This is my update for week 3-4. During those two weeks, I iterated on the feedback I received for my last update about the proposal to remove some trust from the relay. Furthermore, I worked on my project proposal.
The main feedback I received was that the builder does not need to be a validator. This is because the builder could just stake X amount of ETH in a smart contract and we could still have these slashing mechanisms. Benefits include a barrier to entry of potentially less than 32 ETH and the elimination of the obligations associated with taking part in the consensus protocol. Furthermore, the EigenLayer hasn't been released, and if we had used it, we would have run into the principal agent problem. Consequently, the consensus protocol's security would be weakened. We do not have this issue while utilizing an own staking contract. However, this also makes it simpler for builders to create new identities, which is problematic for anti-spam systems that are meant to safeguard the proposers.
The second feedback was that builders could grief proposers by submitting invalid blocks. This can be prevented if we assume that the builder will always send an invalid block and by default remove some stake unless the builder includes a transaction with a function call to the staking contract in his block which signals that it is not an invalid block. Because if it was, he wouldn't be able to call this function.
The third feedback was that by signing the block through the proposer but failing to deliver it to the builder in time, proposers could grief builders. Barnabe suggested, setting up a committee to determine if a proposer's header was received on time by the builder.