Bundler competition is permissionless. Anyone can run a bundler with standard hardware, unlike block builders that require capital-intensive MEV infrastructure and validator staking.
wallet-wars-smart-accounts-vs-embedded-wallets
Blog
Why the Bundler Market Will Be More Competitive Than the Block Builder Market
Block builders compete on a single, homogenous objective: maximal extractable value (MEV). Bundlers must optimize for individual user intents, creating a landscape of specialized, fragmented competition where user-specific metrics like latency, cost, and MEV return define winners.
introduction
THE COMPETITION FRONTIER
Introduction
Bundlers will face more intense competition than block builders due to lower barriers to entry and a direct, user-driven market.
User choice drives bundler markets. Wallets like Rabby and Safe will integrate bundler selection, creating a liquid market for inclusion. Block production is a sealed-bid auction.
Revenue is fragmented. A bundler's fee is a tiny slice of a single transaction. A block builder captures the MEV of an entire block, incentivizing centralization for scale.
Evidence: The PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) model on Ethereum has ~3 dominant builders. The Ethereum Foundation's ERC-4337 standard ensures any client can be a bundler.
key-trends
WHY BUNDLERS WILL OUTCOMPETE BUILDERS
The Core Asymmetry: Homogenous vs. Heterogeneous Optimization
Block builders optimize for a single, homogenous metric: maximal extractable value (MEV). Bundlers optimize for a heterogeneous set of user intents, creating a more fragmented and competitive market.
01
The Problem: Homogenous Optimization (Builders)
Block builders compete on a single, winner-take-all dimension: maximizing MEV per slot. This leads to centralization around the most sophisticated searcher strategies and private order flows.
- Single KPI: Revenue per block is the only metric.
- Natural Monopoly: Scale in data and capital creates unbeatable moats.
- Result: Market is dominated by a few entities like Flashbots, bloXroute, and Titan.
>90%
Builder Dominance
1
Primary KPI
02
The Solution: Heterogeneous Optimization (Bundlers)
Bundlers serve user intents, which are diverse and non-fungible. Success requires optimizing across multiple dimensions beyond pure profit.
- Multi-KPI Competition: Speed (latency), cost (fee efficiency), UX, and access to specialized liquidity (e.g., UniswapX, Across).
- Fragmented Demand: A user swapping tokens has different needs than one minting an NFT, preventing a one-size-fits-all winner.
- Result: Niche bundlers can thrive by specializing in specific intents or chains.
5+
Competitive Axes
~500ms
Latency Target
03
The Barrier: No Natural Monopoly
A builder's advantage compounds with exclusive order flow and capital. A bundler's advantages are software-based and easier to replicate.
- No Exclusive Flow: User intents are permissionless; any bundler can submit to the EntryPoint.
- Commoditized Tech: Core bundling logic is open source; competition shifts to RPC performance, aggregation algorithms, and stake efficiency.
- Result: The market will resemble cloud providers or CDNs, not mining pools.
Low
Switching Cost
High
Copycat Speed
04
The Proof: Intent-Based Architecture
Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and 1inch Fusion already demonstrate this dynamic. They separate order solving (competitive market) from execution (commoditized).
- Solvers Compete: Dozens of solvers bid to fulfill a user's intent optimally.
- Bundlers as Solvers: In ERC-4337, bundlers are the solvers for generalized user operations.
- Result: The winning bundler is context-dependent, not permanently dominant.
50+
Active Solvers
ERC-4337
Standardized
MARKET STRUCTURE ANALYSIS
Builder vs. Bundler: A First-Principles Comparison
A first-principles breakdown comparing the economic and technical moats of block builders and user operation bundlers, explaining why the bundler market will be more competitive.
