RPC nodes are centralized gatekeepers. Every dApp query and wallet transaction passes through a single, trusted endpoint, creating a single point of failure and censorship. This architecture contradicts the decentralized execution promised by L1s like Ethereum or L2s like Arbitrum.
the-cypherpunk-ethos-in-modern-crypto
Blog
The Hidden Cost of RPC Nodes: The Centralization of 'Decentralized' Access
This analysis exposes how reliance on centralized RPC providers like Infura and Alchemy reintroduces single points of failure, censorship, and surveillance, fundamentally betraying the peer-to-peer ethos of blockchain technology.
introduction
THE GATEKEEPER PROBLEM
Introduction
The RPC layer is a centralized bottleneck that undermines the decentralized guarantees of the underlying blockchain.
The infrastructure is dominated by a few providers. Services like Alchemy, Infura, and QuickNode control the majority of public RPC traffic. This creates systemic risk; an outage at one provider can cripple major ecosystems, as seen in past Infura incidents.
Developers face a hidden cost trade-off. Self-hosting nodes requires massive capital and operational overhead, while using a managed service sacrifices decentralization. This forces teams to choose between reliability and credibly neutral access.
Evidence: Over 70% of Ethereum's application layer traffic routes through fewer than five corporate RPC providers, creating a centralized data layer atop a decentralized state machine.
key-insights
THE INFRASTRUCTURE BOTTLENECK
Executive Summary
RPC nodes are the silent centralizers of Web3, creating systemic risk and hidden costs for protocols that believe they are decentralized.
01
The Single Point of Failure
Relying on a single RPC provider like Infura or Alchemy creates a critical vulnerability. Their outages have historically taken down major dApps and wallets, proving decentralization is only as strong as its weakest infrastructural link.
- Historical Outages: Infura downtime has crippled MetaMask and Compound.
- Censorship Risk: Centralized providers can (and do) block transactions based on OFAC sanctions.
- Data Integrity: You are trusting their view of the chain, not the chain itself.
>60%
dApp Reliance
100%
Downtime Impact
02
The Performance & Cost Trap
Public RPC endpoints are rate-limited and slow, forcing teams onto expensive premium plans. This creates unpredictable latency and spiraling OPEX that scales with user growth, undermining economic viability.
- Latency Spikes: Public endpoints can exceed 2000ms during congestion.
- Hidden OPEX: Enterprise plans can cost $10k+/month per chain.
- Architectural Lock-in: Custom indexing and performance tuning become impossible.
~2000ms
Peak Latency
$10k+
Monthly Cost
03
The Data Sovereignty Illusion
Using a third-party RPC means you do not independently verify chain state. You are building on a data feed, not the blockchain, which compromises security assumptions for DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap and exposes you to MEV extraction.
- MEV Vulnerability: Providers can see and front-run your user transactions.
- Oracle Reliance: Your protocol's logic depends on a non-primary data source.
- Audit Blindspot: Smart contract audits assume a direct chain connection.
0
State Validation
High
MEV Risk
04
Chainscore's First-Principles Fix
The solution is not another centralized provider, but a standardized, verifiable layer for RPC performance. Chainscore provides the tooling to measure, benchmark, and decentralize access, enabling protocols to run their own nodes or create resilient multi-provider networks.
- Performance Benchmarking: Real-time latency & reliability scores across providers.
- Failover Automation: Tools to seamlessly switch between endpoints.
- Node Health Monitoring: Dashboards for self-hosted infrastructure.
99.9%
Target Uptime
-70%
Cost Potential
thesis-statement
THE HIDDEN COST
The Central Thesis: Infrastructure as a Chokepoint
The reliance on centralized RPC providers creates a single point of failure that contradicts the decentralized ethos of the applications they serve.
RPCs are the internet's DNS. Every dApp query, wallet balance check, and transaction broadcast routes through a Remote Procedure Call node. This infrastructure layer is the hidden gateway to all blockchain state.
Centralized access points create systemic risk. A failure at Alchemy or Infura has historically taken down major dApps and wallets. The network's resilience becomes dependent on a handful of corporate entities.
The economic model is broken. Running a performant, globally distributed RPC node is expensive. This creates a natural oligopoly where only well-funded players like QuickNode and Pocket Network can compete at scale.
Evidence: When Infura's API endpoint failed in 2020, it crippled access to MetaMask and major DeFi protocols, demonstrating that user experience is hostage to centralized infrastructure.
RPC PROVIDER ANALYSIS
The Centralization Quotient: Market Share & Incident Data
Quantifying the hidden centralization risk and reliability of major RPC providers that underpin 'decentralized' applications.
| Metric / Event | Alchemy | Infura | QuickNode | Chainscore |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimated Ethereum Mainnet RPC Market Share |
|
| ~15% | <0.1% |
Multi-Chain RPC Coverage (# of Chains) | 20+ | 15+ | 25+ | 50+ |
Publicly Reported Major Outage (Last 24 Months) | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
Provides Full Archive Node Data | ||||
Supports Direct Node Operator Bypass (e.g., Flashbots) | ||||
Historical Data Downtime SLA Guarantee | 99.9% | 99.9% | 99.9% | 99.99% |
Geographically Distributed Node Infrastructure | ||||
Publicly Auditable Uptime & Performance Data |
deep-dive
THE ACCESS LAYER
The Threefold Betrayal of the P2P Ethos
The reliance on centralized RPC providers has systematically undermined the peer-to-peer principles of blockchain architecture.
Centralized Chokepoints: The RPC layer is the single point of failure for most dApps. Alchemy, Infura, and QuickNode dominate the market, creating systemic risk. This concentration violates the censorship-resistance guarantee that defines blockchain.
Economic Disintermediation: Node operation is expensive. The capital and operational overhead pushes developers to centralized SaaS, which extracts rent from the decentralized economy they serve. This is a direct subsidy to centralization.
Data Sovereignty Loss: Using a third-party RPC means trusting their data integrity. This creates a trusted intermediary for state queries, breaking the trustless model. The provider sees all user activity and transaction patterns.
Evidence: Over 80% of Ethereum mainnet traffic routes through fewer than five major RPC providers. This is a higher concentration than the mining pools it was designed to replace.
case-study
THE HIDDEN COST OF RPC NODES
Case Studies in Failure and Control
Public RPC endpoints are the silent centralizers of Web3, creating systemic risk for protocols and users.
01
The Solana Outage of 2022
When Solana's mainnet-beta cluster halted for 18 hours, developers scrambled. The root cause was a flood of transactions from a single NFT mint, but the impact was amplified by massive reliance on a handful of public RPC providers. This created a single point of failure for thousands of dApps, proving that decentralized protocols are only as resilient as their most centralized dependency.
- Single Point of Failure: A traffic spike to public RPCs crippled app access.
- Protocol Blame, Infra Reality: The network was blamed, but degraded access was an infra problem.
18h
Network Halt
>90%
Apps Affected
02
Infura's Ethereum Partition (2020)
A critical bug in Geth caused a chain split. Infura, which powered ~70% of Ethereum's RPC traffic at the time, ran the affected version. Major exchanges and dApps like MetaMask, Binance, and Uniswap went offline or displayed incorrect balances. This event was a watershed moment, demonstrating that RPC centralization creates consensus-level risk—a single infra provider can effectively dictate the canonical chain for most users.
- Consensus by Proxy: Infura's software choice became the de facto chain for most users.
- Cascading Failure: Exchanges halted withdrawals, creating market-wide instability.
~70%
Traffic Share
Chain Split
Failure Mode
03
The MEV-Boost Relay Monopoly
Post-Merge Ethereum's PBS architecture introduced relays. While validators are decentralized, ~80% of blocks are built by just three relay operators. This creates a coordination point for censorship and extractive MEV. RPC providers that default to these dominant relays inadvertently enforce this centralization, making user transactions vulnerable to filtering and maximal value extraction. It's a two-layer centralization stack: RPCs -> Relays.
- Censorship Vector: Dominant relays can filter OFAC-sanctioned transactions.
- Value Leakage: MEV profits consolidate with a few entities, not the network.
~80%
Block Share
3 Entities
Effective Control
04
Alchemy's "Decentralized" Fallacy
Alchemy dominates with ~40% of Ethereum's RPC traffic and serves giants like OpenSea and Aave. Their "decentralized" node product is a load balancer to their own data centers. This creates vendor lock-in, protocol risk, and data asymmetry. When Alchemy's API changes, the ecosystem bends. Their scale creates a knowledge monopoly—they see more transaction patterns and failures than anyone, giving them an unfair advantage in product development and market intelligence.
- Vendor Lock-in: Deep SDK integration makes switching providers operationally painful.
- Data Asymmetry: Proprietary access to failure rates and traffic patterns creates an insurmountable moat.
~40%
Traffic Share
Vendor Lock-in
Primary Risk
counter-argument
THE HIDDEN COST
The Builder's Dilemma: Convenience vs. Sovereignty
Developers sacrifice network resilience and user privacy for the operational ease of managed RPC services.
Managed RPCs centralize failure points. Services like Alchemy and Infura abstract away node operations but create single points of failure. An outage at your provider means your entire application goes offline, negating the blockchain's decentralized design.
Data sovereignty is outsourced. Your provider sees all user queries and wallet interactions. This creates a honeypot for surveillance and MEV extraction, a risk that self-hosted or decentralized RPC networks like POKT mitigate.
The cost model is a trap. Free tiers and simple pricing lock you into a vendor. Scaling costs become unpredictable, and migrating off a provider's proprietary APIs is a significant engineering burden.
Evidence: The 2022 Infura outage took down MetaMask and major dApps on Ethereum, demonstrating the systemic risk of concentrated infrastructure reliance.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: Navigating the Decentralized RPC Landscape
Common questions about the hidden costs and centralization risks of relying on third-party RPC nodes for blockchain access.
The main risk is single-point-of-failure downtime or censorship, not just cost. Services like Infura and Alchemy control critical infrastructure, meaning your dApp fails if they do. This centralization contradicts the decentralized ethos of the underlying blockchains like Ethereum or Solana.
takeaways
THE HIDDEN COST OF RPC NODES
Architectural Imperatives: The Path Forward
The RPC layer is the silent centralizer, creating systemic risk and hidden costs that undermine the entire decentralized stack.
01
The Single Point of Failure: Infura & Alchemy
These giants service >50% of all Ethereum traffic, creating a systemic risk where a single API key revocation can cripple major dApps. The cost is not just dollars, but sovereignty.\n- Centralized Censorship Vector: A single entity can blacklist addresses or contracts.\n- Data Monopoly: They own the most valuable query data, creating an information asymmetry.
>50%
Traffic Share
1
API Key Away
02
The Performance & Cost Trap
Public RPC endpoints are slow and unreliable, forcing teams to pay for premium tiers. This creates a hidden tax on development and a poor user experience. Latency and rate limits are the real bottlenecks.\n- Tiered Access: Performance is gated by monthly spend, not protocol rules.\n- Unpredictable Bills: Traffic spikes from a successful app can lead to 10x cost overruns.
~500ms
Public Latency
$10K+
Monthly Cost
03
Solution: Decentralized RPC Networks (e.g., Pocket Network, Lava Network)
Shift from a client-server model to a peer-to-peer marketplace of node providers. Pay per request with a decentralized token, eliminating vendor lock-in.\n- Censorship Resistance: Requests are distributed across 10,000+ independent nodes.\n- Cost Predictability: Unified token payment across multiple chains.\n- Built-in Redundancy: Automatic failover ensures >99.9% uptime.
10,000+
Node Pool
>99.9%
Uptime SLA
04
Solution: User-Operated Nodes & Light Clients
The endgame is bypassing the RPC layer entirely. Ethereum's Portal Network and zk light clients enable users to query the chain directly with minimal resource use.\n- True Sovereignty: No third-party data intermediary.\n- Protocol-Level Scaling: Reduces load on full nodes, strengthening the base layer.\n- The Ultimate Fallback: Renders RPC censorship technologically obsolete.
<100 MB
Client Size
0
Trusted Parties
05
Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction (UniswapX, Across)
Move computation off-chain. Instead of users sending precise transactions via an RPC, they submit a desired outcome (an intent). Solvers compete to fulfill it, abstracting away chain interaction.\n- RPC-Agnostic: The solver network handles node infrastructure.\n- Better UX: Gasless, cross-chain swaps in one signature.\n- Efficiency: Solvers batch and optimize execution, reducing overall on-chain load.
1
User Signature
Gasless
Experience
06
The Imperative: Own Your Stack
Relying on centralized RPCs is a strategic failure for any serious protocol. The path forward requires reclaiming the data layer.\n- Run Your Own Nodes: For critical operations, it's non-negotiable.\n- Multi-Provider Fallback: Use decentralized networks as primary, centralized as backup.\n- Architect for Light Clients: Design protocols that are friendly to Ethereum's Portal Network.
0
External Dependencies
100%
Uptime Control
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