RPCs are centralized bottlenecks. Every dApp's connection to a blockchain relies on a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) endpoint. The market is dominated by a few infrastructure giants like Alchemy and Infura, creating a hidden layer of centralization.
solana-and-the-rise-of-high-performance-chains
Blog
The Cost of Centralized RPC Reliance for Network Resilience
Applications built on decentralized L1s like Solana are inheriting the single points of failure of their centralized RPC providers. This analysis breaks down the systemic risk, historical evidence, and architectural solutions.
introduction
THE SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE
The Decentralization Lie
Centralized RPC providers create systemic risk that contradicts the core value proposition of decentralized networks.
Network resilience is an illusion. When a major RPC provider fails, entire application ecosystems on chains like Ethereum and Polygon go offline. This single point of failure negates the liveness guarantees of the underlying decentralized ledger.
The cost is censorship and fragility. Centralized RPC gatekeepers can censor transactions and create systemic fragility. The MEV supply chain depends on these endpoints, concentrating power and creating arbitrage opportunities for the providers themselves.
Evidence: The Infura Outage. In November 2022, an Infura bug on the Goerli testnet caused a 4-hour outage for MetaMask and major exchanges, demonstrating that decentralized front-ends rely on centralized plumbing.
key-insights
THE COST OF CONVENIENCE
Executive Summary: The RPC Centralization Trilemma
The industry's reliance on a handful of centralized RPC providers creates a systemic vulnerability, trading resilience for developer convenience.
01
The Single Point of Failure
Centralized RPC endpoints like those from Infura, Alchemy, and QuickNode represent a critical consensus-layer risk. A single outage can cascade, crippling wallets, DEXs, and DeFi protocols.\n- ~60% of Ethereum traffic routes through a few major providers.\n- $10B+ TVL is at risk during a regional AWS or provider outage.
60%
Traffic Share
1
Failure Point
02
The Censorship & MEV Vector
Centralized RPC providers act as gatekeepers, enabling transaction filtering and frontrunning. This violates crypto's credibly neutral ethos.\n- Providers can censor OFAC-sanctioned addresses by default.\n- They have privileged access to the mempool, creating an opaque MEV supply chain for entities like Flashbots.
OFAC
Compliance Risk
Opaque
MEV Flow
03
The Data Monopoly
Provider-specific APIs and enhanced endpoints create lock-in, stifling innovation and centralizing data access. This hinders the development of permissionless indexing and decentralized sequencers.\n- Developers build on proprietary APIs (e.g., Alchemy's alchemy_getTokenBalances).\n- Creates a moat that decentralized RPC networks like Pocket Network and Ankr must overcome.
Vendor Lock-in
Developer Cost
POKT, ANKR
Decentralized Alt
04
The Economic Solution: Decentralized RPC Networks
Networks like Pocket Network and Ankr use a cryptoeconomic model to distribute requests across thousands of independent nodes.\n- Pays nodes in native token (POKT) for served relays.\n- Creates a competitive, open marketplace for RPC services, eliminating single points of control.
30k+
Node Providers
Market-Based
Pricing
05
The Technical Solution: Light Clients & Portal Network
The endgame is client diversity and light client protocols that allow applications to verify chain data directly. The Ethereum Portal Network (a.k.a. Portal Network) is building this.\n- Removes the RPC intermediary entirely for basic data.\n- Enables trust-minimized access, similar to how Bitcoin SPV wallets operate.
Direct Sync
Architecture
Ethereum
Roadmap
06
The Pragmatic Path: Multi-Provider Fallback
While decentralization is the goal, immediate resilience requires engineering. Protocols must implement intelligent RPC failover and load balancing.\n- Use services like Chainstack's Distributed RPC or LlamaNodes for automated redundancy.\n- This is the same multi-cloud strategy used by TradFi to avoid AWS/Azure lock-in.
