Validator-operated RPCs create a conflict of interest because the entity providing your data can manipulate it for their own profit. This is a structural flaw, not a bug, in the dominant RPC-as-a-service model offered by providers like Infura and Alchemy.
developer-ecosystem-tools-languages-and-grants
Blog
Why Validator-Operated RPCs Create a Conflict of Interest
An analysis of how validators running public RPC endpoints gain a structural advantage for MEV extraction, undermining user trust and creating systemic risk. We examine the data, the players, and the path to neutral infrastructure.
introduction
THE CONFLICT
Introduction
Validator-operated RPCs create a fundamental misalignment between infrastructure providers and their users.
The core business of a validator is MEV extraction, which directly conflicts with a user's need for unbiased, front-running-resistant transaction submission. Your RPC provider, acting as a validator, has a financial incentive to reorder or censor your transactions.
This model centralizes trust into a few entities who control both data access and block production. It undermines the credible neutrality that decentralized networks like Ethereum and Solana promise, creating systemic risk.
Evidence: The Flashbots MEV-Boost relay network demonstrates how validators routinely outsource block building to maximize extractable value, a process directly influenced by the RPC endpoints they operate.
key-trends
THE CORE INCENTIVE MISALIGNMENT
The Structural Conflict
When the same entity that validates transactions also controls the gateway for accessing them, censorship and extractive behavior become rational.
01
The MEV Cartel Problem
Validator-operated RPCs can front-run or sandwich user transactions, turning latency into a revenue stream. This creates a direct conflict where the gateway's profit is your loss.
- Front-running: Your profitable trade is executed before you, at a worse price.
- Sandwich attacks: Your large swap is surrounded by the validator's own trades.
- Censorship: Transactions to Tornado Cash or competing protocols can be silently dropped.
$1B+
Annual MEV
~100ms
Arb Window
02
The Data Monopoly
Centralized RPC endpoints give operators a monopoly on real-time blockchain state and user activity data, which they can sell or use for proprietary trading.
- Asymmetric information: The RPC sees all pending transactions; you see only your own.
- Data monetization: Your transaction flow is a product sold to hedge funds and analysts.
- Black box pricing: Opaque "priority fee" mechanics extract maximum value from users.
100%
Tx Visibility
0
User Consent
03
The Single Point of Failure
Relying on a validator's RPC centralizes network access, creating systemic risk. If the validator is slashed, censored, or goes offline, your application breaks.
- Liveness risk: A single entity's downtime becomes your downtime.
- Regulatory capture: A government can pressure one company to censor transactions.
- Protocol fragility: Contradicts the decentralized ethos of the underlying blockchain like Ethereum or Solana.
1
Attack Vector
1000s
DApps Affected
04
The Solution: Neutral Infrastructure
Decoupling RPC services from block production is the only way to align incentives. Networks of specialized, non-validating nodes (like Chainscore, POKT Network, BlastAPI) provide neutral access.
- Incentive alignment: Revenue comes from reliable service, not exploiting users.
- Censorship resistance: Geographically distributed nodes with diverse jurisdictions.
- Data privacy: User activity is not funneled through a single, adversarial entity.
1000+
Nodes
0
MEV Incentive
deep-dive
THE CONFLICT
The Informational Edge: From Latency to Liquidity
Validator-operated RPCs create a fundamental conflict of interest by allowing the same entity to see, sequence, and execute transactions.
The core conflict is the vertical integration of data access and block production. Validators who operate public RPC endpoints see pending transactions before they are included in a block, granting them a latency advantage measured in milliseconds. This advantage is the informational edge.
This edge enables MEV extraction at the expense of end users. A validator can front-run a large swap seen on its RPC by inserting its own transaction first, a practice known as time-bandit attacks. This directly monetizes the user's transaction intent.
The conflict degrades liquidity across DeFi. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave rely on fair price discovery. When validators extract value via latency, they increase slippage and reduce the effective liquidity available to honest users, creating a toxic trading environment.
Evidence: Research from Flashbots and organizations like bloXroute demonstrates that latency arbitrage constitutes a significant portion of extracted MEV. On networks without mitigation, this creates a revenue incentive for validators to exploit their RPC users, aligning their profit motive against network health.
