RPC endpoints are the weakest link. They are centralized, single-point-of-failure attack surfaces that expose private keys and user data, as seen in incidents with providers like Infura and Alchemy.
security-post-mortems-hacks-and-exploits
Blog
The Future of RPC Security Is Zero-Trust
Current RPC providers operate on blind trust. The next evolution requires cryptographic proofs of data integrity and freshness, eliminating a critical single point of failure in Web3 infrastructure.
introduction
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Traditional RPC endpoints are a systemic security liability, demanding a fundamental shift to a zero-trust model.
Zero-trust is not optional. The model assumes all network traffic is hostile, requiring continuous verification. This contrasts with perimeter-based security, which fails against internal threats and supply-chain attacks.
The industry is already moving. Protocols like Sui and Aptos embed zero-trust principles in their client architecture, while services like Pimlico and Biconomy abstract wallet security, proving the model's viability.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Thesis Statement
The future of RPC security is a zero-trust architecture that eliminates centralized points of failure and data exposure.
RPC endpoints are critical infrastructure that currently operate on a flawed trust model. Every dApp and wallet blindly trusts a single provider like Infura or Alchemy, creating systemic risk and data leakage.
Zero-trust RPCs decentralize the data plane by routing requests through a distributed network of nodes. This model, pioneered by services like Pimlico's Bundler and the Ankr Network, treats every node as potentially compromised.
The shift mirrors Web2's security evolution from perimeter-based to zero-trust networks. In crypto, this means cryptographic attestation for every response, not just trusting a provider's brand.
Evidence: The Solana RPC outage of 2022, which crippled the ecosystem for hours, demonstrates the catastrophic failure of the centralized trust model.
key-trends
THE FUTURE OF RPC SECURITY
Key Trends: Why Zero-Trust is Inevitable
The traditional RPC model is a single point of failure. Zero-trust architecture is the only viable response to systemic risks in blockchain infrastructure.
01
The Problem: The RPC is a Centralized Attack Surface
Every dApp relies on a single RPC endpoint, creating a single point of failure for censorship, MEV extraction, and data manipulation. This model is antithetical to blockchain's decentralized ethos.
- Risk: A compromised provider can censor or front-run transactions for $10B+ TVL.
- Consequence: Users and protocols unknowingly delegate trust to a black box.
1
Point of Failure
$10B+
TVL at Risk
02
The Solution: Decentralized RPC Networks
Zero-trust RPCs like Pocket Network and Lava Network distribute requests across thousands of independent nodes. No single entity controls the data flow.
- Mechanism: Redundant execution across hundreds of nodes with cryptographic attestation.
- Outcome: 99.9%+ censorship resistance and ~500ms latency guarantees.
1000+
Redundant Nodes
99.9%
Uptime
03
The Catalyst: Intent-Based Architectures
The rise of intent-based systems (UniswapX, CowSwap, Across) demands zero-trust RPCs. These protocols separate transaction declaration from execution, requiring neutral, verifiable data.
- Requirement: Solvers need unbiased mempool data and state access they can cryptographically trust.
- Result: Zero-trust RPCs become the essential, neutral settlement layer for intents.
0
Trust Assumed
~100ms
Solver Latency
04
The Standard: Verifiable Execution Proofs
Future RPCs won't just return data; they'll return cryptographic proofs of correct execution (e.g., zk-proofs, TEE attestations). This moves from "trust us" to "verify the math."
- Technology: Leverages zk-SNARKs and trusted execution environments (TEEs).
- Impact: Eliminates the need to trust the RPC provider's hardware or software integrity.
ZK
Proof Standard
100%
Verifiability
05
The Economic Shift: From Subscriptions to Staking
Zero-trust RPCs replace SaaS subscription models with crypto-economic security. Node operators stake native tokens, and slashing punishes malicious behavior.
- Incentive: Node rewards are tied to uptime, latency, and data correctness.
- Alignment: Creates a skin-in-the-game model where providers are financially accountable.
-50%
Cost vs. AWS
Staked
Security Model
06
The Inevitability: Modular Stack Demands It
As the stack modularizes (Celestia, EigenDA, Arbitrum Orbit), the execution layer becomes a commodity. The data access layer (RPC) becomes the critical, trust-minimized bottleneck.
- Trend: Rollups and L2s require high-performance, reliable data access they don't control.
- Conclusion: Zero-trust RPCs are the only logical infrastructure for a modular, multi-chain world.