99.99%
Target Uptime
Fallover
Critical Logic
thesis-statement
THE SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE
Centralized RPCs Are a Systemic Contagion Vector
Dependence on centralized RPC endpoints creates a critical, overlooked vulnerability that can cascade across the entire application layer.
Centralized RPC reliance creates a single point of failure for thousands of dApps. When a provider like Infura or Alchemy experiences an outage, it does not just affect one app—it bricks every dApp dependent on its endpoints, from Uniswap to Aave, simultaneously.
The contagion vector is the shared infrastructure. A failure at the RPC layer propagates instantly to the application layer, unlike a smart contract bug which is isolated to one protocol. This turns an infrastructure hiccup into a systemic event.
Evidence: The November 2022 Infura outage during an Ethereum hard fork froze MetaMask, halted major CEX deposits, and crippled DeFi protocols, demonstrating the cascading failure inherent in this architecture.
NETWORK RESILIENCE
The Failure Catalog: When RPCs Broke the Chain
A comparative analysis of failure modes and resilience metrics for different RPC architectures during major network stress events.
| Failure Mode / Metric | Centralized RPC (e.g., Infura, Alchemy) | Semi-Decentralized RPC (e.g., Pocket, Ankr) | Decentralized RPC (e.g., Chainscore, Lava) |
|---|---|---|---|
Single Point of Failure | |||
Downtime during Solana 2022 Outage |
| ~45 minutes | < 5 minutes |
Infrastructure Provider Diversity | 1-2 providers | ~50 node runners |
|
Mean Time to Recovery (MTTR) | Hours to days | Minutes to hours | < 60 seconds |
Client Diversity Enforcement | |||
Historical Uptime SLA | 99.5% | 99.9% |
|
Cost of Outage (Solana, 2022) | $500M+ DeFi TVL frozen | $50M+ TVL impacted | Negligible protocol impact |
deep-dive
THE SINGLE POINT
Anatomy of a Cascade Failure
Centralized RPC providers create systemic risk by concentrating failure modes across the entire DeFi stack.
A centralized RPC endpoint is a single point of failure for thousands of dApps. When a major provider like Infura or Alchemy experiences an outage, it doesn't just affect one application—it bricks every dApp, wallet, and bridge that relies on its infrastructure for blockchain data.
The failure cascades instantly because modern DeFi is a system of interdependent protocols. A stalled RPC halts price oracles like Chainlink, breaks automated liquidations on Aave/Compound, and freezes cross-chain messaging for LayerZero and Wormhole. The entire financial stack seizes.
This is not an abstraction. The 2022 Infura outage during an Ethereum hard fork took down MetaMask, Uniswap, and OpenSea simultaneously. The cost was not downtime; it was the complete erosion of user trust in a decentralized ecosystem that failed because of one company's server.
risk-analysis
THE COST OF CENTRALIZED RPC RELIANCE
The Four Unacceptable Risks
Relying on a single, centralized RPC provider is a systemic risk that compromises network resilience, security, and sovereignty.
01
The Single Point of Failure
A centralized RPC endpoint is a single kill switch for your entire application. When it fails, your dApp goes dark, regardless of the underlying blockchain's health.\n- Cascading Downtime: Outages at providers like Infura or Alchemy have historically taken down billions in DeFi TVL.\n- False Perception: Users blame the protocol, not the infrastructure, eroding trust.
100%
Downtime Risk
$10B+
TVL at Risk
02
The Censorship Vector
Centralized RPC providers are legal entities that can be compelled to censor transactions. This violates the core promise of permissionless blockchains.\n- Regulatory Pressure: Providers can and have been forced to blacklist addresses (e.g., Tornado Cash).\n- Protocol Capture: Your application's ability to operate is now subject to a third-party's terms of service.
0
Censorship Resistance
100%
Compliance Risk
03
The Data Monopoly
Centralized providers aggregate and monetize your application's user data and traffic patterns. You are leaking alpha and competitive intelligence.\n- Privacy Erosion: Every query reveals user behavior, wallet holdings, and trading strategies.\n- Vendor Lock-in: Proprietary APIs and enhanced endpoints create switching costs and dependency.
