Etherscan's Surcharge Scandal Exposes Ethereum Ecosystem's Data Dependency Dilemma
Original Article Title: "Etherscan Cancels Several Free APIs, Revealing Unforeseen Issues"
Original Article Author: Eric, Foresight News
On November 23, Lefteris Karapetsas, the founder of the open-source portfolio tracker Rotki, took to Twitter to complain about Etherscan. He mentioned that during Devcon, Etherscan suddenly announced that they would no longer provide free APIs for the Avalanche C-Chain, Base, BNB Chain, and OP Mainnet block explorers.
While he understood the pressure of providing free services, he questioned why there was no advance notice or why such a decision was made during a major event when everyone was away, leading to a "sudden attack" without any time to react.
According to Etherscan's announcement, as the chain's performance gradually improved, the data volume also increased significantly, leading to a substantial rise in costs. In this situation, they could no longer afford to provide all APIs for free and had to reluctantly convert some previously free APIs into paid versions.
It is evident that the decision to no longer offer free APIs for specific chains was likely due to insufficient funding or resource support.
Finally, the founder expressed some confusion, questioning why, apart from Avalanche, Base, OP Mainnet, and BNB Chain did not have enough money to support such critical services.
However, opposing voices quickly emerged, with the founder of Routescan and operator of the Avalanche block explorer Snowtrace, Jack, at the forefront. Jack provided some industry-insider data:
· Etherscan charges supported chains approximately between $1.5 million to $2 million annually, with some as low as around $300,000, but providing only basic data;
· For chains that are already paying, Etherscan only provides a free API with 5 RPS (Requests Per Second), and for additional requests, the monthly subscription fee can go up to $899.
· Last month, the independent visitor numbers of various chain explorers on Etherscan were as follows: OP Mainnet, 102k; BNB Chain, 2.5M; Base, 1M; HyperEVM, 30k; Avalanche, 16k. Etherscan itself had 4M visitors.

The CEO's implicit meaning is: Charging for a small number of APIs is indeed due to financial constraints, not because we find the income insignificant. For some chains that don't pay us, we have offered free service for a while and have done our utmost. Let's stop arguing about this and move on.
There isn't much to say about the discussion on this issue; it's simply a matter of some people thinking Etherscan is too greedy, while others view it as justifiable business behavior. However, some discussions arising from this event are quite interesting.
First of all, it was through this incident that the author learned about an ecosystem alliance called VERA, which promotes convenient, standardized, and open access to EVM smart contract source code, as well as the Open Labels Initiative, which drives the standardization framework and data model for EVM address labels. The fundamental goal of both organizations is to support the accessibility of blockchain data, especially validation.
The Open Labels Initiative retweeted Lefteris Karapetsas's complaint tweet, stating that over the past year, they have been working to prevent incidents like this caused by overreliance on centralized on-chain data providers. They believe that such critical infrastructure should not be monopolized but rather co-developed.
Entities such as sourcefify.eth for verifying Ethereum contract code, the Ethereum data visualization platform growthepie, the open-source block explorer Blockscout, and the previously mentioned Routescan are all contributing to the readability and accessibility of Ethereum data.
According to Akshat Mittal, a DeFi engineer at Reserve Protocol, Etherscan has not been involved in these initiatives. Is it for commercial gain? No one knows, but even if it is, it's understandable. The Ethereum ecosystem will always have individuals who adhere to open-source culture and reject excessive commercialization, which is not a matter of right or wrong but rather showcases the diversity of the ecosystem. Profit-driven institutions can ensure service quality, while open-source products will still have their place.
Furthermore, there has been recent effusive praise by IC's zCloak Network founder 0xFrancis, once again comparing IC to Ethereum.

0xFrancis argues that Ethereum does not include "querying block data" as part of its consensus, so DApp development must rely on third-party RPC services. If RPC nodes collectively go offline, the chain will still run but become "unreadable."
Going deeper, if centralized RPC nodes or websites like Etherscan provide false data, they can easily deceive users. The Internet Computer (IC) incorporates querying as part of its protocol. When someone initiates a query, the request is executed through the ICP node network and returns cryptographically authenticated data to ensure its accuracy.
0xFrancis's point is not unfounded. This can be seen as a case of IC being too forward-thinking, with the Etherscan fee controversy being a typical debate about centralization versus decentralization. However, could it be that Ethereum's imperfections and the need for commercialized components have actually contributed to the ecosystem's prosperity?
You may also like

Found a "meme coin" that skyrocketed in just a few days. Any tips?

TAO is Elon Musk, who invested in OpenAI, and Subnet is Sam Altman

The era of "mass coin distribution" on public chains comes to an end

Soaring 50 times, with an FDV exceeding 10 billion USD, why RaveDAO?

1 billion DOTs were minted out of thin air, but the hacker only made 230,000 dollars

After the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, when will the war end?

