Why Centralized RPCs Are a Single Point of Failure for Web3

Centralized RPC providers can and do censor transactions, undermining the permissionless promise of blockchains. This creates a single regulatory attack surface.

• Geoblocking of users by IP address.
• Transaction Filtering for sanctioned addresses or protocols (e.g., Tornado Cash).
• Protocol Blacklisting at the infrastructure level.

Outages at major providers like Infura or Alchemy have caused cascading failures across the ecosystem, proving centralized infrastructure is not enterprise-grade.

• $10B+ TVL at risk during a single outage.
• ~500ms latency spikes during congestion.
• Dependency Collapse for wallets (MetaMask) and major dApps.

Centralized RPCs aggregate and control valuable on-chain data, creating information asymmetry and stifling innovation in indexing and analytics.

• Opaque Data Pricing and bundling.
• Stifled Competition for specialized data services (e.g., The Graph, Covalent).
• User Privacy Erosion through centralized request logging.

Protocols like Pocket Network and Lava Network distribute requests across a global network of independent node operators, eliminating single points of failure.

• Censorship Resistance via cryptographic work proofs and random node assignment.
• Cost Predictability via a crypto-native, permissionless marketplace.
• Redundancy with 10k+ nodes serving requests across 50+ chains.

Running your own node or using lightweight clients shifts control back to the user, aligning with crypto's original ethos. Frameworks like Erigon and solutions like Helios make this feasible.

• Full Data Sovereignty and verification.
• Zero Trust in third-party data integrity.
• Archival Access without premium API fees.

Next-gen RPC layers like those explored by UniswapX and CowSwap don't just fetch data—they optimize execution. This requires a decentralized, MEV-aware network.

• Optimal Execution via competitive searcher/builder markets.
• Privacy through mechanisms like SUAVE.
• Cross-Chain Intents powered by protocols like Across and LayerZero.

A single provider like Infura or Alchemy handles >50% of all Ethereum traffic. This creates a central point for censorship, data manipulation, and catastrophic downtime.\n- Censorship Risk: Providers can block transactions from sanctioned wallets or protocols.\n- Data Integrity: A malicious or compromised provider can serve incorrect chain data.

Centralized RPCs see all user transactions before they hit the public mempool. This creates a privileged position for front-running and extracting value.\n- Intent Exposure: Your trading strategy is visible to the RPC operator.\n- Value Extraction: Operators can bundle and sell order flow, similar to traditional finance dark pools.

While centralized RPCs offer low latency, they create systemic fragility. A global outage at one provider can cripple entire dApp ecosystems and $10B+ in DeFi TVL.\n- Cascading Failure: dApps reliant on a single endpoint fail simultaneously.\n- No Redundancy: Users and developers lack automatic failover to uncorrelated infrastructure.

Networks like POKT Network and Lava Network distribute requests across 1000s of independent nodes. This eliminates single points of failure and aligns incentives.\n- Censorship Resistance: No single entity can block traffic.\n- Data Integrity: Results are verified across multiple nodes before being returned.

The endgame is users running their own light clients or leveraging ultralight protocols like Nimbus. This removes the trusted third party entirely.\n- Self-Sovereignty: Users validate chain data directly against consensus.\n- Protocol-Level Privacy: Transactions are broadcast peer-to-peer, not via a corporate gateway.

Architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap separate transaction declaration from execution. Users submit signed intents, and a decentralized network of solvers competes to fulfill them.\n- RPC Agnostic: Execution logic is offloaded to a solver network.\n- Better Execution: Solvers optimize for price, bundling, and MEV capture, returning value to the user.