Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Now
Smart Contract Security Audits
Learn More
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View Services
the-ethereum-roadmap-merge-surge-verge
Blog

Ethereum Proof of Stake and Censorship Resistance

The Merge transitioned Ethereum to Proof of Stake, trading energy efficiency for new, systemic censorship risks centered on MEV extraction and validator centralization. This analysis dissects the post-Merge threat model and evaluates the protocol's technical roadmap—Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS), enshrined PBS, and single-slot finality—as the necessary, long-term fixes.

introduction
THE PROTOCOL DILEMMA

The Censorship Trade-Off

Ethereum's Proof-of-Stake design creates a fundamental tension between validator profitability and network neutrality.

Validator compliance is profitable. Post-Merge, validators face direct financial incentives to comply with OFAC sanctions by censoring transactions, as non-compliance risks slashing or exclusion from dominant pools like Lido and Coinbase.

Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) externalizes this pressure. Builders like Flashbots and bloXroute compete to create the most profitable block, which often means including sanctioned transactions to maximize MEV, while the proposer remains plausibly deniable.

The threat is credible but not absolute. The Tornado Cash sanctions established a precedent, but network-level censorship requires a supermajority cartel, which the inactivity leak mechanism is designed to economically punish by devaluing their stake.

Evidence: Over 45% of post-Merge blocks were built by OFAC-compliant entities at the peak, demonstrating the economic gravity of the issue, though this figure has since declined with PBS adoption.

deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL VULNERABILITY

Anatomy of a Capture: MEV-Boost and Builder Centralization

The separation of block building and proposing in MEV-Boost created a centralization vector that directly threatens censorship resistance.

MEV-Boost's architectural flaw was the decoupling of block building from block proposing. This created a new, dominant market for professional block builders like Flashbots, Titan, and bloXroute. Validators outsourced construction to these entities to capture maximal extractable value (MEV), trading sovereignty for profit.

Builder centralization creates censorship points. A few builders control the majority of blockspace. If a dominant builder like Flashbots complies with OFAC sanctions, censored transactions face systemic exclusion from the canonical chain. The proposer's role is reduced to selecting the highest-paying header.

The protocol's economic incentives failed. Validators are rational profit-maximizers. The MEV-Boost auction makes it economically irrational for a solo validator to build its own, uncensored block when a censored, builder-produced block pays more. The system optimizes for extractable value, not liveness.

Evidence: At its peak, the top three MEV-Boost builders consistently produced over 80% of Ethereum blocks. This concentration created a single point of failure for transaction inclusion, directly contradicting the network's foundational promise of permissionlessness.

MEV-BOOST RELAY ANALYSIS

Censorship Pressure Test: OFAC Compliance Metrics

Quantifying the censorship surface in Ethereum's post-merge PBS ecosystem by analyzing MEV-Boost relay compliance with OFAC sanctions.

Metric / VectorCensoring Relays (OFAC Compliant)Neutral RelaysResilience Mechanisms

Post-Merge Block Market Share (30d Avg)

68%

32%

N/A

OFAC-Compliant Transaction Exclusion

Builder-Preferred Order Flow Source

Flashbots Protect, bloXroute Regulated

Eden, bloXroute Max Profit

Titan Builder, Rsync

Primary Censorship Risk

Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)

Relay Centralization

Proposer Soft-Consensus (e.g., MEV smoothing)

Proposer Adoption of Censoring Relays

80% of validators

<20% of validators

N/A

Post-Danksharding Projected Risk

Increases (centralized sequencing)

Decreases (PBS enshrined)

Decreases (enshrined PBS + crLists)

Active Mitigation (e.g., crLists)

Time-to-Inclusion Guarantee for OFAC tx

Unbounded (censored)

< 5 blocks

< 2 blocks (with enforcement)

counter-argument
THE PRACTICAL REALITY

Steelman: "It's Not That Bad, and Users Can Work Around It"

The censorship threat is real but overblown, as users and builders have effective, decentralized countermeasures.

The OFAC compliance rate for Ethereum blocks is high, but the network's decentralized block builder market ensures non-censored blocks are still produced. Flashbots' SUAVE and other PBS designs will further decentralize this critical layer.

Users can bypass censorship by routing transactions through private RPCs like Flashbots Protect or Taichi Network. These tools submit transactions directly to block builders, sidestepping compliant validators.

The ultimate backstop is forking. If censorship becomes systemic, the social layer will activate a user-activated soft fork (UASF) to slash non-compliant validators. This credible threat deters maximalist compliance.

Evidence: Over 99% of Ethereum blocks are OFAC-compliant, yet 100% of transactions, including sanctioned ones, are still included on-chain. The system is resilient by design.

protocol-spotlight
ETHEREUM PROOF OF STAKE & CENSORSHIP RESISTANCE

The Roadmap to Credible Neutrality: Protocol-Level Fixes

The Merge shifted the censorship vector from miners to validators, exposing new attack surfaces. These are the protocol-level upgrades required to harden the network.

01

The Problem: Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) Centralization

Without PBS, the largest staking pools control both block building and proposing, creating a single point of failure for OFAC compliance. This centralizes power in entities like Lido and Coinbase.

  • ~33% of blocks built by just two builders.
  • Builder dominance enables transaction-level censorship.
  • Threatens the network's credible neutrality guarantee.
33%
Builder Share
1
Critical Vector
02

The Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS)

Bakes PBS directly into the protocol, cleanly separating the roles of block proposing (validators) and block building (builders). This is the core Ethereum roadmap fix.

  • Removes validator's ability to censor or reorder transactions.
  • Preserves MEV-Boost benefits while decentralizing control.
  • Forces builders to compete on execution quality, not compliance.
100%
Role Separation
Post-Dencun
Timeline
03

The Problem: Weak Anti-Censorship Tools (crLists)

Current censorship resistance lists are voluntary and limited. Builders can ignore them, and they only cover transactions already in the public mempool, missing private-orderflow.

