RPCs are not gas stations. The legacy model of a simple JSON-RPC relay for broadcasting signed transactions is obsolete. Modern applications require endpoints that construct, simulate, and submit complex user intents, as seen in ERC-4337 Account Abstraction and UniswapX.
account-abstraction-fixing-crypto-ux
Blog
The Future of RPC Endpoints: From Gas Station to User Operation Orchestrator
General-purpose JSON-RPC endpoints are a relic. The new infrastructure standard for account abstraction is a bundled service that manages the entire UserOp lifecycle from simulation to sponsorship, fundamentally changing how dApps interact with blockchains.
introduction
THE SHIFT
Introduction
The RPC endpoint is evolving from a passive data pipe into an active orchestrator of user intents and operations.
The orchestrator layer emerges. This new infrastructure tier handles intent resolution, gas sponsorship, and cross-chain operation batching. It abstracts wallet complexity, turning a user's desired outcome into an executable on-chain bundle, a paradigm pioneered by Stackup and Alchemy's Account Kit.
Performance metrics are inverted. Success is no longer measured in raw requests per second, but in user operation success rate and simulation accuracy. A failed intent costs more in lost UX than a slow response.
thesis-statement
THE EVOLUTION
Thesis Statement
RPC endpoints are evolving from passive gas stations into active orchestrators of user intents, fundamentally restructuring the developer stack.
RPC endpoints are not utilities. They are the new control plane for application logic, shifting from simple data queries to executing complex, cross-chain user operations.
The gas station model is obsolete. A passive endpoint offering eth_gasPrice is insufficient for intent-based architectures like UniswapX or Across Protocol, which require transaction simulation and routing.
Providers like Alchemy and QuickNode are already pivoting, bundling services like ERC-4337 account abstraction tooling and MEV protection, proving the orchestration thesis in-market.
Evidence: The 90%+ market share of private RPCs for major dApps demonstrates that reliability and advanced features, not raw decentralization, are the primary purchase drivers.
market-context
THE INFRASTRUCTURE SHIFT
Market Context: The Bundler Wars Have Begun
The role of the RPC endpoint is evolving from a simple gas station to a sophisticated orchestrator of user operations.
RPCs are becoming bundlers. The standard JSON-RPC spec is insufficient for ERC-4337 account abstraction. Endpoints like Alchemy and Infura now bundle UserOperations, competing on execution efficiency and MEV capture.
The endpoint abstracts complexity. Developers no longer manage bundler infrastructure. Services like Stackup and Biconomy provide a single RPC call that handles paymaster sponsorship, gas estimation, and transaction simulation.
Performance defines the winner. The winning RPC-bundler will have the lowest latency for simulation and the highest inclusion rate. This requires deep mempool access and integration with builders like Flashbots.
Evidence: Alchemy's eth_sendUserOperation API handles 60% of AA transactions. Ankr's integration with Pimlico demonstrates the bundler-as-a-service model is the new baseline.
key-trends
THE FUTURE OF RPC ENDPOINTS
Key Trends: What an Orchestrator Actually Does
The RPC endpoint is evolving from a passive gas station into an active orchestrator, managing the entire lifecycle of a user's intent across fragmented chains.
01
The Problem: The Gas Station Bottleneck
Traditional RPCs are passive pipes. They broadcast your signed transaction and pray. This fails in a multi-chain world where a user's intent requires atomic composition across 3+ chains and dynamic fee management.
- Result: Transaction failures, stuck assets, and lost MEV.
- Metric: ~15% of cross-chain swaps fail due to RPC passivity.
15%
Swap Failures
~500ms
Latency Penalty
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Routing (UniswapX, CowSwap)
The orchestrator interprets a user's desired outcome ("swap X for Y") and dynamically finds the optimal path. It abstracts away chain selection, liquidity sources, and settlement layers.
- Mechanism: Uses off-chain solvers (like CowSwap) or fillers (like UniswapX) to compete for best execution.
- Benefit: Users get better prices and guaranteed settlement, paying only for success.
10x
More Liquidity
-50%
Slippage
03
The Problem: Fragmented Security & Settlement
A user's operation is only as secure as its weakest link. Native bridges have $2B+ in historical exploits. Relying on a single chain's security for a cross-chain operation is naive.
