Ethereum RPC for RWA: best providers and infrastructure guide 2026

Ethereum is the dominant settlement layer for tokenized real-world assets, securing over $14.9 billion in on-chain RWA value as of early 2026 — more than 60% of the global on-chain RWA market. The sector crossed $26.4 billion total in March 2026, driven by institutional entries from BlackRock (BUIDL at $1.9B AUM), Ondo Finance ($2.7B across tokenized Treasuries and equity products), and Securitize ($3.3B in tokenized assets under administration) — all settled primarily on Ethereum.

What makes RPC infrastructure uniquely critical for RWA protocols is the compliance dimension: a missed event or a dropped NAV update does not just affect user experience — it can affect the legal integrity of the tokenized asset itself. ERC-3643 and ERC-1400 token standards require synchronous identity registry checks via eth_call on every transfer simulation, and eth_getLogs must be polled continuously without missing a single ComplianceCheck or Transfer event across the token contract and identity registry simultaneously.

This guide covers the seven RPC methods central to Ethereum RWA infrastructure, the infrastructure requirements that separate production-grade from development-grade endpoints, and a six-provider comparison evaluated specifically through the lens of regulated asset workloads.

Already using Chainstack? Jump to the Ethereum tooling docs or deploy your endpoint in minutes.

RWA on Ethereum: RPC requirements

Real-world asset protocols are not typical DeFi workloads. They combine the data throughput of DeFi indexers with the uptime requirements of payment infrastructure and the compliance obligations of regulated financial services. Understanding what this means for your RPC selection starts with the specific methods these protocols call — and how they call them.

Latency requirements

RWA infrastructure is not latency-critical in the way HFT or MEV is, but it is consistency-critical. A tokenized treasury fund polling for oracle updates every 60 seconds can tolerate 200ms response times — but cannot tolerate a 30-second gap where the endpoint is unavailable or rate-limited. Transfer compliance checks via eth_call must complete before a transaction is broadcast, so p99 latency matters as much as median for interactive flows.

The practical threshold: p95 below 500ms for eth_call, under 2 seconds for paginated eth_getLogs across a 5,000-block range. Archive-dependent lookups for audit trail reconstruction are latency-tolerant but must be reliable — a failed debug_traceTransaction during a regulatory review window is not recoverable with a retry.

Throughput requirements

A typical RWA protocol in production generates:

• Continuous eth_call load — 1 to 5 eligibility checks per user action, plus background polling against the ONCHAINID registry
• Periodic eth_getLogs bursts during settlement and distribution windows
• Steady WebSocket subscription traffic for real-time Transfer and ComplianceCheck event monitoring
• Occasional debug_traceTransaction calls triggered by compliance workflow or audit reconstruction

This translates to 50–200 RPS on active protocols with burst patterns during settlement cycles. Public shared endpoints with 10–25 RPS caps are inadequate for anything beyond prototyping.

Key RPC methods for Ethereum RWA

These seven methods form the core RPC surface for ERC-3643 and ERC-1400 protocols. Every provider in this comparison is evaluated against their ability to handle this method mix reliably at production scale.

Method	What it does for RWA	Infrastructure concerns
eth_call	Checks investor eligibility against ONCHAINID / identity registry before every transfer	Runs pre-broadcast on every transfer attempt; absorbs continuous load — method weighting is expensive on CU platforms
eth_getLogs	Indexes Transfer, ComplianceCheck, and OracleUpdate events across token + registry contracts	Public endpoints throttle this aggressively; 5,000-block range limit requires careful pagination and retry logic
eth_getStorageAt	Retrieves historical contract state for proof-of-reserve and audit reconstruction	Requires archive node access — not available on full node endpoints
debug_traceTransaction	Provides transaction-level execution trace for regulatory audit trails	Debug namespace not available on all provider tiers; requires dedicated or archive-enabled plans
eth_sendRawTransaction	Broadcasts compliant token transfers after eligibility verification	Standard on all providers; failover and broadcast reliability matter more than raw speed
eth_getTransactionReceipt	Confirms settlement finality and extracts event logs from executed transfers	Latency and reliability critical for downstream settlement logic triggered on confirmation
eth_subscribe("logs")	Real-time streaming of contract events via WebSocket	Requires WebSocket endpoint with reconnect support; shared endpoints often cap concurrent subscriptions

For the full reference of Ethereum RPC methods available through Chainstack, see the Ethereum API reference: JSON-RPC and Beacon quickstart.

