Common Mistakes in RPC Routing (and How to Avoid Them)

Remote Procedure Call (RPC) routing is a critical component for blockchain applications, especially in the Web3 ecosystem where reliability, speed, and cost-efficiency are paramount. However, many developers and teams face recurring pitfalls that can lead to downtime, increased latency, and inflated costs. Understanding these common mistakes—and how to avoid them—can significantly improve the performance and resilience of your blockchain infrastructure.

1. Relying on a Single RPC Provider

One of the most frequent errors in RPC routing is depending solely on a single RPC provider. While it may seem simpler to manage, this approach introduces significant risks. Single-provider dependence creates a single point of failure, making your application vulnerable to outages and degraded performance.

RPC outages can be costly, not only in lost transactions but also in user trust and engagement. For instance, if your blockchain app experiences downtime due to an RPC provider outage, users may be unable to interact with your service, leading to frustration and potential revenue loss.

To avoid this, adopting a multi-provider RPC routing strategy is essential. Multi-provider routing uses several RPC endpoints from different providers, distributing the load and offering redundancy. This approach reduces downtime risk and ensures continuous availability, even if one provider experiences issues.

Why Multi-Provider RPC Routing Matters

Multi-provider RPC routing is increasingly recognized as the future of Web3 infrastructure. By leveraging multiple RPC providers, applications can automatically route requests to the most reliable or fastest endpoint. This not only improves uptime but also optimizes latency and cost.

Blockchain RPC aggregators and routers simplify this process by managing provider selection and failover automatically. This means developers no longer need to manually configure endpoints or handle failover logic, reducing complexity and operational overhead.

Moreover, the competitive landscape of RPC providers means that performance and reliability can vary significantly. By utilizing multiple providers, applications can take advantage of the strengths of each, such as lower latency or higher throughput, depending on the specific needs of the application at any given time. This dynamic adaptability is crucial in a fast-paced environment where user expectations are high, and any delay can lead to dissatisfaction.

Additionally, adopting a multi-provider strategy can enhance security. By diversifying the sources of RPC requests, you mitigate the risk of a single provider being compromised. This layered approach to security is vital in the blockchain space, where the integrity of transactions and user data is paramount. As the ecosystem continues to evolve, staying ahead of potential vulnerabilities is not just advantageous; it is essential for maintaining user confidence and ensuring the longevity of your application.

2. Confusing RPC Failover with Load Balancing

Another common misconception is treating RPC failover and load balancing as the same thing. While related, they serve different purposes and require distinct implementations.

RPC Failover is a reliability mechanism that switches to a backup RPC provider only when the primary one fails. It ensures that your application remains operational during outages but does not distribute traffic under normal conditions.

RPC Load Balancing, on the other hand, distributes requests evenly across multiple RPC providers to optimize performance and resource utilization. It helps reduce latency and prevents any single provider from becoming a bottleneck.

Failing to distinguish between these can lead to suboptimal setups. For example, relying solely on failover means you miss out on the performance benefits of load balancing, while using load balancing without proper failover mechanisms can cause issues during provider outages.

Implementing Both for Maximum Reliability

The best practice is to combine RPC failover and load balancing. Load balancing manages traffic distribution during normal operations, while failover kicks in when a provider becomes unavailable. This hybrid approach ensures both high availability and optimal performance.

3. Ignoring Multi-Region and Multi-Cloud Strategies

Geographical latency and cloud provider diversity are often overlooked in RPC routing strategies. Many developers deploy RPC providers in a single region or cloud, which can lead to increased latency for users far from that region and potential vendor lock-in.

Multi-region RPC routing addresses latency by directing requests to the closest available endpoint. This reduces response times and improves user experience, especially for globally distributed applications.

Similarly, multi-cloud strategies leverage different cloud providers to avoid dependency on a single infrastructure vendor. Google’s Multi-Cloud Proxy (MCP) is an example of technology that enables seamless multi-cloud RPC routing, enhancing resilience and scalability.

Benefits of Multi-Region and Multi-Cloud RPC Routing

By integrating multi-region and multi-cloud RPC routing, blockchain apps can achieve:

• Lower latency through proximity-based routing
• Higher redundancy by avoiding single points of failure
• Cost optimization by leveraging competitive pricing across providers

Ignoring these strategies can result in slower applications and increased risk of outages due to regional or cloud-specific issues.

4. Overlooking Cost Optimization Opportunities

RPC calls can quickly become expensive, especially as your blockchain app scales. Many teams fail to monitor and optimize RPC usage, leading to unnecessarily high infrastructure costs.

Cost optimization in RPC routing involves selecting the most cost-effective providers and routing requests intelligently to minimize expenses without sacrificing performance.

How Auto-Routing Can Reduce RPC Costs

Auto-routing solutions dynamically select RPC providers based on cost, latency, and availability. For example, startups have reported reducing RPC costs by up to 40% by implementing auto-routing strategies that balance these factors.

Additionally, multi-provider setups enable negotiating better pricing and avoiding vendor lock-in, which often results in inflated costs over time.

5. Neglecting Proper Monitoring and Alerts

Without robust monitoring, RPC routing issues can go unnoticed until they severely impact your application. Many developers do not implement comprehensive observability tools to track RPC endpoint health, latency, and error rates.

Proactive monitoring allows teams to detect RPC outages, latency spikes, or provider degradation early, enabling swift remediation and minimizing downtime.

Key Metrics to Monitor

• RPC Endpoint Uptime: Ensures providers are available and responsive.
• Latency: Measures response times to detect performance degradation.
• Error Rates: Tracks failed RPC calls indicating potential issues.

Setting up alerts based on these metrics helps maintain a reliable RPC infrastructure and improves user experience.

6. Failing to Integrate Multiple RPC Providers into a Single Endpoint

Managing multiple RPC providers individually can be complex and error-prone. Some teams attempt to manually switch between providers or hardcode fallback logic, which is difficult to maintain and scale.

Integrating multiple RPC providers into a single, unified endpoint simplifies application architecture. This approach abstracts provider management from the application layer, allowing seamless routing and failover.

Best Practices for Multi-RPC Integration

Using RPC aggregators or routers that support multi-provider integration is recommended. These tools provide:

• Automatic failover and load balancing
• Latency-based routing
• Cost-aware provider selection
• Simplified API endpoints for developers

Such integration reduces complexity, improves reliability, and enhances scalability.

Conclusion

RPC routing is a foundational aspect of blockchain application infrastructure, and mistakes in its implementation can lead to costly downtime, poor performance, and inflated expenses. The most common pitfalls include over-reliance on a single provider, confusing failover with load balancing, ignoring multi-region and multi-cloud strategies, neglecting cost optimization, lacking proper monitoring, and failing to unify multiple RPC providers.

By adopting multi-provider RPC routing, combining failover and load balancing, leveraging multi-region and multi-cloud infrastructures, optimizing costs through auto-routing, implementing robust monitoring, and integrating providers into a single endpoint, developers can build resilient, efficient, and scalable Web3 applications.

As the Web3 ecosystem continues to evolve, staying informed about best practices in RPC routing will be crucial for maintaining competitive and reliable blockchain services.

Ready to enhance your Web3 application's performance and reliability? With Uniblock, you can streamline your blockchain infrastructure and avoid the common RPC routing mistakes outlined in this article. Our platform is trusted by over 2,000 developers on more than 100 chains, providing a single API endpoint for seamless auto-routing of RPC, API, and webhook traffic. Say goodbye to vendor lock-in, reduce latency, and save on costs while scaling with confidence. Start building with Uniblock today and take the first step towards a more resilient and efficient decentralized application.