MPC as a Service vs Self-Hosted MPC Nodes

Rapid deployment: Go live in days, not months, using pre-built APIs from providers like Fireblocks, Qredo, or Zengo. This matters for startups and enterprises launching new products under tight deadlines, avoiding the need to recruit specialized cryptography talent.

Zero node management: The service provider handles key generation, rotation, backup, and compliance audits. This matters for teams with limited DevOps resources who need guaranteed uptime (e.g., 99.95% SLA) without managing server clusters or security patches.

Full custody and auditability: You control the entire stack, from the underlying hardware to the MPC protocol implementation (e.g., GG18, GG20). This matters for regulated institutions (banks, custodians) and maximalist protocols that cannot outsource key material or signatory logic to a third party.

Predictable, lower variable costs: After the initial setup cost (~$200K+ for engineering and infra), transaction signing costs are minimal. This matters for high-volume applications (exchanges, payment rails) where per-transaction fees from a service provider would become prohibitive at scale.

Vendor dependency and escalating fees: Costs scale directly with usage, and migrating between providers is complex. This matters for scaling businesses that may face unpredictable bills and technical lock-in, limiting future architectural flexibility.

High initial expertise barrier: Requires in-depth knowledge of MPC cryptography, secure enclaves (e.g., Intel SGX), and distributed systems engineering. This matters for teams without a dedicated security engineering team, as a single implementation flaw can lead to catastrophic key compromise.

Managed infrastructure and SLAs: Providers like Fireblocks and Qredo handle node deployment, uptime (99.9%+), and key lifecycle management. This reduces DevOps overhead by ~70% and eliminates the need for in-house cryptographic expertise. Ideal for teams launching quickly or without dedicated security engineers.

Full ownership of the signing environment: You control the entire stack—hardware, network, and MPC node software (e.g., Sepior, Unbound). No third-party trust assumptions for key material. Mandatory for protocols with extreme sovereignty requirements or those operating in permissioned, air-gapped networks.

No per-transaction fees or vendor lock-in: After initial capex for hardware/software, operational costs are fixed and predictable. Allows for deep customization and integration with internal HSM systems (e.g., Thales, Utimaco). Financially superior for high-throughput applications like centralized exchanges processing 100k+ TPS internally.

Complete ownership of the signing infrastructure: You manage the hardware, network, and key shards. This eliminates reliance on a third-party's security model and operational integrity. This is critical for regulated entities (MiCA, NYDFS) and protocols requiring non-delegated, verifiable custody.

Fixed infrastructure costs vs. variable transaction fees: After the initial capex for servers (e.g., AWS m5.2xlarge) and setup, operational costs are predictable. This is superior for high-volume applications (e.g., exchange hot wallets, institutional trading desks) where per-signature fees from a service would become prohibitive.

You are the SRE and security team: Responsible for 24/7 node uptime, key shard backup/disaster recovery, hardware security modules (HSMs), and patch management. A single misconfiguration or latency spike can halt transactions. Requires dedicated DevOps/SecOps headcount, increasing TCO.

Months of integration vs. days: Requires in-depth expertise in MPC libraries (e.g., GG18, GG20), network orchestration, and multi-cloud deployment. Contrast with services like Fireblocks or Qredo that offer SDK integration in weeks. Delays product launches and diverts core engineering resources.