Infrastructure requirements

Archive node access is mandatory, not optional. Any RWA protocol performing historical state reconstruction for audits, historical NAV lookups, or regulatory reporting needs archive data. Several providers gate archive access behind premium tiers or charge separately — this must be confirmed at contract time, not at incident time.

Dedicated endpoints for data residency. Many RWA protocols serving regulated investors face data residency requirements. Public shared endpoints route through infrastructure with no data residency guarantees. Dedicated Nodes provide isolated infrastructure with known data flow paths — a prerequisite for jurisdictional compliance in several EU and APAC markets.

WebSocket stability for event subscriptions. eth_subscribe("logs") subscriptions must survive network hiccups without dropping events. Production implementations require WebSocket endpoints with automatic reconnection and a fallback eth_getLogs polling strategy. Providers with instability at the WebSocket layer create compliance gaps — a dropped subscription during a settlement window means missed events with no automatic recovery.

Rate limit predictability over cost minimization. The cost structure for RWA is dominated by eth_call and eth_getLogs. Providers that weight these methods heavily in their CU or credit calculations — Alchemy (26 CU/eth_call), Infura (80 credits), Ankr (200 CU) — impose a significant cost premium and, more importantly, unpredictable rate consumption that makes burst capacity planning difficult. Method-agnostic pricing removes this variable from compliance infrastructure planning.

SOC 2 Type II certification for vendor due diligence. Regulated asset issuers performing vendor due diligence on infrastructure providers — a standard requirement for funds and licensed platforms — need documented, audit-backed security certifications. Self-reported compliance postures are not acceptable for institutional review.

Chainstack for RWA on Ethereum

Chainstack addresses the three critical requirements for production RWA infrastructure simultaneously: archive access on every plan, SOC 2 Type II certification (December 2025), and method-agnostic pricing where 1 RPC call = 1 request unit regardless of method complexity.

The pricing model is particularly relevant for RWA workloads. eth_call compliance checks, eth_getLogs event indexing, and debug_traceTransaction audit traces all cost 1 RU per call — eliminating the cost uncertainty that makes RWA infrastructure budgeting unpredictable on CU-weighted platforms. A protocol running 500,000 compliance checks per month spends the same RU budget as 500,000 standard block queries.

For regulated RWA deployments, Chainstack provides:

• Dedicated Nodes on paid plans — isolated infrastructure with known data paths for data residency compliance
• Unlimited Node add-on — flat-fee RPS tiers from 25 to 500 RPS with zero per-request billing, ideal for continuous background indexing workloads
• 99.99%+ uptime with contractual SLA
• 24/7 support via Slack, Telegram, and email with a 1-hour response SLA
• SOC 2 Type II certification covering security, availability, and confidentiality

For fintech and regulated asset platforms, see blockchain infrastructure built for fintech and stablecoin infrastructure. For institutional deployments requiring contractual SLA and dedicated account management, see enterprise.

The existing Chainstack research on RWA-specific RPC requirements, including ERC-3643 infrastructure patterns and oracle monitoring workflows, is covered in depth at RPC infrastructure for RWA: EVM node requirements.

Code example: indexing ERC-3643 compliance events

The most common RWA infrastructure task is continuously indexing Transfer and ComplianceCheck events across the token contract and ONCHAINID identity registry. Both contracts must be watched together — an indexer watching only the token contract can miss registry updates that affect transfer eligibility:

const { ethers } = require("ethers");
const provider = new ethers.JsonRpcProvider("YOUR_CHAINSTACK_ENDPOINT");
// ERC-3643 Transfer and ComplianceCheck event signatures
const TRANSFER_TOPIC = ethers.id("Transfer(address,address,uint256)");
const COMPLIANCE_TOPIC = ethers.id("ComplianceAdded(address,address)");
const RWA_TOKEN_ADDRESS = "0xYourTokenContract";
const IDENTITY_REGISTRY  = "0xYourIdentityRegistry";
async function indexComplianceEvents(fromBlock, toBlock) {
  const logs = await provider.getLogs({
    address: [RWA_TOKEN_ADDRESS, IDENTITY_REGISTRY],
    topics:  [[TRANSFER_TOPIC, COMPLIANCE_TOPIC]],
    fromBlock,
    toBlock,
  });
  for (const log of logs) {
    console.log(
      `Block ${log.blockNumber}: ${log.topics[0].slice(0, 10)} from ${log.address}`
    );
  }
}
indexComplianceEvents("earliest", "latest");

The Ethereum tooling documentation includes full SDK examples for Hardhat, Foundry, ethers.js, viem, and web3.py.