L2s
Primary Users
Non-Custodial
By Design
ZERO-TRUST ARCHITECTURE
The Trusted RPC Attack Surface: A Comparative Analysis
Comparing the security posture and operational risks of traditional RPC providers against emerging zero-trust models.
| Attack Vector / Metric | Traditional RPC (Alchemy, Infura) | Decentralized RPC (POKT, Ankr) | Zero-Trust RPC (Chainscore, Blink) |
|---|---|---|---|
Single Point of Failure | |||
Censorship Risk | High (Centralized Operator) | Low (Multi-Node) | None (Client-Side Execution) |
MEV Surface Area | Provider-Controlled | Node-Operator Dependent | User-Controlled via Intent |
Data Integrity Risk | Provider can spoof chain data | Relies on node consensus | Cryptographically verifiable via ZKPs |
Latency Penalty for Security | < 50 ms | 100-200 ms | 300-500 ms (ZK proof generation) |
Architecture Dependency | Trusted Server | Semi-Trusted Node Network | Untrusted Prover Network |
Integration Complexity | Low (Standard API) | Medium (Gateway Layer) | High (SDK/Intent Framework) |
Cost Premium for Security | 0% | 10-30% | 50-100% |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURE
Deep Dive: Anatomy of a Zero-Trust RPC
Zero-trust RPCs shift security from perimeter-based trust to cryptographic verification of every request.
Zero-trust architecture eliminates implicit trust in the RPC provider. Every request requires cryptographic proof of authorization, moving beyond the flawed model of trusting a single endpoint's integrity.
Attestation proofs are the core primitive. Services like Google's Confidential Computing and Oracles like Pyth generate hardware-backed proofs that request data is unaltered, creating a verifiable compute layer.
This model inverts the security paradigm. Traditional RPCs (Infura, Alchemy) act as trusted oracles; zero-trust RPCs force the network to prove its state, similar to how zk-Rollups prove execution.
Evidence: A zero-trust RPC can cryptographically attest that its response matches the canonical chain state, a requirement for high-value DeFi protocols interfacing with Aave or Uniswap.
protocol-spotlight
THE FUTURE OF RPC SECURITY
Protocol Spotlight: Building the Zero-Trust Stack
Legacy RPC providers are centralized honeypots. The next generation secures data-in-transit and execution with cryptographic proofs.
01
The Problem: RPCs Are a Centralized Attack Surface
Every request to a standard RPC is a blind trust exercise. Providers see your wallet, your queries, and can censor or front-run transactions.\n- Single point of failure for dApps with $10B+ TVL.\n- ~100% of user metadata is exposed to the provider.\n- Enables MEV extraction and transaction censorship.
100%
Metadata Exposed
1
Point of Failure
02
The Solution: Zero-Knowledge Encrypted RPCs
Projects like Succinct, RISC Zero, and Brevis enable RPCs that process queries inside a ZK proof. The provider never sees the raw request or response.\n- End-to-end encryption for all query data.\n- Cryptographic proof of correct execution.\n- Enables private on-chain gaming and compliant DeFi.
0%
Data Leakage
ZK-Proof
Guarantee
03
The Architecture: Decentralized Prover Networks
Zero-trust requires decentralized proving. A network of provers (like Espresso Systems for sequencing) generates attestations, removing single-provider risk.\n- Fault-tolerant via economic slashing.\n- Sub-second proof generation for real-time apps.\n- Creates a credible neutral RPC layer.
~500ms
Proof Latency
N of M
Trust Model
04
The Killer App: MEV-Resistant Intents
Zero-trust RPCs are the backbone for intent-based architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap. Users submit signed intents; a decentralized solver network fulfills them privately.\n- User sovereignty over transaction routing.\n- Eliminates front-running by hiding intent until execution.\n- Cross-chain fulfillment via Across and LayerZero.
-99%
MEV Leakage
Intents
Paradigm
05
The Economic Model: Verifiable Service Agreements
Pay-for-proven-work replaces opaque SaaS subscriptions. Usage is metered and verified on-chain via attestations, enabling true usage-based billing.\n- Auditable cost structure for enterprises.\n- Micro-payments via state channels.\n- Slashing for faulty or censored proofs.
Pay-per-Proof
Pricing
On-Chain
Settlement
06
The Endgame: Abstraction of Trust
The stack matures into a universal cryptographic firewall. Developers integrate a ZK-RPC endpoint and never worry about data leaks or provider malice again.\n- Composability with AA wallets and signature abstraction.\n- Regulatory clarity via privacy-preserving compliance proofs.\n- Baseline security for the next 100M users.
