Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) excels at rapid deployment and operational simplicity because it abstracts away node management, security patching, and infrastructure scaling. For example, providers like Chainstack, Alchemy, and QuickNode offer >99.9% SLA guarantees and handle the complexities of multi-chain RWA issuance on networks like Ethereum, Polygon, and Avalanche, allowing teams to focus on tokenization logic and compliance tooling.
LABS
Comparisons
Platform-as-a-Service vs Self-Hosted Node Infrastructure for RWA Tokenization
A technical and strategic comparison for CTOs and protocol architects choosing between managed services like Securitize and building on self-hosted infrastructure like Hyperledger Besu. We analyze cost, control, compliance, and scalability trade-offs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Decision for RWA Issuance
Choosing between PaaS and self-hosted infrastructure is a foundational choice that dictates your protocol's cost, control, and compliance posture.
Self-Hosted Node Infrastructure takes a different approach by granting full sovereignty over data, network participation, and upgrade cycles. This results in a significant trade-off: you gain ultimate control and potential long-term cost savings, but you assume the entire burden of DevOps, 24/7 monitoring, and capital expenditure for hardware, which can require a dedicated team and upfront investment exceeding $100K for enterprise-grade, geo-redundant setups.
The key trade-off: If your priority is speed-to-market, predictable OpEx, and avoiding DevOps overhead, choose a PaaS. This is ideal for startups and projects where engineering resources are focused on core protocol development. If you prioritize maximum data privacy, regulatory compliance requiring full audit trails, and have the in-house SRE expertise, choose self-hosted infrastructure. This is critical for large financial institutions and protocols handling highly sensitive RWA data.
tldr-summary
Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) vs Self-Hosted Node Infrastructure
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the core trade-offs between managed node services and self-hosted infrastructure for CTOs and architects.
01
PaaS: Operational Simplicity
Zero DevOps overhead: Providers like Alchemy, Infura, and QuickNode manage node health, upgrades, and scaling. This matters for teams that need to focus on core dApp logic rather than infrastructure maintenance, reducing time-to-market.
99.9%
Typical SLA
02
PaaS: Cost Predictability
Fixed monthly billing based on request volume (e.g., 100M reqs/month). This matters for budget planning and avoiding surprise costs from cloud provider spikes or hardware failures. Ideal for startups with predictable growth.
03
Self-Hosted: Data Sovereignty & Customization
Full control over node configuration, data retention, and privacy. You can run specialized clients (e.g., Geth with custom pruning, Erigon for archive data). This matters for protocols requiring bespoke RPC methods or compliance with strict data governance (e.g., financial institutions).
04
Self-Hosted: Long-Term Cost Efficiency at Scale
Lower marginal cost per request at high throughput (e.g., >1B reqs/month). This matters for established protocols like Uniswap or Aave where infrastructure is a core cost center. Requires upfront investment in DevOps and SRE teams.
50-70%
Potential savings at scale
NODE INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARISON
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison: PaaS vs Self-Hosted
Direct comparison of operational and financial metrics for blockchain node deployment.
| Metric | Platform-as-a-Service (e.g., Alchemy, Infura) | Self-Hosted Infrastructure |
|---|---|---|
Time to Production Deployment | < 5 minutes | 2-4 weeks |
Monthly Operational Cost (Est.) | $300 - $3,000+ | $5,000 - $15,000+ |
Infrastructure Management | ||
Guaranteed Uptime SLA | 99.9% - 99.99% | Defined by internal team |
Multi-Chain Support (e.g., Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum) | ||
Direct Node Access & Customization | ||
Data Privacy & Sovereignty | Provider-dependent |
pros-cons-a
PaaS vs Self-Hosted Node Infrastructure
Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS): Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs and architects deciding between managed services and in-house node operations.
01
PaaS: Operational Simplicity
Zero DevOps Overhead: Eliminates the need for a dedicated SRE team to manage node software, security patches, and hardware failures. Services like Alchemy, Infura, and QuickNode handle 99.9%+ uptime SLAs, allowing your team to focus on core application logic.
02
PaaS: Rapid Scaling & Global Reach
Instant Infrastructure: Deploy globally distributed nodes in minutes, not months. Access dedicated endpoints for Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Solana without capital expenditure. This is critical for dApps requiring low-latency global access or sudden traffic spikes.
03
Self-Hosted: Cost Control & Predictability
Fixed OpEx vs Variable SaaS Fees: For high, consistent throughput (e.g., 10K+ RPC requests/sec), owning hardware or using reserved cloud instances (AWS EC2) can be 40-60% cheaper over 3 years. Avoids per-request pricing models of providers like Infura's Growth tier.
04
Self-Hosted: Sovereignty & Customization
Full Chain Data Control: Run archival nodes, modify Geth/Erigon client settings, and access raw data without API limits. Essential for protocols like The Graph for indexers, MEV searchers using Flashbots, or teams requiring bespoke data pipelines.
