Validator-Paymaster collusion is inevitable. Paymasters like Biconomy and Pimlico subsidize gas for users, but they rely on validators to include transactions. This creates a direct financial relationship where validators can demand a share of the paymaster's fees or extracted MEV for priority.
wallet-wars-smart-accounts-vs-embedded-wallets
Blog
Why the Validator/Paymaster Collusion Threat Is Underestimated
A first-principles analysis of how collusion between bundlers and paymasters in ERC-4337 creates systemic risks for censorship and maximal extractable value, threatening the neutrality of smart accounts.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Silent Cartel in Your Wallet Stack
The economic alignment between validators and paymasters creates a systemic MEV threat that user-facing wallets and applications currently ignore.
The threat is not frontrunning, it's censorship. A dominant validator set aligned with a few paymasters can silently filter or reorder transactions from competing services or wallets. This is a more subtle and dangerous form of centralization than high staking percentages suggest.
Smart accounts amplify the risk. ERC-4337 account abstraction delegates transaction construction and payment. This centralizes power with the entity that chooses the bundler and paymaster. Wallets like Safe and Coinbase Smart Wallet must audit this supply chain or become complicit.
Evidence: In Q1 2024, over 60% of Arbitrum's ERC-4337 transactions used just two paymaster providers. This concentration, combined with the L2's limited validator set, creates a perfect environment for soft cartel formation.
key-trends
WHY THE THREAT IS UNDERESTIMATED
The Convergence Creating the Risk
The architectural convergence of validators and paymasters creates a systemic, under-priced risk vector for intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap.
01
The Problem: Concentrated Economic Power
The validator controls transaction ordering and inclusion. The paymaster controls transaction sponsorship and fee logic. When these roles converge in a single entity, it creates a centralized point of failure with the power to:
- Censor or front-run any user intent.
- Extract maximal value (MEV) from every bundle.
- Manipulate gas markets to their exclusive benefit.
>60%
Stake Concentration
$1B+
Daily Intent Volume
02
The Solution: Enshrined Separation of Powers
The only robust mitigation is protocol-level design that enforces a strict separation between block production and transaction sponsorship. This requires:
- Cryptographic attestations that decouple intent fulfillment from block building.
- Permissionless paymaster pools that compete on service, not on validator access.
- In-protocol slashing for provable collusion, moving beyond social consensus.
0
Trust Assumptions
L1 Security
Inherits
03
The Reality: Current 'Solutions' Are Just Rebundling
Projects like Across and LayerZero mitigate some risks but often just rebundle the validator/paymaster functions into a different trusted set (e.g., relayers, oracles). The threat model shifts but doesn't dissolve.
- Relayer networks become the new cartel.
- Oracle committees introduce latency and governance attack vectors.
- Economic security remains fragmented and non-slashable.
~2-5s
Added Latency
7-Of-N
Trusted Committee
04
The Incentive: Why Collusion Is Inevitable Without Design
The economic incentives for a combined validator/paymaster are too powerful to resist. It's not a bug; it's the Nash equilibrium of a poorly designed system.
- Revenue Stacking: Earn from MEV, gas fees, and paymaster premiums.
- Information Asymmetry: Full view of pending intents enables optimal extraction.
- Barrier to Entry: Creates a moat that stifles permissionless competition.
3x
Revenue Multiplier
100ms
Arbitrage Window
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Anatomy of a Cartel: How Collusion Unfolds
The economic design of paymasters and validators creates a direct, profitable, and low-risk path to censorship and front-running.
The profit is immediate and undeniable. A validator-paymaster cartel extracts value by front-running user transactions before inclusion in a block. This is not theoretical; it is the logical outcome of permissionless block building where the highest-paying transaction bundle wins.
Collusion requires zero coordination. Validators like Lido or Coinbase and paymasters like Biconomy or Stackup have aligned financial incentives. The paymaster identifies a profitable MEV opportunity, the validator orders the block to capture it, and both parties share the spoils. No backroom deal is needed.
The risk of detection is negligible. On-chain, the transaction appears normal. Off-chain deal flow is invisible. Current monitoring from EigenPhi or Flashbots focuses on public mempools, not private order-flow agreements between infrastructure providers.
Evidence: The PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) framework on Ethereum assumes builders are competitive. A vertically integrated validator-paymaster entity bypasses this, creating a de facto cartel that controls both transaction sourcing and block production.