100M+
User Scale
Zero-Trust
Default
counter-argument
THE COMPLEXITY TRAP
Counter-Argument: Is This Over-Engineering?
Zero-trust RPC introduces significant architectural complexity that may not justify its marginal security gains for most applications.
Zero-trust adds operational overhead that most dApps do not need. The proliferation of attestations, proofs, and multi-party computations creates a steeper integration curve than traditional RPC endpoints from providers like Alchemy or Infura.
The threat model is often misaligned. For simple balance checks or NFT metadata, the cost of cryptographic verification outweighs the risk of a corrupted RPC node. This is overkill compared to using multiple RPC providers for redundancy.
The industry precedent favors pragmatism. Major protocols like Uniswap and Aave use standard, load-balanced RPC endpoints. Their security models focus on smart contract audits and governance, not RPC-layer proofs, because that is where the real value is.
Evidence: The total value secured by fully verified, zero-knowledge light clients like Succinct's Telepathy is a fraction of the value secured by simpler, battle-tested RPC failover systems. Complexity without clear product-market fit is engineering waste.
takeaways
THE FUTURE OF RPC SECURITY IS ZERO-TRUST
Key Takeaways for Builders
The perimeter-based security model for RPC endpoints is broken. Here's how to build for the zero-trust future.
01
The Problem: RPCs Are the New Attack Surface
Traditional RPC providers operate as monolithic, centralized gateways. A single compromised node can leak user queries, censor transactions, or serve malicious data to billions in TVL. The attack surface is massive and attractive.
- Single Point of Failure: One provider outage can halt entire dApp ecosystems.
- Data Leakage: Unencrypted traffic exposes wallet addresses and transaction intent.
- Censorship Risk: Centralized providers can be forced to block certain addresses or contracts.
100%
Exposed
1
SPOF
02
The Solution: Decentralized RPC Networks
Adopt a multi-provider, zero-trust architecture like Pocket Network or Lava Network. These protocols distribute requests across a permissionless network of independent nodes, eliminating single points of control and failure.
- Censorship Resistance: No single entity can block or filter your traffic.
- Enhanced Privacy: Query distribution makes it harder to profile user activity.
- Economic Security: Node operators are economically incentivized for honest service, slashed for downtime.
1,000+
Nodes
99.99%
Uptime
03
The Implementation: End-to-End Encryption & Validation
Move beyond HTTPS. Implement end-to-end encrypted sessions (e.g., using Noise protocol) between client and execution node. Pair this with light client verification or zk-proofs to cryptographically validate RPC responses, not just trust them.
- Data Integrity: Cryptographic proofs ensure the chain data you receive is correct.
- Traffic Obfuscation: E2E encryption prevents MEV bots from front-running your user's pending transactions.
- Trust Minimization: Reduces reliance on the honesty of any single RPC provider.
Zero
Trust Assumed
~50ms
Proof Overhead
04
The Paradigm: Intent-Based Routing
The next evolution is treating RPC calls as intents. Instead of specifying exact transaction parameters, users submit desired outcomes (e.g., "swap X for Y at best price"). Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap pioneer this for swaps; apply it to all RPC interactions.
- Optimized Execution: The network routes the intent to the optimal chain or sequencer.
- MEV Protection: Built-in privacy and batching reduce extractable value.
- User Experience: Abstracts away gas, slippage, and chain selection complexities.
20-30%
Better Execution
90%
MEV Reduction
05
The Business Model: Token-Incentivized Security
Security must be economically enforced, not promised in a SLA. Protocols like Pocket use a work token model where node operators stake the native token to serve traffic and are slashed for misbehavior. This aligns incentives directly with network health.
- Skin in the Game: $200M+ in staked value secures the network.
- Cost Predictability: Pay with stablecoins or the protocol token, avoiding vendor lock-in.
- Decentralized Governance: The network's parameters and future are controlled by stakeholders.
$200M+
Staked Value
-60%
Cost vs. AWS
06
The Mandate: Build for Modularity & Interoperability
The monolithic blockchain stack is fracturing into rollups, app-chains, and L2s. Your RPC layer must be chain-agnostic and modular. Use standards like JSON-RPC but prepare for multi-chain queries and cross-chain proofs via LayerZero or CCIP.
- Future-Proof: Easily integrate new chains and execution environments.
- Unified API: Provide a single endpoint for a fragmented multi-chain user experience.
- Cross-Chain Security: Leverage underlying interoperability layers for verified message passing.
50+
Chains Supported
1
API
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