Why We Built RVO: Reliable Infrastructure. Verifiable Performance
Introduction
If you have ever shipped a production application on a public blockchain, you have likely experienced this moment:
everything works perfectly—until traffic spikes, a shared RPC node degrades, or rate limits silently throttle your users.
RVO exists because that failure mode is unacceptable.
This blog marks the beginning of a technical series where we document how we design, operate, and scale RPC infrastructure—and why we believe most existing approaches fall short for real production systems.
The Problem With Public RPC Endpoints
Public RPC endpoints are optimized for accessibility, not reliability.
In practice, this leads to several structural issues:
- Shared capacity across unrelated workloads
- Aggressive or undocumented rate limits
- No isolation guarantees
- Latency variance under load
- Limited or nonexistent observability
These constraints are manageable for testing, prototyping, or hobby projects. They are not acceptable for businesses running trading systems, indexers, wallets, or latency-sensitive services.
RVO’s Design Philosophy
RVO was designed with a simple principle:
Production systems deserve production-grade infrastructure.
From day one, we focused on:
Deterministic Performance
Every project receives clearly defined capacity boundaries. No noisy neighbors. No shared abuse.
Isolation by Default
Projects, API keys, and workloads are isolated at the infrastructure and quota level. Failures do not cascade.
Measurable Reliability
Latency, error rates, request volume, and saturation are measurable—not guessed.
Engineering Transparency
We do not hide behind marketing abstractions. Architecture decisions, trade-offs, and limitations are documented openly.
Why Another RPC Provider?
The ecosystem does not suffer from a lack of RPC endpoints.
It suffers from a lack of engineering-driven providers.
Many platforms optimize for:
- Lowest entry friction
- Unlimited “fair-use” promises
- Broad but shallow feature sets
RVO optimizes for:
- Predictable performance
- Explicit limits
- Clear operational guarantees
- Infrastructure that scales linearly, not optimistically
This inevitably means RVO is not the cheapest option—and that is intentional.
What This Blog Will Cover
This blog is not a marketing channel. It is an engineering log.
Upcoming topics include:
- RPC request routing and cache strategy
- Latency benchmarking under real workloads
- Quota enforcement and abuse prevention
- Multi-region failover design
- Observability and incident response
- Lessons learned from operating blockchain infrastructure in production
If you care about how systems behave under stress—not just on slides—you are in the right place.
Closing
RVO is built for teams that ship real software, serve real users, and demand infrastructure that behaves accordingly.
This first post sets the tone.
The next ones will go deeper.
Welcome to RVO.
See also
Designing a Production-Grade RPC Failover Layer
Adding multiple RPC endpoints is easy. Designing a production-grade failover layer with health scoring, stale node detection, latency tracking, and circuit breaking is not. This article breaks down what it actually takes.
Tracing a Web3 Request End-to-End: Where Latency and Failure Actually Come From
RPC performance issues rarely originate at the node itself. Latency, inconsistency, and failure are introduced across a chain of systems long before a request reaches a validator. This article traces a Web3 request end-to-end to show where delays accumulate, errors are masked, and reliability quietly degrades.
How to Benchmark RPC Providers Correctly
Most RPC benchmarks measure the wrong things. Average latency and request rates often hide degradation, throttling, and stale state that only appear under real load. This article explains how to benchmark RPC providers correctly—focusing on reliability, consistency, and behavior under stress, not just speed.