  • Ineffective against dominant, compliant builders.
  • Does not solve for exclusive order flow (e.g., Flashbots Protect).
  • A stopgap, not a protocol guarantee.
Voluntary
Enforcement
Partial
Coverage
04

The Solution: Enshrined Timely Execution & Inclusion Lists

Protocol-mandated rules that force proposers to include transactions from a pre-declared list, with slashing for non-compliance. This moves from soft social consensus to hard cryptographic enforcement.

  • Guarantees inclusion for sanctioned transactions.
  • Slashing creates a direct economic cost for censorship.
  • Final piece for credible neutrality at L1.
Slashing
Enforcement
L1 Guarantee
Outcome
05

The Problem: Staking Centralization & Geographic Risk

~70% of validators run on centralized cloud providers (AWS, Google Cloud). Geographic concentration and reliance on a few client software implementations (Prysm, Lighthouse) create systemic risk.

  • Enables infrastructure-level censorship (e.g., cloud provider mandates).
  • Single client bugs could threaten network liveness.
  • Undermines the decentralized ethos of Proof of Stake.
70%
Cloud Reliance
2
Dominant Clients
06

The Solution: Diversification via DVT & Light Clients

Decentralized Validator Technology (DVT) like Obol and SSV Network splits validator keys across nodes, reducing single-point failure. Light clients (e.g., Helios) enable trust-minimized validation on any device.

  • DVT eliminates single node/cloud provider risk.
  • Light clients democratize participation and verification.
  • Strengthens network resilience against coordinated attacks.
4+
Node Operators
Mobile
Client Target
future-outlook
THE INFRASTRUCTURE SHIFT

The Long Road to Enshrined PBS and Single-Slot Finality

Ethereum's path to censorship resistance and fast finality requires fundamental protocol changes that will reshape the builder and validator landscape.

Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) is a non-optional upgrade to neutralize MEV-driven censorship. The current PBS model via MEV-Boost outsources block building to a competitive market, but validators can still censor transactions. Enshrined PBS moves this function into the protocol, making transaction inclusion a verifiable, enforceable rule rather than a market preference.

Single-Slot Finality (SSF) eliminates the 15-minute wait for economic certainty. Today's 32-slot finalization is a security-complexity trade-off from early PoS design. SSF uses cryptographic aggregation techniques, like BLS signature schemes, to finalize blocks immediately. This transforms user experience and enables synchronous cross-chain composability without relying on probabilistic bridges like LayerZero.

The builder market consolidates ahead of enshrinement. Entities like Flashbots and bloXroute are building vertically integrated stacks (SUAVE, mev-commit) to capture value before protocol-level PBS commoditizes pure block building. The endgame is a protocol-managed auction where builders compete on execution, not their relationships with validators.

Evidence: Post-Merge, over 90% of Ethereum blocks are built via MEV-Boost relays. However, OFAC-compliant relays like Flashbots and BloXroute have built over 70% of these blocks, demonstrating the centralized censorship vector that enshrined PBS must solve.

takeaways
CENSORSHIP-RESISTANT CONSENSUS

TL;DR for Protocol Architects

Ethereum's shift to Proof of Stake redefined the threat model for transaction censorship. Here's what you need to build on.

01

The Problem: Regulated Validator Cartels

Centralized staking services (e.g., Coinbase, Lido, Kraken) control >50% of stake. Under OFAC pressure, they could censor transactions, threatening liveness and neutrality.\n- Risk: Protocol-level blacklisting becomes feasible.\n- Impact: DeFi composability and credible neutrality break.

>50%
Stake at Risk
OFAC
Primary Vector
02

The Solution: Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)

Decouples block building (searchers/MEV) from block proposing (validators). Builders compete to create the most valuable, uncensored blocks.\n- Mechanism: Proposer accepts the highest-value header via a commit-reveal scheme.\n- Outcome: Censorship becomes a competitive disadvantage, economically penalizing it.

~80%
MEV Capture
In-Protocol
EIP-4844+
03

The Enforcer: Inclusion Lists

A protocol-level fail-safe. If a builder censors, the next proposer can be forced to include specific transactions from a mempool queue.\n- Guarantee: Creates a cryptoeconomic backstop for liveness.\n- Trade-off: Adds complexity and potential latency but is non-negotiable for base-layer neutrality.

Final Layer
Defense
~12s
Max Delay
04

The Metric: Censorship Resistance Score

Measure resilience via censorship resistance and decentralization scores. Track the percentage of blocks built by OFAC-compliant entities versus neutral builders.\n- Tooling: Use EigenPhi, mevboost.pics for real-time dashboards.\n- Action: Architect protocols to fail gracefully if score drops below a critical threshold (e.g., <30% neutral blocks).

CRS
Key KPI
Real-Time
Monitoring
05

The Builder: MEV Supply Chain

Censorship resistance is outsourced to the builder market. Entities like Flashbots, bloXroute, Titan compete on block value, which includes non-censored MEV opportunities.\n- Incentive: Censoring transactions leaves MEV on the table for rivals.\n- Reality: PBS makes censorship a market failure, not just a protocol failure.

$1B+
Annual MEV
>10
Active Builders
06

The Fallback: Social Consensus Fork

The ultimate nuclear option. If censorship becomes systemic, the community can coordinate a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) to slash non-compliant validators.\n- Precedent: Used successfully in Bitcoin's SegWit activation.\n- Cost: High coordination overhead, but establishes a credible threat to malicious cartels.

UASF
Mechanism
>66%
Stake Required
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 direct pipeline