Before using Musk's "Western WeChat" X Chat, you need to understand these three questions
The X Chat will be available for download on the App Store this Friday. The media has already covered the feature list, including self-destructing messages, screenshot prevention, 481-person group chats, Grok integration, and registration without a phone number, positioning it as the "Western WeChat." However, there are three questions that have hardly been addressed in any reports.
There is a sentence on X's official help page that is still hanging there: "If malicious insiders or X itself cause encrypted conversations to be exposed through legal processes, both the sender and receiver will be completely unaware."
No. The difference lies in where the keys are stored.
In Signal's end-to-end encryption, the keys never leave your device. X, the court, or any external party does not hold your keys. Signal's servers have nothing to decrypt your messages; even if they were subpoenaed, they could only provide registration timestamps and last connection times, as evidenced by past subpoena records.
X Chat uses the Juicebox protocol. This solution divides the key into three parts, each stored on three servers operated by X. When recovering the key with a PIN code, the system retrieves these three shards from X's servers and recombines them. No matter how complex the PIN code is, X is the actual custodian of the key, not the user.
This is the technical background of the "help page sentence": because the key is on X's servers, X has the ability to respond to legal processes without the user's knowledge. Signal does not have this capability, not because of policy, but because it simply does not have the key.
The following illustration compares the security mechanisms of Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X Chat along six dimensions. X Chat is the only one of the four where the platform holds the key and the only one without Forward Secrecy.
The significance of Forward Secrecy is that even if a key is compromised at a certain point in time, historical messages cannot be decrypted because each message has a unique key. Signal's Double Ratchet protocol automatically updates the key after each message, a mechanism lacking in X Chat.
After analyzing the X Chat architecture in June 2025, Johns Hopkins University cryptology professor Matthew Green commented, "If we judge XChat as an end-to-end encryption scheme, this seems like a pretty game-over type of vulnerability." He later added, "I would not trust this any more than I trust current unencrypted DMs."
From a September 2025 TechCrunch report to being live in April 2026, this architecture saw no changes.
In a February 9, 2026 tweet, Musk pledged to undergo rigorous security tests of X Chat before its launch on X Chat and to open source all the code.
As of the April 17 launch date, no independent third-party audit has been completed, there is no official code repository on GitHub, the App Store's privacy label reveals X Chat collects five or more categories of data including location, contact info, and search history, directly contradicting the marketing claim of "No Ads, No Trackers."
Not continuous monitoring, but a clear access point.
For every message on X Chat, users can long-press and select "Ask Grok." When this button is clicked, the message is delivered to Grok in plaintext, transitioning from encrypted to unencrypted at this stage.
This design is not a vulnerability but a feature. However, X Chat's privacy policy does not state whether this plaintext data will be used for Grok's model training or if Grok will store this conversation content. By actively clicking "Ask Grok," users are voluntarily removing the encryption protection of that message.
There is also a structural issue: How quickly will this button shift from an "optional feature" to a "default habit"? The higher the quality of Grok's replies, the more frequently users will rely on it, leading to an increase in the proportion of messages flowing out of encryption protection. The actual encryption strength of X Chat, in the long run, depends not only on the design of the Juicebox protocol but also on the frequency of user clicks on "Ask Grok."
X Chat's initial release only supports iOS, with the Android version simply stating "coming soon" without a timeline.
In the global smartphone market, Android holds about 73%, while iOS holds about 27% (IDC/Statista, 2025). Of WhatsApp's 3.14 billion monthly active users, 73% are on Android (according to Demand Sage). In India, WhatsApp covers 854 million users, with over 95% Android penetration. In Brazil, there are 148 million users, with 81% on Android, and in Indonesia, there are 112 million users, with 87% on Android.
WhatsApp's dominance in the global communication market is built on Android. Signal, with a monthly active user base of around 85 million, also relies mainly on privacy-conscious users in Android-dominant countries.
X Chat circumvented this battlefield, with two possible interpretations. One is technical debt; X Chat is built with Rust, and achieving cross-platform support is not easy, so prioritizing iOS may be an engineering constraint. The other is a strategic choice; with iOS holding a market share of nearly 55% in the U.S., X's core user base being in the U.S., prioritizing iOS means focusing on their core user base rather than engaging in direct competition with Android-dominated emerging markets and WhatsApp.
These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, leading to the same result: X Chat's debut saw it willingly forfeit 73% of the global smartphone user base.
This matter has been described by some: X Chat, along with X Money and Grok, forms a trifecta creating a closed-loop data system parallel to the existing infrastructure, similar in concept to the WeChat ecosystem. This assessment is not new, but with X Chat's launch, it's worth revisiting the schematic.
X Chat generates communication metadata, including information on who is talking to whom, for how long, and how frequently. This data flows into X's identity system. Part of the message content goes through the Ask Grok feature and enters Grok's processing chain. Financial transactions are handled by X Money: external public testing was completed in March, opening to the public in April, enabling fiat peer-to-peer transfers via Visa Direct. A senior Fireblocks executive confirmed plans for cryptocurrency payments to go live by the end of the year, holding money transmitter licenses in over 40 U.S. states currently.
Every WeChat feature operates within China's regulatory framework. Musk's system operates within Western regulatory frameworks, but he also serves as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This is not a WeChat replica; it is a reenactment of the same logic under different political conditions.
The difference is that WeChat has never explicitly claimed to be "end-to-end encrypted" on its main interface, whereas X Chat does. "End-to-end encryption" in user perception means that no one, not even the platform, can see your messages. X Chat's architectural design does not meet this user expectation, but it uses this term.
X Chat consolidates the three data lines of "who this person is, who they are talking to, and where their money comes from and goes to" in one company's hands.
The help page sentence has never been just technical instructions.

Parse Noise's newly launched Beta version, how to "on-chain" this heat?

Is Lobster a Thing of the Past? Unpacking the Hermes Agent Tools that Supercharge Your Throughput to 100x

Declare War on AI? The Doomsday Narrative Behind Ultraman's Residence in Flames

Crypto VCs Are Dead? The Market Extinction Cycle Has Begun

Claude's Journey to Foolishness in Diagrams: The Cost of Thriftiness, or How API Bill Increased 100-Fold

Edge Land Regress: A Rehash Around Maritime Power, Energy, and the Dollar

Arthur Hayes Latest Interview: How Should Retail Investors Navigate the Iran Conflict?

Just now, Sam Altman was attacked again, this time by gunfire

Straits Blockade, Stablecoin Recap | Rewire News Morning Edition

From High Expectations to Controversial Turnaround, Genius Airdrop Triggers Community Backlash

