Seeing like a protocol - by Barnabé Monnot

In the past months, I’ve harped on Proposer-Builder Separation, and the Principal-Agent Problem more generally. One reason is the depth of research questions, bringing in the mix considerations from both the consensus layer and the execution layer, plus everything in-between, such as MEV, the transaction supply network, and the growing web of out-of-protocol markets and institutions. Ultimately though, the reason why I think PBS is so interesting has more to do with its role as a kind of Rosetta stone for where protocol development is headed. Some of it has to do with the political economy of the protocol versus the layers built on top of it. Should protocol development be purely reactive, and always attempt to run behind the latest ball thrown to it by its upper layers? It’s a gross simplification that overlooks both the virtuous feedback cycle orienting protocol development, and the ability to set the tempo, for instance the case of re-focusing towards a rollup-centric roadmap.1 But

In the past months, I’ve harped on Proposer-Builder Separation, and the Principal-Agent Problem more generally. One reason is the depth of research questions, bringing in the mix considerations from both the consensus layer and the execution layer, plus everything in-between, such as MEV, the transaction supply network, and the growing web of out-of-protocol markets and institutions. Ultimately though, the reason why I think PBS is so interesting has more to do with its role as a kind of Rosetta stone for where protocol development is headed. Some of it has to do with the political economy of