The post If Web3 is decentralized, why do DeFi dApps still break when the cloud goes down? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On Oct. 20, a hiccup in Amazon’s US-EAST-1 region set off a chain reaction across the crypto industry. Coinbase reported degraded service, Infura and Alchemy posted AWS-related incident notes, and several wallets and rollups began timing out. None of these failures came from the blockchains themselves. Consensus was fine. The problem was everything wrapped around it: the cloud databases, RPC gateways, DNS, indexers, and key-management systems that turn a blockchain into a usable app. It was a sharp reminder that much of Web3 still leans heavily on Web2. When one region of AWS sneezed, a quarter of crypto’s user interface caught a cold. The invisible monoculture Behind the rhetoric of decentralization lies a quiet dependency map that looks strikingly centralized. A typical dApp starts with a frontend hosted on S3 or Cloudflare Pages, served through a CDN such as Fastly, and resolved by Route 53 or Cloudflare DNS. Beneath that are read and write RPCs, often Infura, Alchemy, or QuickNode, most of which themselves run on AWS or another of the “Big 3” clouds. Then come indexers like The Graph or Covalent, sequencing services on rollups, and custody or key-management systems such as Fireblocks. Each layer introduces a single point of failure. When AWS’s DynamoDB and DNS services faltered, multiple layers were hit simultaneously. Coinbase’s API slowed, Infura and Alchemy reported upstream AWS issues, and several rollups saw their sequencers stall until manual intervention. Even The Graph’s indexer for zkSync had already shown similar fragility weeks earlier. The illusion of redundancy also broke down. Two independent RPC providers each promise “four-nines” uptime, but if they’re both on the same cloud region, their failures are correlated. Statistically, independence collapses: the effective correlation coefficient between AWS-centric stacks may reach 0.9. This concentration isn’t confined to crypto. AWS still holds roughly 30–32% of… The post If Web3 is decentralized, why do DeFi dApps still break when the cloud goes down? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On Oct. 20, a hiccup in Amazon’s US-EAST-1 region set off a chain reaction across the crypto industry. Coinbase reported degraded service, Infura and Alchemy posted AWS-related incident notes, and several wallets and rollups began timing out. None of these failures came from the blockchains themselves. Consensus was fine. The problem was everything wrapped around it: the cloud databases, RPC gateways, DNS, indexers, and key-management systems that turn a blockchain into a usable app. It was a sharp reminder that much of Web3 still leans heavily on Web2. When one region of AWS sneezed, a quarter of crypto’s user interface caught a cold. The invisible monoculture Behind the rhetoric of decentralization lies a quiet dependency map that looks strikingly centralized. A typical dApp starts with a frontend hosted on S3 or Cloudflare Pages, served through a CDN such as Fastly, and resolved by Route 53 or Cloudflare DNS. Beneath that are read and write RPCs, often Infura, Alchemy, or QuickNode, most of which themselves run on AWS or another of the “Big 3” clouds. Then come indexers like The Graph or Covalent, sequencing services on rollups, and custody or key-management systems such as Fireblocks. Each layer introduces a single point of failure. When AWS’s DynamoDB and DNS services faltered, multiple layers were hit simultaneously. Coinbase’s API slowed, Infura and Alchemy reported upstream AWS issues, and several rollups saw their sequencers stall until manual intervention. Even The Graph’s indexer for zkSync had already shown similar fragility weeks earlier. The illusion of redundancy also broke down. Two independent RPC providers each promise “four-nines” uptime, but if they’re both on the same cloud region, their failures are correlated. Statistically, independence collapses: the effective correlation coefficient between AWS-centric stacks may reach 0.9. This concentration isn’t confined to crypto. AWS still holds roughly 30–32% of…

If Web3 is decentralized, why do DeFi dApps still break when the cloud goes down?

5 min read

On Oct. 20, a hiccup in Amazon’s US-EAST-1 region set off a chain reaction across the crypto industry. Coinbase reported degraded service, Infura and Alchemy posted AWS-related incident notes, and several wallets and rollups began timing out.

