players like Flashbots and bloXroute creates systemic risks. Here are the structural forces that could prevent fragmentation and the countervailing pressures that will break them.
01
The MEV Cartel Defense
Established builders and searchers form a self-reinforcing cartel. New entrants face a cold-start problem with no order flow, while incumbents use their profits to subsidize services like free RPCs to capture more flow.\n- Network Effects: Searcher algorithms are optimized for incumbent builders.\n- Economic Moats: $100M+ in annual MEV revenue funds defensive moats.
>80%
Market Share
$100M+
Annual Revenue
02
The Relayer-Builder Vertical Integration
Major applications integrate directly with specific builders to guarantee inclusion, creating walled gardens. UniswapX with its Dutch auction model and CowSwap with its solver network are prime examples. This bypasses the open market.\n- Guaranteed Liquidity: Apps trade open competition for execution certainty.\n- Fragmented Liquidity: Harms the public mempool and smaller builders.
~50%
OF Share
Walled
Gardens
03
The Infrastructure Inertia
The technical and operational complexity of running a competitive builder is immense. It requires sub-500ms latency, massive data pipelines, and sophisticated MEV algorithms. This creates a high barrier to entry.\n- Capital Intensity: Requires significant upfront investment in low-latency infrastructure.\n- Talent Scarcity: Few teams possess the cross-domain expertise in networking, finance, and cryptography.
<500ms
Latency
High
Capex
04
The Regulatory Shield
Increased regulatory scrutiny on OFAC compliance and sanctions screening favors large, well-capitalized entities that can implement complex legal and compliance frameworks. This acts as a regulatory moat.\n- Compliance Overhead: KYC/AML for searchers and order flow is a fixed cost.\n- Centralization Pressure: Regulation inadvertently enforces the duopoly.
OFAC
Compliance
High
Fixed Cost
05
The Cross-Chain Monoliths
Cross-chain messaging protocols like LayerZero and Axelar are becoming major sources of cross-domain MEV and intent flow. Their default integrations and liquidity partnerships with large builders centralize a new, fast-growing order flow segment.\n- Default Settings: Most dApps use the bridge's recommended relayer/builder setup.\n- Captive Flow: Native cross-chain arbitrage is captured at the source.
New
MEV Vector
Captive
Order Flow
06
The Solution: Protocol-Enforced Fragmentation
The counter-force is protocol-level design. Ethereum's PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) is incomplete without crLists and a credible decentralized builder network. SUAVE aims to be a universal mempool and decentralized block builder.\n- Credible Neutrality: Protocol rules, not corporate policy, enforce fairness.\n- Modular Specialization: Separates ordering, execution, and data availability.
PBS
Ethereum Roadmap
SUAVE
Counter-Force
future-outlook
THE INEVITABLE FRAGMENTATION
The Fragmented Future: A Landscape of Specialists
The 'builder market' will fragment into specialized protocols because general-purpose architectures cannot optimize for every user intent.
Monolithic architectures are obsolete. A single protocol like a general-purpose rollup cannot simultaneously optimize for low-latency gaming, cheap stablecoin transfers, and complex DeFi arbitrage. Each use case demands a different execution environment and data availability trade-off.
Specialization drives efficiency. Protocols like dYdX (perps) and Immutable (gaming) forked their own chains to own the full stack. This fragmentation is a feature, not a bug, creating a competitive market for block space where users route intents to the optimal specialist.
The L2/L3 narrative proves this. Base and zkSync Era compete for general apps, while dedicated chains like Aevo for derivatives emerge. This is the application-specific rollup thesis in practice, where fragmentation reduces consensus overhead for targeted workloads.
Evidence: The rise of Celestia for modular data availability and EigenLayer for shared security provides the economic substrate for this fragmentation, enabling thousands of cost-optimized, special-purpose chains.
takeaways
WHY THE BUILDER MARKET MUST FRAGMENT
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The centralized MEV supply chain is a systemic risk; fragmentation is a feature, not a bug.
01
The Problem: PBS Creates a Single Point of Failure
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) centralizes power in a few dominant builders (e.g., Flashbots, Titan, bloXroute). This creates censorship vectors and exposes the network to regulatory capture.\n- >90% of Ethereum blocks are built by a handful of entities.\n- Reliance on centralized relays is antithetical to credible neutrality.
>90%
Centralization
1
Critical Vector
02
The Solution: Intent-Based & Shared Sequencing
Fragmentation shifts power from centralized builders to users and specialized solvers. Architect for intent-based flows (UniswapX, CowSwap) and shared sequencers (Espresso, Astria).\n- Users express what they want, not how to do it.\n- Solvers compete on execution, breaking builder monopolies.
100+
Solver Pool
-70%
Extractable Value
03
The Catalyst: Modular & App-Chain Demand
Rollups and app-chains (dYdX, Arbitrum Orbit) will not outsource their critical sequencing layer. They require sovereign, high-throughput execution environments.\n- Each chain becomes its own mini-builder market.\n- Drives demand for specialized sequencer stacks (e.g., Sovereign SDK, Rollkit).
$10B+
Sovereign TVL
~500ms
Latency Floor
04
The Mechanism: MEV-Boost++ & SUAVE
The next generation of PBS protocols actively enforces fragmentation. MEV-Boost++ decentralizes relays, while SUAVE creates a decentralized, cross-chain block building market.\n- Separates consensus from execution markets entirely.\n- Enables permissionless, competitive builder networks.
0
Trusted Relay
10x
Market Options
05
The Risk: Liquidity Fragmentation
Fragmented builders and sequencers can lead to fragmented liquidity, increasing slippage and harming UX. This is the core trade-off.\n- Requires robust cross-domain communication (LayerZero, Hyperlane, Across).\n- Drives innovation in shared liquidity layers (e.g., Chainlink CCIP, Circle CCTP).
+30%
Slippage Risk
$5B+
Bridge TVL
06
The Outcome: Specialized Vertical Builders
The end-state is not a single winner, but a landscape of vertical specialists: DeFi builders, NFT builders, Gaming builders. Each optimizes for specific user intents and state transitions.\n- Jito for Solana MEV.\n- EigenLayer for restaking-backed sequencing.
50+
Vertical Stacks
1000x
Txn Diversity
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