- Risk: Bridge hacks, validator collusion, and inconsistent finality.
- Entity Examples: Wormhole, LayerZero, and Axelwar address this with varied security models.
$2B+
Bridge Exploits
7 Days
Worst Finality
04
The Solution: Unified Security Abstraction
The orchestrator becomes the user's security guarantor. It selects and bundles attestations from optimal security layers (e.g., Ethereum consensus, TSS networks, optimistic verification).
- Function: Provides a single, high-assurance interface, similar to how Across uses a single hub chain.
- Benefit: Developers integrate once; users get best-in-class security per operation without managing complexity.
1
Integration Point
99.9%
Uptime SLA
05
The Problem: Opaque, Extractive Fee Markets
Users overpay. Today's fee markets are blind auctions where MEV bots extract ~$1.3B annually from predictable transactions. RPCs merely pass through this inefficiency.
- Cost: Inflated priority fees, sandwich attacks, and no fee refunds on failure.
- Data Point: ~90% of users cannot manually optimize gas for complex operations.
$1.3B
Annual MEV Extract
90%
Users Overpay
06
The Solution: Intelligent Fee Orchestration
The orchestrator acts as a fiduciary, simulating, bundling, and routing to minimize cost and extractable value. It uses private mempools (like Flashbots), account abstraction gas sponsorship, and batch auctions.
- Outcome: Users pay a net-effective fee after MEV kickbacks and bundling discounts.
- Future State: The RPC endpoint becomes a profit center for the user, not a cost center.
-70%
Net Cost
0
Sandwich Risk
FROM STATIC PIPES TO DYNAMIC AGENTS
Infrastructure Evolution: RPC vs. Orchestrator
Compares the functional shift from traditional JSON-RPC endpoints to intent-based user operation orchestrators, highlighting the architectural and economic implications for dApp builders.
| Core Function | Traditional RPC (e.g., Alchemy, Infura) | Enhanced RPC (e.g., Blast, Gateway.fm) | User Operation Orchestrator (e.g., Stackup, Biconomy, Alchemy's "Kettle") |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Role | State query & transaction broadcast | State query + MEV-aware transaction routing | Intent fulfillment & cross-domain operation sequencing |
Abstraction Level | Transaction (calldata, gas) | Transaction + Gas Sponsorship | User Intent (e.g., "swap X for Y on best venue") |
Key Technical Dependency | EVM Execution Client (Geth, Erigon) | EVM Client + Private Transaction Pool | Account Abstraction (ERC-4337) Bundler & Paymaster |
Fee Model | Per-request API subscription | API subscription + optional MEV share | Pay-per-successful-user-operation + gas markup |
Latency to Finality (L2 Example) | ~3-12 sec (OP Stack) | ~3-12 sec + potential frontrunning protection | ~12-60 sec (includes simulation & bundling delay) |
Cross-Chain Capability | false (single chain) | true (via native intent solvers like Across, Socket) | |
Handles Failed User Ops | false (tx reverts, user pays) | true (Paymaster can sponsor simulation & revert gas) | |
Enables Gasless Onboarding | true (via sponsored meta-transactions) | true (native via Paymaster abstraction) |
deep-dive
THE EXECUTION LAYER
Deep Dive: The Orchestrator Stack
RPC endpoints are evolving from simple gas stations into intelligent orchestrators of user operations across fragmented chains.
RPCs become intent orchestrators. The standard JSON-RPC endpoint is a passive gas station. The next generation, like those from Alchemy's Supernode or Blockdaemon, actively interprets user intents, routes them to optimal chains, and bundles operations.
Orchestration abstracts chain complexity. A user submits a single signed intent. The orchestrator handles chain selection, liquidity routing via Across/Stargate, and execution through UniswapX-style solvers, returning a unified result.
This creates a new performance layer. The orchestrator's speed and success rate, not raw RPC latency, become the key metrics. This shifts competition from infrastructure SLAs to execution intelligence and solver network quality.