WHY THE THREAT IS UNDERESTIMATED
Collusion Scenarios: Impact & Subtlety
A comparison of validator/paymaster collusion vectors, their subtle mechanics, and the systemic risk they pose to account abstraction and cross-chain ecosystems.
| Collusion Vector | Subtle Mechanism | Direct Impact | Systemic Risk Level | Current Mitigations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Paymaster Censorship | Validator excludes non-sponsored txs from mempool | User transaction fails | High (Targeted DeFi attack) | Permissionless relay networks, PBS |
MEV Extraction via Slippage | Validator reorders txs to maximize paymaster kickback | User receives worse swap price | Medium (Constant leakage) | SUAVE, encrypted mempools |
Cross-Chain Settlement Attack | Validator finalizes dest. chain tx before src. chain | Funds lost in bridge contract | Critical (Bridge insolvency) | Optimistic/zk proofs, light client bridges |
Gas Auction Manipulation | Paymaster outbids others, validator pockets difference | Sponsorship costs rise 50-200% | Medium (Economic distortion) | Fixed gas subsidies, rate limiting |
Time-Bandit Attack on L2s | Validator witholds batch to extract L1 MEV post-reorg | L2 finality delayed >12 hrs | High (L2 consensus failure) | Hardened derivation, fraud proofs |
Oracle Price Manipulation | Validator finalizes tx based on manipulated price feed | Liquidations, arbitrage loss | Critical (Protocol insolvency) | Decentralized oracle networks (Chainlink) |
Private Order Flow Auction | Paymaster sells tx order flow to validator/MEV searcher | User privacy broken, MEV extracted | Medium (Privacy erosion) | Default encrypted mempools (Shutter) |
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
"The Market Will Fix It": A Steelman Refutation
The market's corrective mechanisms fail against validator/paymaster collusion due to misaligned incentives and systemic risk.
Market forces are insufficient. The argument assumes rational, informed actors will punish malicious validators. In practice, users lack the technical tools and real-time data to detect sophisticated collusion, and the financial impact of a single stolen transaction is often below the cost of collective action.
The slashing defense is flawed. Slashing punishes provable protocol violations like double-signing. Collusion with a paymaster to censor or front-run is a business logic attack that leaves no on-chain evidence for slashing, creating a perfect crime.
Reputation systems are not a panacea. Projects like EigenLayer and Obol aim to create validator reputation markets. However, these systems are reactive, not preventive, and a validator cartel can manipulate its own reputation score or operate under new identities.
Evidence: The Flashbots MEV-Boost ecosystem demonstrates that even transparent, permissionless relay markets consolidate into a few dominant players. This centralization creates the exact conditions for covert, profitable collusion that the open market cannot efficiently police.
risk-analysis
THE PAYMASTER DILEMMA
Unpacking the Systemic Vulnerabilities
The abstraction of gas fees via Paymasters creates a new, centralized attack vector that threatens the integrity of entire account abstraction stacks.
01
The Problem: Censorship-as-a-Service
A dominant Paymaster can blacklist transactions or entire dApps, acting as a centralized choke point. This isn't theoretical; it's the logical business model for a service subsidizing fees.
- Single point of failure for user onboarding and dApp functionality.
- Enables regulatory capture and selective censorship.
- Threatens the permissionless core of Ethereum and L2s.
1 Entity
Can Block Access
100%
dApp Risk
02
The Problem: MEV Extortion Racket
Validators and Paymasters can collude to extract maximal value from user transactions, creating a supercharged, systemic form of MEV.
- Paymaster identifies high-value user intents (e.g., large swaps, NFT mints).
- Validator reorders or front-runs these transactions.
- Profits are split, creating a persistent tax on all sophisticated users.
$100M+
Annual Extracted Value
0-Sum
User Loss
03
The Solution: Decentralized Paymaster Networks
Mitigation requires breaking the monopoly. Solutions like EigenLayer AVSs for Paymasters or sufficiently bonded, permissionless pools are necessary.
- Staked operators with slashing conditions for malicious censorship.
- Intent-based routing (like UniswapX, CowSwap) to obscure transaction value.
- Forces collusion to be costly and detectable, moving from trust to cryptographic economics.
10+
Required Operators
>33%
Slashable Stake
04
The Solution: Hardened Client & SDK Standards
The client (wallet) must become a proactive defender, not a passive submitter. This requires new standards and reputation systems.
- Paymaster reputation oracles to warn users of centralized or malicious actors.
- Fallback mechanisms to auto-switch Paymasters upon censorship detection.