None of these failures came from the blockchains themselves. Consensus was fine. The problem was everything wrapped around it: the cloud databases, RPC gateways, DNS, indexers, and key-management systems that turn a blockchain into a usable app.

It was a sharp reminder that much of Web3 still leans heavily on Web2. When one region of AWS sneezed, a quarter of crypto’s user interface caught a cold.

The invisible monoculture

Behind the rhetoric of decentralization lies a quiet dependency map that looks strikingly centralized. A typical dApp starts with a frontend hosted on S3 or Cloudflare Pages, served through a CDN such as Fastly, and resolved by Route 53 or Cloudflare DNS.

Beneath that are read and write RPCs, often Infura, Alchemy, or QuickNode, most of which themselves run on AWS or another of the “Big 3” clouds. Then come indexers like The Graph or Covalent, sequencing services on rollups, and custody or key-management systems such as Fireblocks. Each layer introduces a single point of failure.

When AWS’s DynamoDB and DNS services faltered, multiple layers were hit simultaneously. Coinbase’s API slowed, Infura and Alchemy reported upstream AWS issues, and several rollups saw their sequencers stall until manual intervention. Even The Graph’s indexer for zkSync had already shown similar fragility weeks earlier.

The illusion of redundancy also broke down. Two independent RPC providers each promise “four-nines” uptime, but if they’re both on the same cloud region, their failures are correlated. Statistically, independence collapses: the effective correlation coefficient between AWS-centric stacks may reach 0.9.

This concentration isn’t confined to crypto. AWS still holds roughly 30–32% of the global cloud share, Azure about 20%, and Google Cloud 13%. A six-hour disruption in one major region ripples through DNS, object storage, and database services used by thousands of companies.

For crypto apps, this means that between 10% and 30% of EVM-based frontends or read functions may degrade during such an event. Writes and transactions that depend on sequencers or custodial signing paths can freeze entirely.

The myth of independence

It’s easy to conflate on-chain resilience with application resilience. Blockchains like Ethereum or Solana may maintain consensus through global nodes; however, the tools people actually use often depend on centralized intermediaries. Solana’s five-hour halt in February 2024 was an on-chain failure, but the AWS outage wasn’t. It was an off-chain one, and far more common.

Each layer adds its own Achilles’ heel.

  • Sequencers on L2s are still mostly single-operator setups. If their connection to Ethereum’s RPC is broken, so is their ability to post new batches.
  • Content delivery and DNS introduce further fragility: Cloudflare’s Jul. 14 resolver issue left parts of the internet unreachable for nearly an hour.
  • Even “decentralized” storage can still rely on a single company. Infura’s IPFS gateway outage on Sep. 20 halted access to assets that were theoretically mirrored across the network.
  • Custody and key-management platforms, such as Fireblocks, used by exchanges and funds, have themselves experienced processing delays on Oct. 26 and Sep. 17, stalling withdrawals and settlements.

These failures matter because they affect user trust more than protocol uptime ever could. A wallet displaying a stale balance, or a bridge transaction stuck in limbo, erodes confidence in the very decentralization it claims to offer.

Regulators have started to notice. The EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), effective January 2025, forces financial entities to test and report third-party ICT dependencies. The UK’s “Critical Third Parties” regime is expected to bring hyperscalers under direct oversight next year.

Since crypto custody, stablecoin issuers, and tokenized-asset platforms now overlap with regulated finance, the same expectations for cloud diversification will soon apply here too. Single-vendor cloud reliance is turning into a board-level risk.

The fix isn’t glamorous, but it’s coming

Solutions are shipping. In the short term, developers are introducing provider-quorum RPCs that query multiple endpoints, self-hosted, SaaS, and decentralized (such as Pocket Network), and display a result only if two out of three agree. Tools such as Helios bring light-client verification directly into wallets and mobile apps, letting users validate data without relying on a centralized gateway.

