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.
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.
The Censorship Trade-Off
Ethereum's Proof-of-Stake design creates a fundamental tension between validator profitability and network neutrality.
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.
The Post-Merge Censorship Landscape
Ethereum's shift to Proof of Stake redefined censorship vectors, moving the attack surface from miners to validators and block builders.
The Problem: OFAC-Compliant Block Building
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) outsources block construction to specialized builders like Flashbots. The dominant builder, mev-boost, has shown compliance with OFAC sanctions, filtering transactions from the Tornado Cash address list. This creates a centralized point of censorship.
- ~90% of blocks were OFAC-compliant at peak compliance.
- Relies on the honesty of a single relay majority.
- Threatens Ethereum's credible neutrality.
The Solution: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS)
A protocol-level upgrade to formalize PBS, removing trust from off-chain relays. It cryptographically enforces the builder's payment to the proposer, making censorship unprofitable and technically unenforceable at the consensus layer.
- Eliminates relay trust assumption.
- Aligns economic incentives against censorship.
- Long-term fix requiring a hard fork, part of the Ethereum roadmap.
The Workaround: Censorship-Resistant Order Flow
Applications bypass compliant mempools by routing transactions directly to resistant builders or using privacy-preserving layers. Flashbots Protect RPC, Taichi Network, and BloxRoute's Max Profit relay offer non-censoring entry points.
- Directs user transactions to non-compliant builders.
- Preserves access for sanctioned addresses like Tornado Cash.
- Interim solution while protocol upgrades are developed.
The Metric: Inclusion Lists
A proposed short-to-medium term mitigation where validators can cryptographically commit to including certain transactions. If a builder's proposed block excludes them, the validator can force their inclusion via a consensus rule, breaking builder censorship.
- Builder-agnostic censorship resistance.
- Leverages validator decentralization (~1M validators).
- Simpler to implement than full ePBS, part of the Prague/Electra upgrade.
The Economic Attack: Staking Pool Centralization
Large staking providers like Lido and Coinbase represent centralized decision points. Regulatory pressure could force them to censor, creating a >33% censorship cartel risk. This is a social and legal layer problem, not a technical one.
- Lido commands ~32% of staked ETH.
- Threat of slashing for non-compliance is unclear.
- Undermines the decentralized validator set assumption.
The Reality: Client Diversity as a Defense
Censorship resistance ultimately depends on the minority of validators running non-compliant software. If Geth dominance (>75% share) enables client-level censorship, minority clients like Nethermind, Besu, and Erigon become critical for network health.
- Geth client dominance is a systemic risk.
- Minority clients must be viable and profitable to run.
- A client diversity crisis weakens all anti-censorship measures.
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.
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 / Vector | Censoring Relays (OFAC Compliant) | Neutral Relays | Resilience 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 |
| <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) |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.