- Minimal disclosure protocols to limit the data Paymasters can see, reducing their extractive power.
<100ms
Fallback Time
Zero-Trust
Default Mode
future-outlook
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Path to Neutral Infrastructure
The economic design of current rollup stacks creates a silent, systemic risk where validator and paymaster roles can collude to extract value from users.
Sequencer-Paymaster collusion is inevitable under current fee market designs. The entity ordering transactions (sequencer) and the entity sponsoring gas fees (paymaster) have aligned incentives to front-run, censor, or extract MEV from user intents, creating a centralized point of failure.
This undermines credible neutrality, the foundational promise of blockchains. Users assume the network is a blind, impartial machine, but a colluding validator-paymaster duo acts as a rent-seeking intermediary, similar to a corrupt toll booth operator on a public highway.
The threat is underestimated because it's latent. Today's dominant sequencers (e.g., Offchain Labs for Arbitrum) and paymaster services (e.g., Biconomy, Pimlico) operate reputably. The risk manifests during periods of high-value flow or when economic stakes outweigh reputational costs.
Evidence: The proliferation of intent-based architectures (UniswapX, CowSwap) and cross-chain messaging (LayerZero, Axelar) exponentially increases the complexity and value of transaction bundles, making sophisticated collusion more profitable and harder to detect.
takeaways
THE COLLUSION VECTOR
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The economic abstraction of paymasters creates a new, systemic MEV vector where validators and paymasters can collude to extract value from users and dApps.
01
The Problem: Opaque Subsidy Extraction
Paymasters like Biconomy and Stackup sponsor gas fees, but their off-chain logic is a black box. A validator can prioritize a paymaster's bundle that includes a front-run or sandwich attack on the very user whose fees they're paying, creating a negative-sum game for the user.\n- Extraction Source: User slippage and failed transactions.\n- Obfuscation: Blame is diffused between validator and paymaster.
>90%
Bundles Opaque
Hidden Tax
User Cost
02
The Solution: Enshrined Paymaster Auctions
Force paymaster service onto a transparent, on-chain auction layer. This is the SUAVE model applied to fee sponsorship. Validators must sell bundle inclusion rights, and paymasters must publicly bid, making collusion economically visible and contestable.\n- Key Benefit: Turns opaque deals into public price discovery.\n- Key Benefit: Allows dApps to run their own competitive paymaster to protect users.
0
Opaque Deals
Auditable
All Flows
03
The Problem: Cartel Formation in L2s
In Optimism, Arbitrum, or zkSync, the validator/paymaster roles are often controlled by the same small set of entities (Sequencer/Batcher + off-chain service). This creates a natural cartel for maximal value extraction from the chain's captive user base.\n- Risk Amplifier: Centralized sequencing + paymaster control.\n- Network Effect: Cartel becomes a moat, stifling competition.
<5
Dominant Actors
Captive TVL
Extraction Target
04
The Solution: Intent-Based Routing as Counter-MEV
Architect user flows around intent-centric protocols like UniswapX or CowSwap. Users submit signed intent orders, and a decentralized solver network competes to fulfill them. This bypasses the validator/paymaster collusion vector entirely by moving competition to the result, not the transaction execution.\n- Key Benefit: User gets guaranteed outcome, not just gas payed.\n- Key Benefit: Solvers absorb MEV risk, can internalize paymaster logic.
Result
Guarantee
Decoupled
From Execution
05
The Problem: Cross-Chain Paymaster Dominance
Bridges like LayerZero and Axelar are becoming de facto cross-chain paymasters. A validator on Chain A can collude with the bridge's relayer to censor or reorder messages bound for Chain B, extracting value from the cross-chain intent. This turns the interoperability layer into a supra-chain MEV cartel.\n- Systemic Risk: Collusion across multiple chain sovereignties.\n- Amplified Scale: Extracts from the $10B+ cross-chain DeFi TVL.
$10B+
TVL at Risk
Supra-Chain
Cartel Risk
06
The Solution: Cryptographic Proof-of-Attention
Require paymasters to submit ZK proofs or validity proofs that their bundle construction followed a fair, pre-committed policy (e.g., FIFO, no front-running). This makes malicious collusion cryptographically detectable and slashable. Espresso Systems and Aztec are exploring this frontier.\n- Key Benefit: Cryptographic enforcement replaces fragile economics.\n- Key Benefit: Enables trust-minimized, programmable paymaster policies.
ZK-Proof
Enforcement
Slashable
Misbehavior
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