05
PaaS: Enhanced Developer Experience
Built-in Tooling: Access advanced APIs (e.g., Alchemy's Transfers API, NFT API) and WebSocket subscriptions without building internal middleware. Integrates seamlessly with frameworks like Hardhat and Foundry, accelerating development cycles.
06
Self-Hosted: Security & Compliance Mandates
Regulatory & Data Privacy: For enterprises in finance (e.g., Aave, Compound governance) or healthcare, self-hosting ensures sensitive transaction data never transits a third-party's infrastructure, meeting strict data residency (GDPR, HIPAA) and audit requirements.
pros-cons-b
PLATFORM-AS-A-SERVICE VS. SELF-HOSTED
Self-Hosted Node Infrastructure: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs managing high-value blockchain operations.
02
Platform-as-a-Service: Cost Predictability
Fixed monthly pricing based on request tiers, shielding you from unexpected cloud cost spikes. Providers bundle services like enhanced APIs (e.g., Alchemy's Transfers API), debug tools, and multi-chain support. This matters for budget-conscious projects where engineering time is more valuable than raw infra cost.
03
Self-Hosted: Absolute Data Control & Sovereignty
Full control over data privacy and access logs. No reliance on a third-party's data pipeline or potential rate limits. Critical for protocols like Aave or Uniswap that require maximum uptime guarantees and zero data leakage risk for sensitive transaction data.
04
Self-Hosted: Long-Term Cost Efficiency at Scale
Lower marginal cost per request at high volume (e.g., >100M requests/month). Avoids vendor markup. Enables custom optimizations like using Erigon for faster sync or tuning Geth for specific workloads. This matters for large-scale dApps like DEX aggregators or blockchain indexers where API costs can scale non-linearly.
05
Platform-as-a-Service: The Hidden Risk
Vendor lock-in and centralization risk. Your application's health is tied to the provider's stability. Historical incidents like Infura outages causing cascading exchange failures demonstrate systemic risk. Not ideal for decentralization-purist protocols or those requiring maximum censorship resistance.
06
Self-Hosted: The Hidden Cost
Significant upfront engineering overhead. Requires expertise in DevOps, blockchain client software (Geth, Erigon, Besu), and 24/7 monitoring. Initial sync for chains like Ethereum can take weeks and require >2TB SSD. This matters for teams without dedicated SREs or those needing to iterate on product, not infrastructure.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Architecture
Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) for Speed
Verdict: The clear choice for rapid prototyping and time-to-market. Strengths: Instant access to globally distributed, load-balanced nodes via providers like Alchemy, Infura, or QuickNode. No DevOps overhead for scaling, maintenance, or upgrades. Ideal for hackathons, MVPs, and applications with unpredictable traffic spikes (e.g., NFT mints, token launches). Key Metrics: Provisioning time: <5 minutes. Uptime SLAs: >99.9%. Supports multi-chain deployments (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum) from a single dashboard.
Self-Hosted Nodes for Speed
Verdict: Not ideal. Bottlenecked by hardware procurement, synchronization time, and manual scaling. Trade-offs: Initial sync for an Ethereum archive node can take weeks. Scaling requires manual intervention. Performance is limited by your own data center or cloud region, introducing latency for global users.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on when to outsource your blockchain infrastructure versus building it in-house.
Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) providers like Alchemy, Infura, and QuickNode excel at operational simplicity and rapid time-to-market because they abstract away the immense overhead of node management. For example, they guarantee >99.9% uptime SLAs, handle chain-specific complexities like Solana's validator requirements or Polygon's Heimdall/Bor architecture, and provide instant access to advanced APIs (e.g., NFT, Token, and Enhanced APIs) that would take months to build internally. This allows engineering teams to focus 100% on core application logic and user growth.
Self-Hosted Node Infrastructure takes a different approach by granting teams full sovereignty, deterministic performance, and predictable long-term costs. This results in a significant trade-off: you gain complete control over data privacy, custom indexing logic (e.g., using The Graph for subgraphs on your own nodes), and avoidance of provider rate limits, but you must invest heavily in DevOps expertise, 24/7 monitoring (with tools like Prometheus/Grafana), and hardware that can handle chain sync times—which for a full Ethereum archive node can require over 12 TB of SSD storage and weeks to sync.
The key trade-off is between agility and autonomy. If your priority is speed, developer experience, and cost predictability for scaling to millions of users, choose a PaaS. Their tiered pricing (e.g., Alchemy's Growth tier at $49/month for 300M CU) and built-in tools for debugging (Tenderly) and analytics (Covalent) are unbeatable for growth-stage projects. If you prioritize absolute data sovereignty, custom infrastructure for high-frequency trading bots, or have regulatory/compliance mandates requiring full audit trails, choose a self-hosted setup. This is critical for protocols like Aave or Compound running their own risk oracles, or exchanges like Binance managing internal settlement layers.
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