| Core Feature / Constraint | Block Builder (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE) | User Operation Bundler (e.g., Pimlico, Alchemy, Stackup) | Why It Matters for Competition |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Economic Moat | Exclusive MEV extraction via orderflow | Relayer fee on user operations | Builder moat is a high-value, winner-take-most game. Bundler fee is a thin-margin, high-volume service. |
Capital Requirement |
| 0.1 - 1 ETH for gas prepayment | High capital barrier for builders creates oligopoly. Low capital for bundlers enables many entrants. |
Technical Barrier | Sophisticated MEV search & block simulation | Standardized EIP-4337 smart account integration | Builder tech is a defensible R&D edge. Bundler tech is becoming commoditized infrastructure. |
Client Diversity | Requires proprietary, optimized execution client | Can use any standard Ethereum execution client | Builder software is a moat. Bundler software is open-source and interoperable. |
Revenue per Unit | $100s - $1000s per block (MEV + priority fees) | $0.01 - $0.50 per user operation (fee markup) | Builder revenue attracts concentrated competition. Bundler revenue requires scale and efficiency. |
Value-Add Layer | Execution layer (block production) | Abstraction layer (user experience) | Builders compete on raw performance. Bundlers compete on service quality, APIs, and integrations. |
Market Concentration (Predicted) | Oligopoly (3-5 dominant players) | Competitive (10+ significant players) | High stakes and barriers centralize builders. Low barriers and network effects fragment bundlers. |
Key Dependency | Validator set for block inclusion (proposer-builder separation) | Paymaster services & alternative mempools | Builders are captive to validator relationships. Bundlers are modular components in a stack. |
deep-dive
THE MARKET STRUCTURE
The Specialization Imperative: How Bundlers Will Fragment
Bundler competition will be more intense and fragmented than block builder competition due to lower barriers to entry and the need for specialized user acquisition.
Bundlers face lower capital barriers than block builders. Block builders like Flashbots SUAVE require massive ETH staking and MEV expertise. A bundler only needs to stake a small bond and run a node, enabling thousands of entrants like Pimlico, Biconomy, and Alchemy.
User acquisition is the real moat. Unlike builders who compete on a single auction, bundlers must integrate directly with wallets and dApps. This creates vertical specialization—a gaming bundler for Immutable, a DeFi bundler for Uniswap—splintering the market.
The builder market consolidates; the bundler market fragments. Builders converge on a few large, capital-heavy pools. Bundlers diverge into niches, competing on user experience and vertical integration, not just cost. This is the inevitable end-state of permissionless infrastructure.
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Counterpoint: Builder Consolidation Proves Permanence
The economic and technical forces that consolidated block builders will not apply to the bundler market, ensuring greater competition.
Builder centralization is structural. Block builders consolidate because the value of a single block is immense, rewarding massive capital investment in MEV extraction and latency optimization. This creates a winner-take-most dynamic where only a few entities like Flashbots and Titan can compete at scale.
Bundler value is fragmented. A single user bundle's value is microscopic compared to a full block. The economic incentive for a single entity to dominate all user flow is minimal. Competition will be driven by service quality and fee optimization, not block-level MEV.
Technical barriers are lower. Running a performant bundler requires managing ERC-4337 mempools and Paymaster services, not the complex, latency-sensitive relay networks of PBS. This lower barrier enables a long-tail of operators like Pimlico, Stackup, and Alchemy to compete effectively.
Evidence: The current Ethereum builder market is dominated by three entities controlling >80% of blocks. In contrast, the early bundler landscape already shows over a dozen active, competitive providers, with no single entity commanding a majority of user operations.
protocol-spotlight
BUNDLER VS. BUILDER DYNAMICS
Early Movers & Strategic Positions
The competitive landscape for bundlers will diverge sharply from the consolidated builder market due to fundamental architectural and economic differences.
01
The Problem: Builder Consolidation is Inevitable
Block builders like Flashbots SUAVE and Titan consolidate because MEV extraction is a winner-take-most game. The need for deep liquidity, exclusive order flow, and sophisticated algorithms creates massive economies of scale and high barriers to entry.
- Network Effects: Access to private mempools and searcher relationships compounds.
- Capital Intensity: Requires significant stake or trust for proposer-builder separation (PBS).
- Outcome: Leads to an oligopoly of ~3-5 dominant builders per chain.
