So I'm convinced that inclusion latency can be independent of validator count and geographic distribution using MCP. BUT an inclusion guarantee still seems significantly weaker than the *execution* guarantee you can get from a single sequencer/proposer. Here's what I mean: Essentially in MCP you can only get an inclusion guarantee, meaning your tx will be in the block, but not a guarantee that your transaction will actually get executed bc there could be a conflicting tx the was confirmed by another proposer in the same slot. That conflict has to be resolved and might end up making your tx invalid. Whereas with a single sequencer or leader, the sequencer can give you not just a guarantee of inclusion in the block, but a guarantee that your transaction will be executed and result in what you want. It can do this bc it sees and orders all txs globally. Let's say you're trading on a CLOB and you send in a order to lift a bid. An MCP proposer can only tell you "yep you're in the block". A single sequencer/proposer can tell you "yep you're in the block AND your trade will be executed". This execution guarantee is a lot more powerful than an inclusion guarantee, and is seems you can't get it with MCP.

The natural follow up question is whether users are willing to trade off lower latency execution guarantees for less censorship resistance/validator decentralization. I think for certain use cases like CLOBs they absolutely will. Rollup/acc