Evidence: UniswapX already processes billions via off-chain intent settlement. RPC providers like Alchemy and QuickNode are building dedicated 'bundler' infrastructure to capture this flow.
protocol-spotlight
BEYOND BASIC JSON-RPC
Protocol Spotlight: Who's Building the Orchestrator
The next-generation RPC endpoint is evolving from a simple data pipe into a sophisticated orchestrator, bundling user intents with MEV protection, cross-chain settlement, and account abstraction.
01
The Problem: Vanilla RPCs Leak Value
Standard RPC endpoints are passive data relays, exposing user transactions to frontrunning and sandwich attacks while missing opportunities for optimal execution across chains and liquidity pools.
- MEV Extraction: Users lose ~$1B+ annually to arbitrage bots.
- Fragmented Liquidity: Manual bridging and swapping across chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Solana is slow and costly.
- Poor UX: Managing gas, approvals, and failed txns is a user-hostile nightmare.
$1B+
MEV Loss/Yr
~30s
Avg Bridge Time
02
Flashbots SUAVE: The Universal Solver
A decentralized block-building network that separates transaction ordering from execution, turning the RPC into a competitive marketplace for intent fulfillment.
- Intent-Centric: Users submit desired outcomes (e.g., 'swap X for Y at best rate'), not raw transactions.
- Cross-Chain Native: Solves and settles intents across any connected chain in a single block.
- Proposer-Builder-Separation (PBS): Decentralizes MEV capture, returning value to users and apps.
0
Frontrunning
All Chains
Settlement Scope
03
UniswapX & CowSwap: App-Layer Orchestration
DEX aggregators are becoming intent-based orchestrators, using off-chain solvers and on-chain settlements via protocols like CoW Protocol.
- Gasless Trading: Users sign orders; competing solvers fulfill them, paying gas.
- Batch Auctions: Coincidence of Wants (CoWs) enables peer-to-peer settlement, eliminating AMM fees.
- Cross-Chain Flow: UniswapX plans to use Across and other bridges for seamless cross-chain swaps.
$10B+
Volume
-99%
Failed Txns
04
LayerZero & CCIP: The Messaging Backbone
Omnichain interoperability protocols provide the secure messaging layer that allows orchestrators to execute intents across any blockchain.
- Universal Messaging: Enables state changes and token transfers between Ethereum, Avalanche, Polygon, etc.
- Programmable Transactions: Allows for complex cross-chain logic (e.g., borrow on Aave on one chain, farm yield on another).
- Security First: Uses decentralized oracle and validator networks, unlike naive multisig bridges.
50+
Chains
~3s
Message Finality
05
The Solution: Bundled User Operations (ERC-4337)
Account abstraction turns the RPC into a true orchestrator by bundling multi-step transactions into a single, gas-abstracted user operation.
- Session Keys: Enable seamless, batched interactions with dApps without repeated approvals.
- Paymaster Integration: Allows sponsorships or payment in any token, abstracting gas entirely.
- Atomic Composability: Bundles actions (swap, bridge, stake) into one fail-safe operation across the Ethereum and Polygon ecosystem.
1 Click
Complex Tx
-100%
Gas Worries
06
The Endgame: Autonomous Agent RPCs
The final evolution: RPC endpoints that act as autonomous agents, continuously optimizing a user's portfolio across DeFi protocols based on high-level intents.
- Persistent Agents: Manage liquidity, yield, and risk 24/7 across Aave, Compound, Lido.
- ML-Powered Routing: Dynamically selects the optimal chain and protocol based on real-time fees and yields.
- Fully Abstracted: Users set a risk profile; the agent handles the rest, reporting via wallet notifications.
24/7
Uptime
+20% APY
Optimized Yield
counter-argument
THE INTEROPERABILITY STANDARD
Counter-Argument: Isn't This Just Vendor Lock-In?
Advanced RPCs avoid lock-in by standardizing on open protocols like ERC-4337 and EIP-7702, turning the endpoint into a universal orchestrator.
Standardization prevents proprietary lock-in. The core innovation is building atop open, permissionless standards like ERC-4337 for account abstraction and EIP-7702 for transaction sponsorship. This is the opposite of a closed API; it's a common language for user operations.
