LibraryMarkets2022Design paperCorpus record
An out-of-protocol block market beside Ethereum consensus
Proposer-builder separation. Flashbots and Ethereum researchers.
The proposer-builder separation note argues that the party who orders transactions inside a block need not be the party who proposes the block to consensus.
A reading of the project's public design document. Not a copy, not a benchmark, and not an offer.
The proposer-builder separation note argues that the party who orders transactions inside a block need not be the party who proposes the block to consensus.
- Evidence
- Primary paper
- Re-measured
- No
- Assumptions
- 3
- Records linked
- 3
01 Claim ledger
What the paper is allowed to say
Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.
Claim 01 · Paper model
The defect
Separation is a market design. Until a consensus change enshrines it, a relay and a sidecar are doing the job, with the trust that implies.
Claim 02 · Paper model
The proposal
The proposer-builder separation note argues that the party who orders transactions inside a block need not be the party who proposes the block to consensus.
Claim 03 · Paper model
The mechanism
The builder optimises the payload. The proposer accepts a header. The fork choice still only sees a block.
Claim 04 · Paper model
The bound
This is a research post. It is not a specification of a live fork.
02 Three cuts
Observation, model, falsifier
A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.
01 The defect
Observation
What the study says
Separation is a market design. Until a consensus change enshrines it, a relay and a sidecar are doing the job, with the trust that implies.
Model
What has to hold
You are reading the ethresear.ch note. A numbered EIP is a different text even when it cites this one.
Falsifier
What would retire it
Does the design you are implementing verify the payload inside consensus, or trust a relay?
02 The proposal
Observation
What the study says
The proposer-builder separation note argues that the party who orders transactions inside a block need not be the party who proposes the block to consensus.
Model
What has to hold
The document is the one at the source URL. A marketing page with the same brand is not this text.
Falsifier
What would retire it
Does the design you are implementing verify the payload inside consensus, or trust a relay?
03 The mechanism
Observation
What the study says
The builder optimises the payload. The proposer accepts a header. The fork choice still only sees a block.
Model
What has to hold
No price, supply, yield, or adoption figure is added by this desk.
Falsifier
What would retire it
Does the design you are implementing verify the payload inside consensus, or trust a relay?
04 The bound
Observation
What the study says
This is a research post. It is not a specification of a live fork.
Model
What has to hold
You are reading the ethresear.ch note. A numbered EIP is a different text even when it cites this one.
Falsifier
What would retire it
Does the design you are implementing verify the payload inside consensus, or trust a relay?
03 Sequence
One action, as an operating tape
- 01The builder optimises the payload. The proposer accepts a header. The fork choice still only sees a block.
- 02A friendly fee market, in the note's terms, is about who gets paid for inclusion. It is not EIP-1559 restated.
- 03An enshrined version, if a later EIP specifies one, replaces the relay. Do not cite this note as that EIP.
04 Load-bearing
The argument, and where a pitch drops it
What the name has to mean
The cut
The proposer-builder separation note argues that the party who orders transactions inside a block need not be the party who proposes the block to consensus.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.
What actually moves
The cut
A friendly fee market, in the note's terms, is about who gets paid for inclusion. It is not EIP-1559 restated.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.
What a later deployment may change
The cut
An enshrined version, if a later EIP specifies one, replaces the relay. Do not cite this note as that EIP.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
A later client, parameter or reward formula is a different object from this paragraph.
05 Register
What has to be true
Model · Not re-measured
You are reading the ethresear.ch note. A numbered EIP is a different text even when it cites this one.
Model · Not re-measured
The document is the one at the source URL. A marketing page with the same brand is not this text.
Model · Not re-measured
No price, supply, yield, or adoption figure is added by this desk.
06 Divergence
What happened after the paper
No revenue figure is stated here.
A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.
07 Pre-mortem
What to check before you use the idea
- 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.
08 Anatomy
The paper, in the order a builder needs
The problem it names
Separation is a market design. Until a consensus change enshrines it, a relay and a sidecar are doing the job, with the trust that implies.
What the design proposes
- The builder optimises the payload. The proposer accepts a header. The fork choice still only sees a block.
- A friendly fee market, in the note's terms, is about who gets paid for inclusion. It is not EIP-1559 restated.
- An enshrined version, if a later EIP specifies one, replaces the relay. Do not cite this note as that EIP.
How the mechanism is specified
- The builder optimises the payload. The proposer accepts a header. The fork choice still only sees a block.
- A friendly fee market, in the note's terms, is about who gets paid for inclusion. It is not EIP-1559 restated.
- An enshrined version, if a later EIP specifies one, replaces the relay. Do not cite this note as that EIP.
What this page does not treat as proven
- This is a research post. It is not a specification of a live fork.
- MEV-Boost is the sidecar study. This is the design argument.
- No revenue figure is stated here.
Why the desk still reads it
The proposer-builder separation note argues that the party who orders transactions inside a block need not be the party who proposes the block to consensus.
09 Lexicon
Terms, opened into the record
- Builder
- The party who assembles transactions. Not necessarily the proposer.
- Enshrined
- Moved into consensus rules. A sidecar is the opposite.
10 Repository
Every linked record on this page
Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.
Concepts
This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.
Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.