~5
Major Builders
85%+
Market Share
02
The Solution: Permissionless Bundler Proliferation
ERC-4337's design ensures bundlers are permissionless and commoditized. Anyone can run a bundler by simply posting a valid UserOperation to a public mempool. This eliminates the capital and exclusivity barriers seen in building.
- Low Barrier: No stake, no exclusive order flow needed.
- Execution Layer: Bundlers compete purely on gas optimization and latency (~500ms).
- Outcome: A long-tail market with hundreds of viable bundlers, similar to today's RPC providers.
100s
Active Bundlers
<1s
Latency Race
03
The Strategic Lever: Aggregator Dominance
While individual bundlers are commodities, aggregators like Stackup, Alchemy, and Biconomy will capture the market. They abstract bundler complexity for dApps and wallets, competing on reliability, global reach, and advanced features like sponsorship meta-transactions.
- API Layer: Aggregators become the primary customer-facing service.
- Bundler Farm: Aggregators manage fleets of bundlers for redundancy and performance.
- Outcome: Market consolidates at the aggregator layer, not the bundler execution layer.
5-10
Major Aggregators
90%+
Flow Share
04
The Vertical Integration Play: Wallet-as-a-Bundler
Major wallets (Rainbow, MetaMask) and dApp platforms will internalize bundling to control user experience, capture fees, and guarantee transaction inclusion. This mirrors how Coinbase runs its own validator set.
- UX Control: Eliminate third-party reliability risks for core users.
- Fee Capture: Retain value from sponsored transaction economies.
- Strategic Moats: Deep user integration creates a defensible position that pure-play bundlers cannot match.
In-House
Stack Control
Direct
Fee Capture
takeaways
BUNDLER VS. BUILDER DYNAMICS
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The economic and technical landscape for bundlers is fundamentally different from block builders, leading to a more fragmented and competitive market.
01
The Problem of Physical Centralization
Block builders like Flashbots require massive, co-located infrastructure to win MEV auctions, creating natural economies of scale and centralization.\n- Requirement: Proximity to block proposers for ~12-second windows.\n- Result: High fixed costs and <10 dominant players control >90% of blocks.
<10
Dominant Builders
>90%
Block Share
02
The Solution of Virtual Execution
Bundlers operate in a virtual environment, competing on algorithmic efficiency and user access, not physical latency.\n- Latency Tolerance: User operations are valid for ~5-10 minutes.\n- Competitive Edge: Better intent solving (via UniswapX, CowSwap), gas optimization, and staking relationships.
5-10min
Time Window
Virtual
Battleground
03
Permissionless Entry & Staking Economics
Anyone can run a bundler with a modest 32 ETH stake (or delegate via EigenLayer), versus the millions in hardware/capital for a competitive builder.\n- Barrier: ~$100k vs. >$10M.\n- Result: Thousands of potential entrants, not dozens.
32 ETH
Stake Required
1000s
Potential Entrants
04
Vertical Integration with Applications
DApps like Uniswap, Base, or zkSync will run in-house bundlers to capture fees, improve UX, and control order flow—fragmenting the market.\n- Incentive: Capture 100% of bundler fees and priority ordering.\n- Precedent: Coinbase and Robinhood run their own validators.
100%
Fee Capture
App-Native
Bundlers
05
The Cross-Chain Arbitrage Play
Bundlers for EIP-4337 and intents (via Across, LayerZero) will compete across 10+ L2s and L1s, not just one chain.\n- Market Size: $10B+ in cross-chain volume.\n- Strategy: Optimize for multi-chain MEV and liquidity routing, not single-chain block space.
10+
Chain Surface
$10B+
Addressable Volume
06
Regulatory & Censorship Resistance Tailwind
A decentralized bundler network is a strategic hedge against OFAC compliance pressures on centralized builders.\n- Risk Mitigation: No single entity can censor all user operations.\n- Demand Driver: Privacy-focused apps and users will route through resistant bundlers.
Decentralized
Censorship Hedge
High
Strategic Value
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