Centralized block builders like Flashbots' mev-boost create a strategic bottleneck. They are the sole arbiters of transaction ordering, forcing all complex execution logic through a single, opaque channel.
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog
The Cost of Centralized Block Building for Execution Strategies
Execution strategies rely on neutral block building. The dominance of centralized builders like bloXroute creates systemic risks: censorship, MEV extraction, and single points of failure that undermine DeFi's core promises.
introduction
THE BOTTLENECK
Introduction
Centralized block building creates a single point of failure and cost for advanced execution strategies.
This architecture imposes a tax on cross-domain arbitrage and sophisticated intent settlement. Strategies that require coordination across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon must be simplified or pay exorbitant fees to the builder.
The result is suboptimal execution for users and protocols. Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap, designed for intent-based matching, lose efficiency when their complex orders are forced into a builder's simple block template.
Evidence: Over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by five entities. This concentration directly increases the cost and reduces the feasibility of multi-domain MEV strategies.
thesis-statement
THE BUILDER MONOPOLY
The Centralization Thesis
Centralized block building creates a single point of failure and rent extraction that directly undermines the economic viability of on-chain execution strategies.
Centralized block building is a tax on all on-chain activity. The dominant builder market share held by entities like Flashbots' SUAVE and Jito Labs creates a single point of failure for transaction ordering and MEV extraction.
Execution strategies become predictable and thus less profitable. When a handful of builders control the flow, complex strategies from protocols like UniswapX or CowSwap are front-run before they reach the public mempool.
The cost is not just fees, but censorship. A centralized builder can exclude transactions, making permissionless execution an illusion. This directly contradicts the core value proposition of systems like EigenLayer and Across Protocol.
Evidence: Post-Merge, over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by a centralized relay-builder cartel. This concentration forces protocols to either pay the tax or see their user transactions fail.
key-trends
THE COST OF CENTRALIZED BLOCK BUILDING
The Centralization Landscape: Key Trends
The MEV supply chain's reliance on a few dominant builders creates systemic risks and extractive inefficiencies for execution strategies.
01
The Problem: Extractive Order Flow Auctions
Relayers like Flashbots Protect and BloXroute auction user transactions to the highest-bidding builder, creating a tax on user value. This process is opaque and often fails to return maximal value to the user.
- ~80-90% of Ethereum blocks are built by just 3-5 entities.
- Users pay an implicit 'MEV tax' on swaps and liquidations.
- Strategy profitability is gated by access to private order flow.
80-90%
Builder Dominance
MEV Tax
Hidden Cost
02
The Solution: Permissionless Builder Networks
03
The Problem: Strategy Fragility to Censorship
Centralized builders can be compelled by regulators to censor transactions (e.g., OFAC sanctions), breaking critical DeFi functions like stablecoin redemptions or oracle updates.
- Creates single points of failure for the entire ecosystem.
- MakerDAO and Aave strategies are vulnerable to blocked liquidation transactions.
- Undermines the core credo of permissionless finance.
OFAC
Compliance Risk
High
Systemic Risk
04
The Solution: SUAVE - A Decentralized Block Builder
Flashbots' SUAVE aims to decentralize the entire MEV supply chain by creating a specialized chain for preference expression and block building. It turns users and searchers into the network's economic core.
- Decouples execution from consensus layers.
- Returns MEV profits directly to users and searchers.
- Provides a universal preference environment for cross-chain intent settlement.
Decoupled
Execution Layer
User-Aligned
Value Capture
05
The Problem: Latency Arms Race & Infrastructure Moats
The competition for MEV has spawned a latency arms race, privileging builders with proprietary infrastructure (e.g., Coinbase's Base sequencing, Jump Crypto). This creates an insurmountable moat for new entrants.
- Requires colocation and custom hardware, costing millions.
- Centralizes technical expertise and capital.
- ~100ms advantages can determine >50% of high-value arbitrage opportunities.
100ms
Latency Edge
$M+
Entry Cost
06
The Solution: Intents & Shared Sequencing
Intent-based architectures (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap, Across) and shared sequencers (e.g., Astria, Espresso) abstract away the block building layer. Users submit desired outcomes, not transactions, leveling the playing field.
- Shifts competition from latency to solver algorithm quality.
- Enables cross-domain MEV capture via LayerZero and Chainlink CCIP.
- Drastically reduces the value of proprietary infrastructure moats.