The RPC becomes a universal adapter. A provider like Alchemy's Account Kit or Stackup's Bundler doesn't own the user. It executes intents against a standardized interface, making the user's wallet and session key portable across any compliant provider.
Vendor lock-in exists at the data layer. True dependence comes from proprietary indexing and historical data access, which is why projects like The Graph and Covalent are critical. The execution layer, by design, commoditizes.
Evidence: The rapid adoption of ERC-4337 bundlers across chains demonstrates this. A Paymaster service from Biconomy or Pimlico works identically through any standard RPC, forcing competition on performance and price, not protocol.
risk-analysis
ARCHITECTURAL FRAGILITY
Risk Analysis: What Could Go Wrong?
Centralizing user operation orchestration creates new single points of failure and attack vectors.
01
The MEV Cartelization Problem
RPCs that bundle, order, and route transactions become the ultimate MEV extractors. This centralizes a critical market, creating a new rent-seeking layer between users and block builders.\n- Risk: Dominant RPCs like Alchemy or QuickNode could extract >50% of cross-chain MEV.\n- Outcome: User costs rise as competition shifts from L1 to the RPC layer, negating promised savings.
>50%
MEV Capture
New Rent
Seeking Layer
02
Intent-Based Systems as Censorship Vectors
Abstracting transaction construction to an RPC's solver network hands them unilateral censorship power. They can blacklist addresses or dApps at the protocol level, not just the transaction level.\n- Risk: A single RPC provider complying with OFAC could censor entire intent flows, more effectively than today's Flashbots-style block building.\n- Outcome: UniswapX or CowSwap intents become unfulfillable based on RPC policy, breaking application guarantees.
Protocol-Level
Censorship
Broken
App Guarantees
03
Solver Network Centralization & Liveness Risk
The economic efficiency of intent systems relies on a competitive solver market. In practice, a few sophisticated players (Flashbots SUAVE, Chainlink CCIP) will dominate, creating liveness risk.\n- Risk: A bug or attack on a dominant solver network (e.g., Across) could halt $100M+ in cross-chain intent flow for hours.\n- Outcome: Users revert to slow, manual transactions, destroying the UX value proposition of the 'orchestrator' RPC.
$100M+
Flow at Risk
Hours
Downtime Impact
04
The Privacy Paradox of User Abstraction
To orchestrate complex intents, the RPC must see the complete user transaction graph and wallet state. This creates a massive, centralized honeypot of behavioral and financial data.\n- Risk: A breach at an RPC provider like Infura would expose not just balances, but future trading intent and cross-chain portfolio strategy.\n- Outcome: Irreversible loss of financial privacy, enabling targeted front-running and phishing at scale.
Complete
Graph Exposure
Irreversible
Privacy Loss
05
Protocol Capture and Stagnation
If major RPCs tightly integrate with specific intent standards (e.g., ERC-4337, ERC-7677), they become de facto protocol governors. They can stifle innovation by not supporting new, competing standards.\n- Risk: An 'orchestrator' RPC becomes a bottleneck for protocol upgrades, similar to how MetaMask's dominance slowed wallet innovation.\n- Outcome: The infrastructure layer dictates application design, leading to ecosystem stagnation.
De Facto
Governance
Bottleneck
For Innovation
06
The Interoperability Fragmentation Trap
Each RPC will build its own proprietary solver network and cross-chain messaging layer (competing with LayerZero, CCIP, Wormhole). This fragments liquidity and security, recreating the bridge problem at a higher layer.\n- Risk: A user's intent fails because the RPC's chosen bridge for route A is incompatible with the solver's chosen bridge for route B.\n- Outcome: ~30% of complex cross-chain intents fail silently or require manual intervention, destroying trust.
~30%
Intent Fail Rate
Fragmented
Security
future-outlook
THE ORCHESTRATION LAYER
Future Outlook: The Intent-Centric Endgame
RPC endpoints will evolve from simple data pipes into intelligent orchestrators of user intents, abstracting execution complexity.
RPC as Orchestrator: The future RPC endpoint is an intent settlement layer. It receives a user's desired outcome, then coordinates solvers, sequencers, and bridges like Across or Stargate to fulfill it. The endpoint manages the entire cross-domain transaction lifecycle.