100%
Data Leakage
High
Switching Cost
04
The Performance Ceiling
You are bottlenecked by your provider's global infrastructure. During peak load (e.g., NFT mints, airdrops), latency spikes and rate limits cripple UX.\n- Unpredictable Latency: Shared endpoints mean your performance is at the mercy of other apps' traffic, leading to >2s response times.\n- No Customization: Cannot optimize for specific data needs (e.g., historical state, specialized indexing).
~2000ms
Peak Latency
0
Optimization Control
counter-argument
THE SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE
But We Need Performance and Reliability
Centralized RPC reliance creates systemic risk by concentrating failure points, undermining the decentralized resilience it claims to support.
Centralized RPCs create systemic risk. A single provider's outage, like Infura or Alchemy, can cripple major dApps and wallets across multiple chains, demonstrating that the network's availability is only as strong as its most centralized dependency.
The performance trade-off is a false dichotomy. Decentralized alternatives like Pocket Network and Ankr achieve comparable latency and uptime by distributing requests across thousands of independent nodes, eliminating the bottleneck of a few data centers.
Reliability requires redundancy. A resilient architecture uses multiple RPC providers in a failover configuration. Services like Chainstack's Multi-Chain RPC and direct node operation provide the necessary redundancy that a single vendor cannot.
Evidence: The March 2024 Alchemy outage on Base halted transactions for leading dApps, proving that centralized infrastructure remains a critical vulnerability for L2s and the applications built on them.
protocol-spotlight
THE COST OF CENTRALIZED RPC RELIANCE
The Builder's Toolkit: Moving Beyond Centralization
Centralized RPC endpoints are a single point of failure, introducing systemic risk, censorship, and unpredictable costs for protocols and users.
01
The Problem: The Single Point of Failure
Relying on a single provider like Infura or Alchemy creates systemic risk. An outage can brick entire dApp frontends, halting billions in TVL. This is a direct violation of blockchain's decentralized ethos.
- Censorship Vector: Centralized gatekeepers can blacklist addresses or transactions.
- Cascading Failure: A single provider outage can affect $10B+ TVL across DeFi and NFTs.
- Unpredictable Costs: Opaque, usage-based pricing leads to surprise bills for developers.
>99%
Centralized Uptime
$10B+
TVL at Risk
02
The Solution: Decentralized RPC Networks
Networks like POKT Network and Lava Network incentivize a global, permissionless mesh of node runners. This creates a competitive market for RPC services, eliminating single points of failure and censorship.
- Redundancy: Requests are load-balanced across hundreds of independent nodes.
- Censorship Resistance: No single entity controls access to the chain.
- Predictable Pricing: Developers pay a fixed rate for guaranteed throughput, not per-request.
1000+
Node Providers
-70%
Cost Variance
03
The Architecture: Multi-Provider Fallback & Load Balancing
Smart client SDKs, like those from ethers.js or viem, allow dApps to define a fallback list of RPC providers. This simple pattern dramatically improves resilience with minimal code change.
- Automatic Failover: If the primary endpoint fails, the client seamlessly switches to a backup.
- Load Distribution: Requests can be spread to avoid rate limits and reduce latency.
- Provider Agnosticism: Builders are not locked into a single vendor's ecosystem.
<500ms
Failover Time
3x
Uptime Improvement
04
The Endgame: User-Owned RPC & MEV-Aware Routing
The final evolution is users running their own light clients or using privacy-preserving services like Flashbots Protect. This shifts the trust model from corporations to open-source software and cryptographic proofs.
- Sovereignty: Users connect directly to the P2P network or a node they trust.
- MEV Protection: RPCs can route transactions through Flashbots or bloxroute to avoid frontrunning.
- Data Privacy: User activity is not funneled through a centralized data aggregator.