Outcome-Based
Execution
Leveled
Playing Field
THE COST OF CENTRALIZED BLOCK BUILDING
Builder Market Share & Risk Profile
Comparing the market dominance, economic incentives, and systemic risks of the top three centralized block builders.
| Metric / Risk Vector | Flashbots (MEV-Boost) | Titan Builder (bloXroute) | beaverbuild (Beaver Build) |
|---|---|---|---|
Relay Market Share (30d avg) | 45.2% | 21.8% | 9.1% |
Proposer Payment Premium (vs. local) |
|
|
|
Censorship Resistance | |||
Supports MEV-Share / Orderflow Auctions | |||
Builder Fee (bps of block value) | 0-10 bps | 5-15 bps | 0-5 bps |
Relay Infrastructure Centralization Risk | High (Single AWS region) | Medium (Multi-cloud) | Medium (Multi-cloud) |
Top-of-Block Extractable Value (Theft) Risk | Low (Code audited, dominant position) | Medium | High (Newer, less proven) |
Time to Finality Impact (vs. ideal) | < 0.5s | < 1.0s | < 0.8s |
deep-dive
THE EXECUTION LEAK
The Real Cost: Censorship, Extraction, and Failure
Centralized block building creates systemic risks that directly undermine the value propositions of decentralized execution layers.
Censorship is structural. A dominant builder like Flashbots or bloXroute controls transaction ordering, enabling blacklisting of sanctioned addresses or protocols. This violates the permissionless access that defines Ethereum and its L2s.
MEV extraction is maximized. Builders optimize for their own profit, not user outcomes. This creates a principal-agent conflict where the entity constructing your block profits from your failed trades and sandwich attacks.
Reliability is a single point of failure. The builder market is concentrated. If a major builder like Flashbots or bloXroute goes offline, block production stalls, degrading network liveness and user experience.
Evidence: Post-Merge, over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built by a handful of entities. This centralization directly enables the censorship of OFAC-sanctioned transactions, a practice now routine.
counter-argument
THE DATA
The Steelman: Efficiency Requires Centralization
Centralized block building is the dominant, efficient model for advanced execution strategies, creating a structural advantage for large searcher-builders.
Centralized block building wins because it provides a single, global view of the mempool. This allows builders like Flashbots SUAVE or Jito to optimize MEV extraction and transaction ordering across the entire block, a task impossible for distributed validators.
Complex execution strategies require coordination that decentralization prohibits. Cross-domain arbitrage between Uniswap on Ethereum and PancakeSwap on BSC demands atomic execution, which a centralized builder with its own intent-based bridge like Across can guarantee, but a committee cannot.
The data proves centralization's dominance. Over 90% of Ethereum blocks post-Merge are built by a handful of professional builders. This concentration is not a bug but a feature of maximal extractable value (MEV) optimization, where speed and information asymmetry are the only competitive edges.
risk-analysis
THE COST OF CENTRALIZED BLOCK BUILDING
Risk Analysis: What Could Go Wrong?
Execution strategies reliant on centralized builders create systemic risks beyond simple MEV extraction.
01
The Censorship Vector
A dominant builder can blacklist transactions, effectively imposing OFAC compliance on the entire chain. This undermines credible neutrality and creates a single point of failure for transaction inclusion.\n- ~90%+ of blocks on Ethereum are built by a handful of entities.\n- 0-confirmation censorship is possible via private mempools like bloxroute.
90%+
Builder Dominance
0-conf
Censorship Latency
02
The Economic Capture Spiral
Centralized builders create a feedback loop where searchers and protocols optimize for their specific auction, cementing their dominance. This stifles competition and innovation in execution.\n- Searchers pay >80% of bid value to builders as priority fees.\n- Creates a moat that disincentivizes decentralized builders like flashbots-suave.
>80%
Fee Leakage
High
Barrier to Entry
03
The Liveness & Latency Trap
Dependence on a centralized builder's infrastructure introduces a critical liveness risk. If their relays or APIs fail, the strategy's execution fails.\n- Single-digit second downtime can cause massive liquidations in DeFi.\n- Creates a tight coupling risk, as seen in eigenlayer restaking and cross-chain messaging via layerzero.
<5s
Failure Impact
High
Systemic Coupling
04
The MEV Supply Chain Monopoly
Centralized builders vertically integrate the MEV supply chain, controlling search, bundling, and block production. This centralizes the most profitable layer of the blockchain.\n- $1B+ in annual MEV is extracted and controlled by a few players.\n- Reduces the effectiveness of PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) by creating builder cartels.
$1B+
Annual MEV
Cartel Risk
PBS Failure
05
The Protocol Governance Attack
A dominant builder can manipulate governance outcomes by frontrunning or censoring proposal transactions. This turns economic power into direct political control over DAOs.\n- Can swing votes by controlling timing and inclusion of governance txs.\n- A direct threat to protocols like uniswap, aave, and makerdao.
