Mev-boost relay builder centralization review answers one narrow evergreen question: audit the relay set, builder concentration, censorship patterns, and inclusion delays before relying on a specific relay or builder for transaction inclusion. The goal is a repeatable decision rule, not a prediction, promotion, or broad market recap.
Owner fit: Radar reviews relay and builder infrastructure as a protocol-layer censorship-resistance question.
Define the decision first
Write the specific action that mev-boost relay builder centralization review is allowed to change. Name the exact market, account type, contract, dapp, route, or lineup state. Set the maximum exposure in advance, and define the condition that forces a deliberate pass. Without a named action and a pre-written pass condition, the comparison or checklist becomes a narrative exercise rather than a repeatable operating control.
The decision should be narrow enough that a single checklist can answer it. If the answer requires two different rulebooks, two different market types, or two different account structures, split the decision into two separate guides. Each guide must answer exactly one question with exactly one set of first-party sources.
Read the mechanism before the headline number
MEV-Boost relays and builders form a pipeline that can filter, order, or exclude transactions. A small number of builders constructing most blocks creates a centralisation surface, while relays that filter based on regulatory lists introduce censorship risks that onchain users may not detect without active monitoring.
Interface labels, marketing descriptions, and summary tables often simplify the actual execution flow. The official rulebook, API documentation, contract source, or league operations manual defines what actually happens when the decision is executed. The difference between the simplified label and the real mechanism is where comparison value lives.
Failure modes that create false confidence
Assuming that all transactions are treated equally because the blockchain is permissionless ignores the relay-and-builder layer that can exclude transactions before they reach a proposer. A second error is monitoring only inclusion without checking whether delays are caused by network conditions or active filtering.
The most common failure is treating the visible metric as the complete picture. A second failure is executing the comparison or checklist after the decision is already live, which turns verification into rationalisation. A third failure is filling unknown fields with assumptions because the worksheet demands an answer. An empty field that is labelled unknown is better protection than a filled field with unverified data.
Worked decision example
An analysis shows that two builders construct over 60 percent of blocks in the observed window and one relay is processing the majority of bids. The checklist flags the concentration and recommends monitoring transaction inclusion across multiple relays.
The example is useful because it forces the user to choose before the outcome is known. If the evidence is incomplete at decision time, the disciplined answer is to wait. A worked example should name a specific market, a specific state, and a specific action, not a general category of situations.
When the correct answer is to wait
do not route time-sensitive transactions exclusively through a relay whose censorship patterns or builder concentration cannot be independently verified
Waiting is a legitimate operating decision. It preserves capital, keeps the decision framework intact, and avoids converting an unknown into a false choice. The pass condition should be written before the opportunity appears so that urgency does not override the checklist.
Verification sheet
Use the following checklist from first-party sources, not from memory or a screenshot. Fill every field before committing exposure. If a field cannot be filled from an official source, mark it unknown and treat the entire decision as incomplete until the source is available.
- List the active relays and their market share.
- Identify the top builders by block construction share.
- Check for known censorship or filtering patterns.
- Monitor transaction inclusion time across multiple relays.
- Verify that transactions can reach proposers through at least one censorship-resistant path.
Write each answer beside its first-party source and timestamp. An unknown field stays unknown; it should not be filled with an assumption simply to complete the worksheet. Review the completed sheet at least once before every new decision, not only when the checklist was first written.
Primary references
These are the first-party rule, technical, or protocol documents used to frame the checklist. Recheck the live version before acting because rules, APIs, and contracts change. A reference that was accurate yesterday may have been updated today, and the difference can change the outcome of the checklist.
Continue this cluster
Continue with related guides in the Infrastructure cluster. Each checklist answers one narrow decision, and together they build a repeatable operating framework that covers more ground than any single guide can.