0
Trusted Third Parties
~90%
MEV Reduction
future-outlook
THE SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE
The Inevitable Shift to Decentralized RPC Nets
Centralized RPC providers create systemic risk, making decentralized alternatives like POKT Network and Lava Network a technical necessity.
Centralized RPC reliance is a systemic risk. A single provider's outage, like a major cloud failure, cascades to all dependent dApps, creating correlated failure across the ecosystem.
Decentralized RPCs eliminate this vector. Networks like POKT and Lava distribute requests across thousands of independent node operators, ensuring censorship resistance and eliminating single-provider downtime.
The cost is not just uptime, it's sovereignty. Centralized gateways like Infura and Alchemy control data access, creating a permissioned layer that contradicts blockchain's core value proposition.
Evidence: The 2022 Infura outage halted MetaMask and major CEX deposits, demonstrating how a single RPC failure paralyzes user access across the entire Ethereum stack.
takeaways
THE COST OF CENTRALIZED RPC RELIANCE
TL;DR: The Resilient Architect's Checklist
Centralized RPC endpoints are a single point of failure for your dApp's uptime, data integrity, and user experience. Here's how to architect for resilience.
01
The Single Point of Failure
Relying on a single provider like Infura or Alchemy creates systemic risk. Their outages become your outages, as seen during major Ethereum upgrades or AWS regional failures.
- Censorship Risk: Centralized gateways can filter or block transactions.
- Data Manipulation: You cannot cryptographically verify the data you receive.
- Latency Spikes: Shared infrastructure leads to unpredictable performance during peak load.
100%
Downtime Inherited
~500ms
Jitter Added
02
The Multi-RPC & Fallback Strategy
Implement client-side RPC aggregation and failover. Use services like Pocket Network, BlastAPI, or a custom load balancer to distribute requests across multiple providers.
- Uptime Guarantee: Automatic failover to a healthy endpoint in <2s.
- Cost Optimization: Leverage competitive pricing from decentralized providers like Pocket.
- Geographic Redundancy: Route requests to the lowest-latency node for your users.
99.99%
Target Uptime
-40%
RPC Cost
03
The Self-Hosted Validating Node
The gold standard for resilience and data integrity. Run your own archive node (e.g., Erigon, Nethermind) for critical read/write operations and settlement.
- Absolute Data Integrity: Cryptographically verify every state change.
- Zero Censorship: Submit transactions directly to the mempool.
- Predictable Cost: Fixed infra cost vs. variable API pricing; essential for $10B+ TVL protocols.
~2TB
Storage Required
0ms
Trust Delay
04
The Decentralized RPC Network
Shift reliance from corporate APIs to permissionless networks like Pocket Network or Ankr. These use a global pool of independent node operators.
- Sybil-Resistant: Node service is bonded with native tokens (e.g., POKT).
- Censorship-Resistant: No central entity to impose rules.
- Economic Alignment: Operators are paid for uptime and correctness, not user data.
30k+
Node Operators
50+
Chains Served
05
The MEV-Aware Architecture
Centralized RPCs can leak transaction data to searchers. Use private transaction relays (e.g., Flashbots Protect, BloxRoute) or SUAVE-like systems to mitigate.
- Frontrunning Protection: Shield tx details until inclusion.
- Better Execution: Access to builder markets for optimal pricing.
- Regulatory Shield: Obfuscate user activity from the RPC provider.
90%+
MEV Saved
1-Block
Privacy Window
06
The Cost of Doing Nothing
Inaction is a quantifiable risk. A 1-hour outage during a market crash can mean $10M+ in lost user funds and irreversible reputational damage. Resilience is not an expense; it's insurance.
- Contract Risk: Failed oracle updates due to RPC failure.
- User Exodus: Users migrate to more reliable competitors.
- Technical Debt: The migration becomes harder as your dApp scales.
$10M/hr
Potential Loss
50%
User Churn Risk
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