RPC SERVICE ARCHITECTURE
Market Share & Risk Matrix
Comparing the inherent conflicts and risks between validator-operated RPCs and dedicated, neutral infrastructure providers.
| Risk / Feature | Validator-Operated RPC (e.g., Lido, Coinbase) | Dedicated Neutral RPC (e.g., Chainscore, Alchemy, Infura) | Self-Hosted Node |
|---|---|---|---|
MEV Extraction Incentive | |||
Censorship Risk (OFAC Compliance) | High (Aligned with Validator) | Configurable / Policy-Based | User-Controlled |
Transaction Ordering Bias | High (Front-running, Back-running) | Neutral (First-Come, First-Served) | User-Controlled |
RPC Revenue as % of Validator Revenue | ~1-5% (Ancillary) | ~100% (Core Business) | 0% (Cost Center) |
Single Point of Failure Correlation | High (RPC & Consensus Layer) | Low (Independent Infrastructure) | Extreme (Single Node) |
Data Privacy for User Txs | Low (Visible to Block Producer) | High (Relayed to Public Mempool) | Maximum (Local Only) |
Protocol Upgrade FUD Propagation Risk | High (Incentive to Delay/Block) | Low (Incentive for Stability) | User-Controlled |
Typical Latency to Proposer | < 100ms (Internal) | 100-500ms (Network Relay) | < 100ms (Local) |
counter-argument
THE CONFLICT
The Rebuttal: 'We Would Never'
Validator-operated RPCs create an inherent, structural conflict of interest that undermines network neutrality and user trust.
Frontrunning is the incentive. A validator's primary revenue is MEV extraction. When that same entity controls the RPC endpoint, it sees user transactions first. The economic incentive to reorder, censor, or copy trades is direct and measurable.
The 'trust us' model fails. Protocols like Flashbots and CoW Swap exist because trustless execution is non-negotiable. A validator-RPC hybrid asks users to trust the very entity the system is designed to distrust.
Centralization is the vector. This model consolidates transaction ordering, validation, and user access. It creates a single point of failure and control, antithetical to the decentralized ethos of networks like Ethereum and Solana.
Evidence: Research from EigenPhi and Flashbots shows MEV extraction is a multi-billion dollar industry. Validators with RPC access have a captive order flow, making profitable exploitation a statistical certainty, not a hypothetical risk.
takeaways
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Key Takeaways for Builders
When your RPC provider also runs validators, your application's performance and integrity are compromised by their economic incentives.
01
The MEV-Capturing RPC
Validator-operated RPCs can front-run your users' transactions by reordering them into their own blocks for profit. This directly harms user experience and trust.
- Result: User trades get worse prices, slippage increases.
- Impact: Your app's TVL and activity metrics suffer as sophisticated users migrate to fairer venues like CowSwap or UniswapX.
>90%
of MEV
$1B+
Extracted Annually
02
The Censorship Vector
A validator's compliance or political motives can override your application's need for transaction inclusion. They can blacklist addresses or filter transactions based on OFAC lists.
- Result: Your app's transactions are delayed or dropped, breaking core functionality.
- Defense: Requires using a decentralized RPC network or services like Flashbots Protect to bypass this layer.
40-60%
OFAC-Compliant
~0%
Uptime Guarantee
03
The Latency Lie
Validator RPCs prioritize their own block production and propagation over your user's query latency. Your eth_getLogs calls are deprioritized, causing inconsistent API performance.
- Result: Dashboard data lags, wallet balances stale, user experience degrades.
- Reality: Specialized RPC providers like Alchemy and Chainstack offer ~99.9% SLA because it's their only business.
500ms+
P95 Latency
<100ms
Possible
04
Solution: Decoupled Infrastructure
Separate the data serving layer from the consensus layer. Use specialized RPC providers with no stake in validation, or run your own nodes.
- Architecture: Leverage geo-distributed node clusters and load balancers.
- Tools: Consider POKT Network for decentralized RPC or AWS Managed Blockchain for controlled deployment.
10x
More Redundant
0%
Validator Stake
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall