Infura excels at providing comprehensive, third-party-verified insurance for its custodial staking services, directly addressing the slashing risk that keeps many institutions on the sidelines. For example, its coverage with Lloyd's of London offers a clear, auditable financial backstop against penalties from validator downtime or malicious behavior, a critical feature for funds managing high-value assets like Lido's stETH or institutional ETH positions. This model quantifies and transfers risk, turning a probabilistic threat into a manageable cost.
LABS
Comparisons
Infura vs Figment: Insurance Coverage for Custodial Risks
A technical analysis comparing the insurance policies of Infura and Figment, focusing on coverage for errors, omissions, and custodial risks in staking and validator operations. Evaluates policy structure, coverage triggers, and financial limits for enterprise decision-makers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Why Insurance is a Critical RPC & Staking Differentiator
A deep dive into how Infura and Figment's insurance-backed security models create a fundamental trade-off for institutional blockchain infrastructure.
Figment takes a different approach by embedding insurance-like protections into its core service-level agreements (SLAs) and operational practices, rather than as a separate financial product. This results in a trade-off: while it may lack a standalone Lloyd's policy, Figment mitigates risk through extreme redundancy, multi-cloud infrastructure, and a 99.9%+ historical uptime guarantee for its Ethereum, Cosmos, and Polkadot validators. Its security is demonstrated through performance, not just a policy document.
The key trade-off: If your priority is explicit, transferable financial coverage to satisfy risk committees and auditors for high-stakes treasury deployments, Infura's insured staking is the clear choice. If you prioritize proven, battle-tested operational security and maximum validator rewards across a diverse multi-chain portfolio, Figment's performance-backed model is superior. The decision hinges on whether you need to insure the outcome or trust the process.
tldr-summary
Infura vs Figment: Insurance Coverage for Custodial Risks
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for evaluating RPC provider insurance and risk management.
01
Infura: Industry-Leading Insurance
Specific advantage: Backed by ConsenSys, Infura offers a $10 million insurance policy through Aon for custodial risks. This matters for enterprise DeFi protocols and institutional clients who require auditable, high-limit coverage to meet compliance and risk management mandates.
$10M
Insurance Policy
02
Infura: Established Risk Framework
Specific advantage: As a pioneer since 2016, Infura's security and operational practices are battle-tested, supporting $1.6+ trillion in annualized on-chain transaction volume. This matters for high-value applications where proven infrastructure stability is non-negotiable, reducing the perceived need for external insurance.
$1.6T+
Annual Tx Volume
04
Figment: Custom Risk Solutions
Specific advantage: Figment offers bespoke risk management consultations and can structure coverage for specific client needs across its 70+ supported proof-of-stake networks. This matters for multi-chain foundations and large stakers who need tailored protection beyond a one-size-fits-all policy, especially for newer or less-established chains.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Infura vs Figment: Insurance Coverage for Custodial Risks
Direct comparison of insurance policies and financial protections for enterprise node service users.
| Insurance & Protection Feature | Infura | Figment |
|---|---|---|
Third-Party Custodial Insurance Coverage | ||
Insurance Policy Limit (USD) | $500 million+ | |
Coverage for Private Key Compromise | ||
Coverage for Internal Fraud | ||
SOC 2 Type II Compliance | ||
Service Level Agreement (SLA) Uptime | 99.9% | 99.5% |
Financial Penalties for SLA Breach | Service credits | Service credits |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Infura vs Figment: Insurance Coverage for Custodial Risks
A direct comparison of risk mitigation strategies for enterprises managing validator keys and custodial infrastructure.
01
Infura's Pro: Integrated Enterprise Insurance
Direct coverage via ConsenSys: Infura provides a $5 million insurance policy per customer, underwritten by a top-tier global insurer, specifically for custodial risks like key loss or theft. This is a turnkey solution for teams that cannot secure their own coverage. It matters for regulated entities (e.g., fintechs, banks) that require auditable, contractual risk transfer as part of their compliance stack.
02
Infura's Con: Centralized Risk Point
Single-provider dependency: The insurance and infrastructure are bundled, creating a concentrated counterparty risk. If ConsenSys' policy terms change or coverage is revoked, your risk posture changes instantly. This matters for long-term, high-value protocols (e.g., L1s, major DeFi protocols) that require sovereign control over their risk management strategy and cannot afford vendor lock-in on a critical safety net.
03
Figment's Pro: Delegated Staking with Zero Custodial Risk
Non-custodial architecture by design: Figment never takes custody of validator keys; clients retain full control via solutions like Web3Signer. This eliminates the primary risk that insurance is meant to cover. It matters for security-first enterprises (e.g., institutional asset managers) whose primary mandate is to avoid any single point of key failure, making insurance a secondary concern.
04
Figment's Con: Requires External Insurance Procurement
Client-managed risk financing: Figment's model shifts the burden of securing insurance for operational risks (e.g., slashing due to their node performance) onto the client. This matters for smaller teams or rapid deployments that lack the legal and financial bandwidth to negotiate and manage a standalone insurance policy with an underwriter, adding complexity and time to launch.
pros-cons-b
Infura vs Figment
Figment: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of insurance coverage for custodial risks, a critical factor for institutional adoption. Evaluate based on your protocol's security posture and compliance requirements.
01
Figment's Key Strength: Comprehensive Custodial Insurance
Offers explicit, dedicated insurance for staked assets through Lloyd's of London. This provides direct financial recourse in the event of a slashing event or key management failure due to validator negligence. This is critical for institutional clients and large-scale stakers who require asset protection beyond SLAs.
Lloyd's
Underwriter
02
Figment's Key Strength: Institutional-Grade Compliance & Reporting
Built for regulated entities and funds. Provides detailed, auditable proof of reserves, slashing insurance certificates, and compliance-ready reporting frameworks (e.g., for SOC 2 Type II). This matters for protocols targeting TradFi integration or requiring enterprise-grade audit trails.
03
Infura's Key Strength: Broad Product & Network Coverage
Insurance is part of a larger, battle-tested infrastructure suite (RPC, APIs, SDKs). While custodial coverage is more limited, its 99.9%+ SLA across 15+ chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum) and massive scale provide a different form of risk mitigation through redundancy. Ideal for dApp developers needing multi-chain reliability over asset-specific insurance.
15+
Networks
99.9%
Uptime SLA
04
Infura's Key Strength: Developer Ecosystem & Tooling
Unmatched integration depth with developer tools like Truffle, Hardhat, and MetaMask. The Consensys ecosystem provides a cohesive security model. This matters for teams prioritizing rapid development velocity, existing Web3.js/ethers.js integration, and access to the largest developer community over standalone insurance products.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Provider
Infura for Enterprise Security
Verdict: The default choice for comprehensive, audited risk coverage. Strengths: Infura's insurance coverage is a cornerstone of its enterprise offering. It provides a clear, audited financial backstop against custodial risks (e.g., key management failures, operational errors). This is backed by ConsenSys's institutional reputation and is explicitly detailed in SLAs. For a regulated entity or a protocol managing high-value assets, this formalized, third-party-verified insurance is non-negotiable. It directly mitigates balance sheet risk. Considerations: This premium coverage is part of a higher-cost enterprise package. The process to claim is formal and requires adherence to strict operational protocols.
Figment for Enterprise Security
Verdict: Relies on robust technical SLAs and institutional reputation, with less explicit insurance focus. Strengths: Figment's security posture is built on its institutional-grade infrastructure, multi-region redundancy, and deep protocol expertise (supporting 40+ networks). Their risk mitigation is operational and technical first. While they offer strong SLAs for uptime and performance, the explicit mention of custodial insurance is less prominent than Infura's. Trust is derived from their clientele (like Blockchain.com, Kraken) and proven track record. Considerations: Enterprises must conduct due diligence to confirm the specifics of financial liability coverage. The security model is more about preventing failure than insuring against it.
INFURA VS FIGMENT
Frequently Asked Questions on RPC & Staking Insurance
Direct comparison of insurance coverage for custodial risks when using Infura's RPC services or Figment's staking infrastructure. Critical for CTOs and VPs managing institutional exposure.
Infura does not offer direct SLA-backed financial insurance for RPC downtime, while Figment provides staking-specific insurance for slashing. Infura's primary guarantee is its robust Service Level Agreement (SLA) and high uptime, with credits for prolonged outages. Figment's insurance, through partners like Nexus Mutual or its own coverage pools, financially protects against validator penalties (slashing) and downtime that leads to loss of staked assets. For pure RPC reliability, Infura's track record is key; for staking asset protection, Figment's structured insurance is superior.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Infura and Figment for custodial risk insurance depends on your protocol's scale, risk profile, and operational philosophy.
Infura excels at providing a robust, integrated safety net for high-volume applications due to its direct ownership by ConsenSys and deep integration with the MetaMask Institutional ecosystem. For example, its insurance coverage is backed by a consortium of top-tier underwriters like Lloyd's of London, offering a clear, enterprise-grade claims process. This is critical for protocols like Aave or Uniswap, which manage billions in TVL and require ironclad SLAs with 99.9%+ uptime guarantees for their core RPC dependencies.
Figment takes a different approach by specializing in non-custodial staking and validator services, where insurance is a core component of its institutional trust offering. This results in a trade-off: while its coverage is highly tailored to staking slashing risks and key management—a major concern for protocols like Lido or Rocket Pool—its general-purpose RPC service may not have the same breadth of integrated financial protection as Infura's dedicated enterprise offering for API failures.
The key trade-off: If your priority is comprehensive, API-first insurance for a high-traffic dApp or DeFi protocol where RPC reliability is paramount, choose Infura. Its model is built for scale and direct integration. If you prioritize staking-specific custodial risk mitigation and require insurance primarily for validator operations and key management, choose Figment. Its expertise is deeply aligned with Proof-of-Stake network security.
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