Gas Abstraction is Table Stakes: Simple gas sponsorship, as seen with Pimlico or Biconomy, is the first step. The endgame is full intent abstraction, where users sign high-level goals and the RPC network handles routing, slippage, and failure conditions.
Protocols Become Solvers: Major DeFi protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap already operate as intent-based systems. Future RPCs will treat these protocols as specialized solvers, dynamically selecting the optimal one based on cost, speed, and success probability.
Evidence: The rise of ERC-4337 and ERC-7579 provides the modular account and solver infrastructure. This standardizes the interface between the user's intent, the RPC orchestrator, and the decentralized solver network executing it.
takeaways
ACTIONABLE INSIGHTS
Takeaways
The RPC endpoint is evolving from a passive gas pump to an active orchestrator of user intents and cross-chain state.
01
The Problem: The Gas Station RPC
Today's public RPCs are dumb pipes that broadcast raw transactions, forcing wallets and dApps to handle complex logic like gas estimation and chain selection. This creates a ~30% transaction failure rate from underpricing and a fragmented user experience.
- User Burden: Manual chain switching and gas tweaking.
- Developer Overhead: Building and maintaining gas logic across chains.
- Wasted Capital: Failed transactions burn gas on all chains.
30%
Tx Fail Rate
10+
Chains to Manage
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction
Next-gen endpoints like UniswapX and CowSwap solvers accept declarative intents ('I want this token'). The RPC becomes an orchestrator, finding the optimal path across EVM chains, Solana, and Cosmos via bridges like Across and LayerZero.
- User Wins: One-click cross-chain swaps, guaranteed execution.
- Protocol Wins: Access to deeper, aggregated liquidity.
- RPC as Platform: Monetizes routing intelligence, not just requests.
1-Click
Cross-Chain
$10B+
Aggregate Liquidity
03
The Architecture: MEV-Aware & Stateful
The orchestrator RPC must be stateful, tracking mempools and validator sets across networks. It will integrate with Flashbots Protect-like services to shield users from frontrunning and optimize for finality, not just inclusion. This turns latency from a weakness into a strategic buffer.
- MEV Protection: Bundle routing to minimize extractable value.
- Finality Optimization: Routes to chains with fastest settlement (e.g., Solana, Near).
- Predictive Pricing: Dynamic fees based on real-time network state.
~500ms
Settlement Target
-90%
MEV Leakage
04
The Business Model: From SaaS to Yield
RPC providers will shift from pure API subscription (SaaS) to capturing value from the transactions they enable. This mirrors the evolution from Infura to Coinbase's Base sequencer revenue. Fees will be taken as a percentage of saved gas or captured MEV, aligning incentives with user success.
- Value Capture: Revenue share on saved costs and optimal routing.
- Stake-for-Access: Tiered service levels based on staked tokens.
- Protocol Partnerships: Direct integration and revenue sharing with AAVE, Uniswap.
Yield-Based
Pricing Model
1000x
Revenue TAM
05
The Competitors: Wallets vs. Infra
The battle for the orchestration layer will be between wallet aggregators (Rainbow, Rabby) and infrastructure giants (Alchemy, QuickNode). Wallets own the interface, but infra owns the global network state. The winner will be whoever best abstracts chain-specific complexity into a universal state graph.
- Wallet Advantage: Direct user relationship, interface control.
- Infra Advantage: Global network view, cross-chain liquidity relationships.
- Winner's Trait: Superior state synchronization across L2s and alt-L1s.
2-Sided
Market Battle
Universal
State Graph
06
The Endgame: Autonomous Liquidity Network
The final form is an RPC that doesn't just route transactions but actively manages liquidity positions across chains via protocols like Connext and Chainlink CCIP. It becomes an autonomous network that rebalances pools to meet demand, paid in liquidity provider fees. The endpoint is the network.
- Automatic Rebalancing: Moves liquidity ahead of demand waves.
- LP as a Service: Users stake, the RPC orchestrates yield farming.
- Ultimate Abstraction: Users interact with assets, not chains.
Auto-LP
Yield Engine
Chain-Agnostic
User Experience
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