Provider comparison

Comparison table

The table below summarizes public positioning as of May 2026.

Provider	Pricing model	Free tier	Dedicated nodes	Archive & trace	Why it matters for RWA
Chainstack	Method-agnostic (1 RU = 1 request)	3M RU/month, 25 RPS	Yes (paid plans)	Yes, all plans	Method-agnostic pricing and SOC 2 Type II eliminate cost uncertainty and vendor risk for regulated workloads
Quicknode	Credit-weighted by method	30-day trial only	Dedicated clusters	Yes, all plans	SOC 2 Type II + ISO 27001 — the strongest published compliance stack; full archive and trace on all tiers
Alchemy	CU-weighted (26 CU/eth_call)	30M CUs/month	No (private endpoints)	Yes, paid tiers	Strong developer tooling; CU weighting inflates cost for compliance-heavy eth_call workloads
Infura	Credit-based, method-weighted	Limited credits/day	Enterprise only	Yes (add-on)	Ethereum-native with ConsenSys institutional credentials; archive gated behind add-on
Ankr	200 CU/eth_call	200M credits/month	Yes, premium	Yes, premium only	Wide chain coverage; very high normalized eth_call cost limits compliance-heavy production use
dRPC	Flat $6/1M requests, 20 CU per method	Public endpoints free	$875/month	Yes, same cost	Flat pricing suits eth_getLogs-heavy workloads; absence of SOC 2 limits enterprise fit

Chainstack

Chainstack’s position for RWA infrastructure combines SOC 2 Type II certification, method-agnostic pricing, and Dedicated Nodes with contractual SLA — the three requirements that appear most consistently on institutional vendor due diligence checklists. For teams building ERC-3643 or ERC-1400 protocols, the absence of method weighting means that 10,000 eth_call compliance checks cost exactly the same per request as 10,000 eth_getBlockByNumber calls, removing cost modeling complexity from compliance infrastructure planning.

Global Nodes provide geo-balanced shared infrastructure across multiple regions with 99.99%+ uptime, appropriate for teams at early to mid-scale. Paid plans unlock Dedicated Nodes for infrastructure isolation and predictable throughput. The Unlimited Node add-on converts billing entirely to a flat monthly fee at 25–500 RPS tiers — the right model for RWA protocols running continuous background compliance polling and event indexing that generate high but predictable request volume. Archive and debug/trace access are included on all tiers with no add-on required.

Pricing: Developer plan free (3M RU/month, 25 RPS); Growth $49/month (20M RU, 250 RPS); Pro $199/month (80M RU, 400 RPS); Business $349/month (200M RU, 600 RPS); Enterprise $990/month (400M RU, custom throughput). Annual plans save up to 16%.

Limitations: The free tier caps at 25 RPS, insufficient for production-scale continuous compliance polling. Enterprise SLA and dedicated account management require the $990/month Enterprise plan.

Fit by workload:

• RWA compliance (ERC-3643/ERC-1400): Excellent — method-agnostic pricing, archive on all tiers, SOC 2 Type II, and Dedicated Nodes make this the top choice for compliance-critical workloads
• Archive and audit trail access: Excellent — debug_traceTransaction and full archive available on all plans without add-on billing
• Enterprise / regulated deployments: Excellent — contractual SLA, isolated Dedicated Nodes, and 24/7 support with 1-hour response SLA meets institutional due diligence requirements

Quicknode

Quicknode carries the most extensive published compliance posture of any provider in this comparison: SOC 2 Type II, SOC 1 Type II, and ISO 27001, recertified by Grant Thornton in Q1 2026. For RWA protocols subject to regulatory audit, where vendor attestation must be presented to compliance officers or auditors, Quicknode’s certification stack is the clearest to justify. The 30+ region edge network delivers consistent latency from all major financial centers — EU, Asia-Pacific, and North America.

All plans include full archive access and trace/debug methods, with no gating. Dedicated clusters are available for teams needing isolated throughput. The platform supports Ethereum mainnet, all major testnets, and a wide set of L2s relevant to RWA infrastructure expanding beyond mainnet.

Limitations: No permanent free tier — only a 30-day trial. Credit-weighted pricing for eth_call and eth_getLogs increases effective cost for compliance-heavy workloads relative to method-agnostic pricing. High-volume RWA teams should benchmark credit consumption against their specific method mix before committing.

