Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nastya
@nastya
There are several major issues in building in Web3 on top of closed source 3rd party APIs: - The API provider dictates which chains you support. That is esp relevant with so many new L2s launches. - They can change their prices in a day, and you have no fallback (see Dune example with their $400 min plan) Weird thing is, there are 100x more Web3 companies making closed APIs (and launching tokens) than open-source dev tools
2 replies
1 recast
12 reactions
Timur Badretdinov
@destiner.eth
agree it’s frustrating at the same time, charging for API access is the only credible way to monetise in B2B crypto ppl expect everything to be free, and only agree to pay for volume as a builder, minimizing the number of API deps and finding backup providers is what helped me
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Nastya
@nastya
what matter most to you as a builder when you are deciding on an API provider? In Web2, it seems to be a more common practice to create self-hosted and cloud-hosted tools, but paid. Both can exist without sacrificing the product. I wish more tools like this existed in Web3.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
nemb
@nemb
In Web2, a common technique is to write a good open source tool, give it out for free, most of the time with all the core tools needed, and charge for hosting + premium features. In Web3 you have a few of these too, and a lot of open source but the goal is different. I guess too many projects want to raise funds, make bank, and capture the market. Since it's an early industry (think DotCom bubble-era), it also makes sense from a maturity perspective. I want to believe it is evolving in the good direction.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