Infrastructure teams are adopting multi-CDN and multi-DNS setups with active failover. For storage, running one’s own IPFS gateway or mirroring assets on Arweave or Irys is becoming standard. In the rollup world, projects like Espresso, Radius, and Astria are building shared or decentralized sequencers, while OP Stack has begun rolling out permissionless fault proofs.

Further down the roadmap, Ethereum’s PeerDAS proposal aims to make data-availability checks affordable enough to run at the wallet level. Combined with light clients, this could push verification toward the edges of the network rather than the cloud’s center.

Institutional pressure will reinforce these shifts. Under DORA and UK CTP rules, multi-cloud architectures are becoming policy, not preference. Expect large custodians and exchanges to demand vendor diversification across RPCs, indexers, and key-management providers.

None of this will make crypto fully independent of traditional infrastructure, but it will narrow the gap between the ideals of decentralization and the messy operational reality. The lesson from Oct. 20 isn’t that blockchains failed, it’s that the supporting scaffolding hasn’t yet caught up.

A truly decentralized app won’t mean every user runs a server; it will mean no single server can take the system down. Until that’s the default, every “Web3” outage will still start the same way: when the cloud sneezes, the blockchain shivers.

Mentioned in this article

Source: https://cryptoslate.com/if-web3-is-decentralized-why-do-dapps-break-when-the-cloud-goes-down/

Market Opportunity
DeFi Logo
DeFi Price(DEFI)
$0.000304
$0.000304$0.000304
-6.74%
USD
DeFi (DEFI) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

“Vibes Should Match Substance”: Vitalik on Fake Ethereum Connections

“Vibes Should Match Substance”: Vitalik on Fake Ethereum Connections

Vitalik Buterin criticized L2s that use optimistic bridges without adding meaningful technical innovation. Ethereum’s base layer is scaling, reducing the need for
Share
LiveBitcoinNews2026/02/06 11:30
Why Bitcoin Crashed Below $69,000 — Causes & Outlook

Why Bitcoin Crashed Below $69,000 — Causes & Outlook

Cryptsy - Latest Cryptocurrency News and Predictions Cryptsy - Latest Cryptocurrency News and Predictions - Experts in Crypto Casinos Bitcoin crash explained:
Share
Cryptsy2026/02/06 11:20
CME Group to launch options on XRP and SOL futures

CME Group to launch options on XRP and SOL futures

The post CME Group to launch options on XRP and SOL futures appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. CME Group will offer options based on the derivative markets on Solana (SOL) and XRP. The new markets will open on October 13, after regulatory approval.  CME Group will expand its crypto products with options on the futures markets of Solana (SOL) and XRP. The futures market will start on October 13, after regulatory review and approval.  The options will allow the trading of MicroSol, XRP, and MicroXRP futures, with expiry dates available every business day, monthly, and quarterly. The new products will be added to the existing BTC and ETH options markets. ‘The launch of these options contracts builds on the significant growth and increasing liquidity we have seen across our suite of Solana and XRP futures,’ said Giovanni Vicioso, CME Group Global Head of Cryptocurrency Products. The options contracts will have two main sizes, tracking the futures contracts. The new market will be suitable for sophisticated institutional traders, as well as active individual traders. The addition of options markets singles out XRP and SOL as liquid enough to offer the potential to bet on a market direction.  The options on futures arrive a few months after the launch of SOL futures. Both SOL and XRP had peak volumes in August, though XRP activity has slowed down in September. XRP and SOL options to tap both institutions and active traders Crypto options are one of the indicators of market attitudes, with XRP and SOL receiving a new way to gauge sentiment. The contracts will be supported by the Cumberland team.  ‘As one of the biggest liquidity providers in the ecosystem, the Cumberland team is excited to support CME Group’s continued expansion of crypto offerings,’ said Roman Makarov, Head of Cumberland Options Trading at DRW. ‘The launch of options on Solana and XRP futures is the latest example of the…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:56