Fit by workload:

• RWA compliance (ERC-3643/ERC-1400): Excellent — strongest compliance certification stack; full archive and trace on all plans
• Archive and audit trail access: Excellent — all plans include debug, trace, and full archive without restriction
• Enterprise / regulated deployments: Excellent — SOC 2 Type II + ISO 27001 provides the broadest vendor attestation for institutional due diligence

Alchemy

Alchemy is the strongest option for Ethereum developer tooling, with a mature SDK ecosystem, Notify webhooks for event delivery guarantees, and a generous free tier at 30M CUs per month. The Transact API provides additional reliability guarantees for transaction broadcast, and the Webhook infrastructure reduces reliance on polling eth_getLogs for event-driven workflows. For RWA teams in early stages building and testing compliance logic, the developer experience and free tier provide good runway.

The CU structure requires careful evaluation for production RWA workloads. At 26 CUs per eth_call, an RWA protocol running 100,000 compliance checks daily consumes 2.6M CUs per day — roughly 87% of the entire monthly free tier in a single day at that rate. At production scale, the effective cost per eth_call is 26× higher than on method-agnostic platforms. Alchemy does not offer dedicated nodes in the traditional sense; infrastructure isolation is handled through private endpoints, which do not provide guaranteed throughput under load.

Limitations: CU weighting makes Alchemy expensive at scale for eth_call-heavy compliance workloads. No dedicated nodes means no guaranteed throughput isolation for production RWA protocols operating during busy settlement windows.

Fit by workload:

• RWA compliance (ERC-3643/ERC-1400): Good — solid reliability and archive access on paid tiers; CU weighting creates cost unpredictability at scale
• Archive and audit trail access: Good — archive and trace available on paid tiers, not by default
• Enterprise / regulated deployments: Moderate — SOC 2 Type II; no dedicated nodes and no standard contractual SLA below Enterprise tier

Infura

Infura is the most established Ethereum-native provider, operating as ConsenSys‘ infrastructure layer and the default RPC for MetaMask. For teams with existing ConsenSys ecosystem relationships, or building wallets and dApps targeting MetaMask’s user base, Infura offers depth of Ethereum protocol integration and institutional familiarity that carries weight in vendor selection discussions with regulated platforms. The provider has supported major institutional Ethereum deployments over many years.

Archive access is available but treated as an add-on rather than included in standard plans. eth_getLogs with deep historical range and debug_traceTransaction both require archive-enabled endpoints. Credit-based pricing is method-weighted, with eth_getLogs costing 80 credits versus 1 credit for simpler reads. The Enterprise plan provides dedicated infrastructure, a contractual SLA, and 24/7 engineering support.

Limitations: Archive access is a paid add-on, not a default — this adds procurement friction for RWA protocols that need archive data from launch. Standard plans do not include a contractual SLA. The credit cost of eth_getLogs is among the highest in this comparison.

Fit by workload:

• RWA compliance (ERC-3643/ERC-1400): Strong — reliable WebSocket support, strong Ethereum protocol expertise; archive as add-on requires explicit provisioning
• Archive and audit trail access: Good — available via add-on; debug/trace on archive-enabled endpoints
• Enterprise / regulated deployments: Strong — Enterprise plan offers dedicated infrastructure, SLA, and ConsenSys institutional credentials recognized in traditional finance contexts

Ankr

Ankr operates a distributed multi-chain node network with Ethereum support across global regions. The 200M monthly credit free tier is substantial for development and testing, and advanced tiers include archive, debug/trace, WebSocket, and multi-project management. For teams running infrastructure across many chains simultaneously, Ankr’s breadth is an operational advantage.

The pricing structure is unfavorable for RWA use cases. Ankr assigns 200 compute units per eth_call — compared to 26 on Alchemy or 1 on Chainstack. 200M free credits translate to approximately 1M eth_call requests in practice: a protocol running 100,000 compliance checks per day would exhaust the entire monthly free tier in 10 days. At production scale, the effective per-call cost premium relative to method-agnostic platforms is 200×. Ankr obtained a SOC 2 Type 2 certification in 2025, though the public scope documentation is limited — teams requiring detailed audit scope for institutional vendor review should verify coverage directly with Ankr.

Limitations: Very high normalized eth_call cost makes Ankr unsuitable for compliance-heavy RWA protocols at production scale. SOC 2 scope lacks detailed public documentation.