Critical
DAO Risk
Timing Attack
Attack Vector
06
The Cross-Chain Contagion Risk
Centralized builders on one chain (e.g., Ethereum) become critical infrastructure for cross-chain intent systems like uniswapx and across. Their failure disrupts liquidity and settlement across the ecosystem.\n- $10B+ in cross-chain TVL depends on fast, reliable execution.\n- Creates a single point of failure for the modular stack and shared sequencers.
$10B+
TVL at Risk
Ecosystem-Wide
Failure Scope
future-outlook
THE COST
The Path Forward: Decentralized Execution
Centralized block building creates systemic MEV extraction and censorship risks that undermine execution quality for end users.
Centralized builders extract value. A single entity controlling block production, like Flashbots' dominant builder, internalizes all MEV. This creates a principal-agent problem where the builder's profit motive directly conflicts with user execution quality.
Decentralization requires credible neutrality. The proposer-builder separation (PBS) model, as implemented by Ethereum, is insufficient alone. Without a decentralized builder marketplace, proposers have no competitive alternatives, leading to censorship and rent-seeking.
The solution is permissionless competition. Protocols like SUAVE and Astria are building decentralized block-building networks. These systems force builders to compete on execution quality, returning MEV profits to users through mechanisms like order flow auctions.
Evidence: Flashbots' builder commands over 90% of Ethereum blocks post-merge. This centralization directly enables time-bandit attacks and regulatory compliance at the protocol level, which a decentralized builder set mitigates.
takeaways
THE COST OF CENTRALIZED BLOCK BUILDING
Key Takeaways for Builders & Strategists
Centralized block production creates systemic risks and hidden costs that directly impact execution strategy profitability and protocol security.
01
The MEV Cartel Problem
Dominant builders like Flashbots and BloXroute control >80% of Ethereum blocks, creating a de facto cartel. This centralization allows them to extract maximum value, pushing costs onto end-users and protocols.
- Hidden Tax: Searcher competition for priority access inflates gas costs.
- Censorship Risk: Builders can exclude transactions, threatening protocol neutrality.
- Strategy Leakage: Complex strategies are visible to a small group, leading to front-running.
>80%
Market Share
+30%
Gas Premium
02
Solution: Permissionless Builder Networks
Decentralized builder networks like EigenLayer's EigenDA for PBS and SUAVE break the cartel by commoditizing block space construction.
- Level Playing Field: Any searcher can submit bundles, increasing competition.
- Censorship Resistance: Distributed block building enforces transaction inclusion.
- Cost Reduction: Increased builder competition lowers the premium for block space.
10x+
More Builders
-40%
Extractable Value
03
The Latency Arms Race
Centralization incentivizes a wasteful infrastructure arms race. Builders invest millions in proximity to validators and custom hardware (FPGAs/ASICs) to shave milliseconds, a cost passed to users.
- Barrier to Entry: High capital costs lock out smaller players.
- Inefficient Allocation: Resources optimize for speed, not network health.
- Fragile System: Reliance on a few data centers creates a single point of failure.
~100ms
Latency Edge
$10M+
Infra Cost
04
Solution: Intents & Shared Sequencing
Shift from transaction execution to intent-based architectures (UniswapX, CowSwap) and shared sequencers (like those proposed for rollups). Users submit desired outcomes, not transactions, moving competition from latency to solving.
- MEV Absorption: Solvers internalize and compete away value, returning it to users.
- Reduced Latency Sensitivity: The race shifts from milliseconds to optimization algorithms.
- Better UX: Users get guaranteed execution at better prices without managing gas.
95%+
Fill Rate
Best Price
Execution Guarantee
05
Protocols as MEV Sinks
Protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound are passive liquidity pools that dominant builders exploit. Their TVL is a target for extractive strategies like liquidations and arbitrage, undermining long-term sustainability.
- Value Leakage: Protocol revenue is cannibalized by external MEV.
- User Alienation: Extractive activity (e.g., sandwich attacks) drives users away.
- Security Dependency: Relies on builder benevolence for fair liquidation.
$10B+
TVL at Risk
5-15%
Revenue Leak
06
Solution: In-House MEV Capture & Distribution
Forward-thinking protocols are building native MEV strategies. Examples include MEV-Share for private order flow, Flashbots SUAVE for trustless auctions, and Chainlink's Fair Sequencing Services.
- Revenue Recapture: Protocols capture and redistribute extracted value to stakeholders.
- Fair Execution: Users are protected from predatory strategies.
- Strategic Advantage: Becomes a feature for attracting and retaining liquidity.
+20%
Protocol Revenue
0%
Sandwich Risk
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