Fit by workload:

• RWA compliance (ERC-3643/ERC-1400): Moderate — archive and trace available on premium tiers; per-call cost structure is prohibitive for continuous eligibility checking workloads
• Archive and audit trail access: Good — available on premium plans with debug/trace namespace
• Enterprise / regulated deployments: Moderate — SOC 2 Type 2 (2025); compliance documentation should be verified for institutional requirements

dRPC

dRPC aggregates Ethereum infrastructure across 40+ independent node operators in 7 geo-distributed clusters, offering flat $6/1M request pricing with a consistent 20 CU per method regardless of type. For RWA protocols that have resolved the compliance certification question through other means — or are building infrastructure for institutional clients who self-certify — the flat pricing removes the per-method cost uncertainty that complicates planning on CU-weighted platforms.

Public endpoints are available free with no formal SLA. Paid plans start at $10 and scale per request volume. Dedicated Ethereum nodes are available at $875/month with unlimited RPS. Archive access is provided at the same cost as standard requests, with trace methods available. dRPC does not hold a published SOC 2 certification as of May 2026, which is a limiting factor for regulated RWA deployments subject to vendor due diligence requirements.

Limitations: No published SOC 2 certification limits viability for institutional RWA issuers and licensed platforms where vendor compliance documentation is a procurement requirement. No formal uptime SLA on standard plans.

Fit by workload:

• RWA compliance (ERC-3643/ERC-1400): Good — flat pricing suits eth_call/eth_getLogs workloads; absence of SOC 2 is a gap for regulated issuers
• Archive and audit trail access: Good — archive at the same rate as standard requests; trace methods available
• Enterprise / regulated deployments: Limited — no published SOC 2 certification; not appropriate for institutional deployments requiring vendor compliance documentation in the procurement process

Provider scoring

Real-world performance benchmark

Ethereum is tracked on the Chainstack performance dashboard, which measures method-level latency across providers and regions including EU, US West, and Asia-Pacific. For RWA infrastructure specifically, the most diagnostic metrics are eth_call response time — your compliance check latency floor — and eth_getLogs query time under realistic block ranges of 1,000–5,000 blocks.

Before committing to a provider, benchmark from your actual deployment region rather than relying on aggregated averages. p95 and p99 latency are more relevant than median for compliance-critical workflows where a single slow response blocks a transfer. Use the Chainstack performance dashboard to compare real-time method-level latency across providers and regions before signing a contract.

Benchmark before you commit: Run a curl timing loop or a short k6 script against each provider’s endpoint from your target region before finalizing your infrastructure choice — even a 100-request sample surfaces meaningful p95 differences for eth_call and eth_getLogs.

Getting started with RWA on Chainstack

1. Log in to Chainstack or create a free account.
2. Create a new project.
3. Select Ethereum mainnet or testnet (Sepolia or Holesky).
4. Deploy a node — Global Nodes for shared infrastructure, Dedicated Nodes for isolated production deployments with contractual throughput.
5. Copy your HTTP or WebSocket endpoint from the node dashboard.

For continuous background indexing workloads — the standard pattern for RWA event monitoring — consider the Unlimited Node add-on to eliminate per-request billing entirely. Flat RPS tiers from 25 to 500 RPS make monthly cost predictable regardless of method mix.

Here is a minimal compliance eligibility check using eth_call via web3.py, the pattern that runs on every investor transfer attempt in an ERC-3643 protocol:

from web3 import Web3
w3 = Web3(Web3.HTTPProvider("YOUR_CHAINSTACK_ENDPOINT"))
# Minimal ABI for ERC-3643 identity registry isVerified()
IDENTITY_REGISTRY_ABI = [
    {
        "inputs":  [{"type": "address", "name": "userAddress"}],
        "name":    "isVerified",
        "outputs": [{"type": "bool"}],
        "stateMutability": "view",
        "type": "function",
    }
]
IDENTITY_REGISTRY_ADDRESS = w3.to_checksum_address("0xYourIdentityRegistry")
registry = w3.eth.contract(
    address=IDENTITY_REGISTRY_ADDRESS,
    abi=IDENTITY_REGISTRY_ABI
)
def check_investor_eligibility(investor_address: str) -> bool:
    return registry.functions.isVerified(
        w3.to_checksum_address(investor_address)
    ).call()
print(check_investor_eligibility("0xInvestorAddress"))

The Ethereum tooling documentation includes full SDK examples and framework integrations.

You can also access Chainstack Ethereum RPC directly from Claude, Cursor, Codex, Gemini, or Windsurf using Chainstack MCP. Learn more about Chainstack MCP.

Conclusion

Provider selection for Ethereum RWA in 2026 is primarily a compliance question, not a performance question. All six providers in this comparison can deliver adequate latency for RWA workloads — the differentiating factors are archive access defaults, SOC 2 documentation for vendor due diligence, pricing predictability for eth_call-heavy compliance workflows, and dedicated infrastructure isolation for regulated issuers.

• For compliance-critical RWA with institutional due diligence requirements: Chainstack — SOC 2 Type II, method-agnostic pricing, archive on all plans, contractual SLA
• For teams requiring ISO 27001 alongside SOC 2: Quicknode — strongest published compliance certification stack; full archive and trace on all plans
• For developer-centric RWA dApps at early stage: Alchemy — generous free tier and Ethereum tooling depth; CU weighting becomes a constraint at scale
• For established Ethereum-native deployments with ConsenSys ecosystem ties: Infura — deepest Ethereum protocol familiarity, archive available as add-on
• For cost-sensitive protocols where compliance certification is not a vendor requirement: dRPC — flat pricing, reliable archive access, dedicated nodes available
• For multi-chain RWA protocols needing single-provider coverage: Ankr — wide network support, but normalize eth_call cost against your compliance polling volume before production

FAQ

Q: What RPC methods do ERC-3643 RWA protocols call most frequently?

The most frequent methods are eth_call for eligibility checks against the ONCHAINID identity registry on every transfer simulation, eth_getLogs for indexing Transfer and ComplianceCheck events across both the token contract and the identity registry, and eth_subscribe("logs") for real-time event streaming. Archive methods — eth_getStorageAt and debug_traceTransaction — are called less frequently but are essential for audit trail reconstruction and proof-of-reserve workflows.

Q: Do I need an archive node for RWA infrastructure on Ethereum?

Yes. RWA protocols require archive access for historical state reconstruction, historical NAV lookups, regulatory audit trails via debug_traceTransaction, and eth_getLogs queries that reach back beyond the most recent blocks. Chainstack and Quicknode include archive access on all plans by default; Infura and Ankr gate it behind premium tiers or add-ons.

Q: Which providers have published SOC 2 certifications relevant to RWA vendor due diligence?

Chainstack (SOC 2 Type II, December 2025), Quicknode (SOC 2 Type II + ISO 27001 + SOC 1 Type II, recertified Q1 2026), and Alchemy (SOC 2 Type II) have published audit-backed certifications. Ankr obtained SOC 2 Type 2 in 2025 with limited public scope disclosure. Infura holds certification through ConsenSys. dRPC has no published SOC 2 as of May 2026.

Q: What RPC latency does a production Ethereum RWA protocol need?

RWA infrastructure is consistency-critical rather than ultra-low-latency. A p95 below 500ms for eth_call and under 2 seconds for paginated eth_getLogs across a 5,000-block range is sufficient for most protocols. More important than median latency is the absence of rate-limit interruptions during compliance polling and settlement windows. Benchmark from your deployment region using the Chainstack performance dashboard before committing.

Q: Can I use shared public endpoints for a production RWA protocol?

No. Public shared endpoints lack the SLA uptime guarantees, rate limit predictability, and data residency controls required by regulated RWA protocols. A missed compliance event or dropped NAV update can affect the legal integrity of the tokenized asset itself, not just the user experience. Production deployments should use at minimum a dedicated private endpoint with SLA, and ideally Dedicated Nodes for full infrastructure isolation.

Q: How much more does method-weighted pricing cost for RWA compliance workloads?

eth_call costs 200 CU on Ankr, 26 CU on Alchemy, and 80 credits on Infura — versus 1 RU on Chainstack and flat $6/1M on dRPC. A protocol running 500,000 compliance checks per month pays roughly $0.50 in RUs on Chainstack versus the equivalent of ~$13 on Alchemy or ~$100+ on Ankr at list rates, on this method alone. Total cost impact depends on your full method mix, but eth_call dominates continuous compliance polling workloads.

Additional resources

• How to get an Ethereum RPC endpoint in 2026
• Ethereum tooling documentation — Chainstack Docs
• More Ethereum tutorials and articles on the Chainstack Blog
• Tutorials and guides for Ethereum on Chainstack
• RPC infrastructure for RWA: EVM node requirements
• Chainstack pricing
• Chainstack performance dashboard