I want to invest in the growth of decentralized… | Parse
I want to invest in the growth of decentralized RPC providers. What's the best token for that infrastructure vertical?
Data as of Sep 24, 2026 · Based on 339 AI responses from ChatGPT Search and Google AI Mode · See how Parse measures this
For an investment focused on the decentralized RPC infrastructure vertical, Pocket Network (POKT) is commonly cited as the most direct pure-play option. Additional alternatives include Ankr, which offers broader infrastructure exposure beyond just RPC, and specialized platforms such as dRPC and , which are highly favored for their performance-driven routing and reliability requirements.
Best for investors wanting exposure to a wider node services and API ecosystem, though it is less focused on pure RPC functionality compared to other options.
What Is An RPC In Crypto? Top 8 Crypto RPC Providers | CoinGeckohttps://www.coingecko.com/learn/crypto-rpc-best-rpc-providers
4%
Top 11 RPC Node Providers in 2026 | RPC Fasthttps://rpcfast.com/blog/rpc-node-providers
3%
List of 79 RPC node providers (2026)https://www.alchemy.com/dapps/best/rpc-node-providers
2%
9 Best Solana RPC Providers (2026): Decision Guide | Alchemyhttps://www.alchemy.com/overviews/solana-rpc
1%
Best Blockchain RPC Providers 2025: Top Comparison & Reviewshttps://www.tokenmetrics.com/blog/best-blockchain-rpc-providers-2025-comparison-reviews-and-how-to-choose
1%
Best RPC Providers for Blockchain Apps in 2026https://nownodes.io/blog/best-rpc-providers-for-blockchain-apps-in-2025/
If your thesis is specifically “decentralized RPC/data-access infrastructure will capture more value,” the token with the most direct exposure is POKT (Pocket Network).
Why:
POKT is explicitly built around decentralized RPC/data delivery. Pocket describes itself as a permissionless decentralized data-delivery network, historically centered on blockchain RPC.
The token has a direct usage mechanism. Under Pocket's Shannon architecture, gateway users pay for data services and POKT is burned for usage, creating a clearer link between network utilization and token demand than a token that merely secures a broader infrastructure network.
The thesis has expanded beyond RPC. Pocket is positioning the same network for other data/API workloads and AI inference, so the upside case isn't limited to blockchain RPC.
There are credible alternatives, but their exposure is less pure., for example, operates decentralized RPC infrastructure and uses for payments/incentives, but has evolved into a broader Web3 infrastructure/API business. is also decentralized networking infrastructure, but its core thesis is broader data transmission/connectivity rather than specifically RPC.
( Network) and POKT () are the primary utility tokens for decentralized remote procedure call (RPC) infrastructure, with leading in multi-chain enterprise integrations and hybrid decentralized node hosting, and pioneering a fully peer-to-side-chain relay network.
Question: I want to invest in the growth of decentralized RPC providers. What's the best token for that infrastructure vertical?
I'd separate “best token for the RPC thesis” from “best investment.” I can't responsibly declare an investment winner without knowing your risk tolerance and doing a fuller valuation comparison.
For this particular vertical, though, I'd investigate these three:
Token
Exposure to decentralized RPC
Token/value linkage
Main thesis
POKT
Very direct
Usage → POKT burn
Decentralized RPC → generalized open-data network
ANKR
Direct
Network payments/incentives
Broad Web3 infrastructure/API
NKN
Indirect
Network traffic/payment economics
Decentralized connectivity/data transmission
The most interesting thing to diligence with POKT is therefore not simply “how many RPC requests does Pocket have?” but whether its burn/usage economics can grow faster than token supply and infrastructure costs, and whether gateways can turn network capacity into sustainable demand. That's where the investment thesis either becomes compelling or falls apart.
If you want, I can do a 2026 POKT vs ANKR vs NKN investment deep dive covering market cap, token supply/unlocks, actual RPC usage, revenue/burn, node economics, competitive moat, and valuation scenarios.
Investing in decentralized Remote Procedure Call (decentralized physical infrastructure / DePIN for blockchain data) is a play on moving traffic away from centralized choke points like Infura or Alchemy toward permissionless, fault-tolerant networks.
The market features a few primary contenders, each with distinct tokenomics, network maturity, and architectural designs:
1. Pocket Network (POKT)
The Pitch: One of the oldest and most battle-tested decentralized RPC networks. Pocket transitioned via major upgrades (like the Shannon upgrade) into a fully permissionless, general-purpose open data fabric with a deflationary mint-and-burn tokenomics model.
Token Utility: POKT tokens are staked by node runners and burned via protocol usage when applications/chain foundations purchase wholesale non-profit or enterprise data throughput.
The Bull Case: High relay volume directly impacts token supply via burns, and their expansion into AI data transport layers (such as natural-language Model Context Protocol servers) broadens its addressable market past standard blockchain RPC.
2. Ankr (ANKR)
The Pitch: Ankr functions as both an enterprise-grade centralized/hybrid RPC provider and a decentralized node infrastructure protocol. It captures massive throughput across dozens of chains.
Token Utility: The ANKR token is used for paying for RPC/API services, incentivizing independent node providers in its DePIN framework, acting as collateral for liquid staking, and participating in DAO governance.
The Bull Case: It bridges enterprise utility with decentralized infrastructure. It is deeply integrated into major ecosystems (like Polygon), making it a safer, revenue-heavy cross-pollinator, though its token capture is broader than pure decentralized relay routing.
3. Lava Network (LAVA)
The Pitch: Lava focuses intensely on modular, multi-chain access with automated quality-of-service routing and failovers across independent node providers, attracting high-end institutional users and custody providers like Fireblocks.
Token Utility: Coordinates rewards and payments across the decentralized provider network for multi-chain access.
The Bull Case: Highly focused on reliability, uptime guarantees (99.99%), and institutional data integrity, positioning it to capture sticky B2B and financial settlement traffic where an RPC drop is a critical operational failure.
Which is "Best"?
If you want a pure-play, high-beta decentralized data/relay burn model that scales directly with raw multi-chain and agentic AI query volume, Pocket Network (POKT) is structurally the most aligned.
If you want exposure to an infrastructure provider with massive existing enterprise throughput and diversified web3/staking revenue streams, Ankr (ANKR) is the more comprehensive market presence.
To help narrow this down, are you looking for a token with pure utility/burn mechanics tied directly to network usage , or are you prioritizing broader ecosystem revenue and enterprise adoption?
I wouldn’t call it objectively “the best” investment, because that depends on valuation, risk tolerance, and your time horizon. But the token-to-infrastructure linkage is unusually direct:
POKT is actually used to pay for network usage. Applications burn POKT for relays, while infrastructure suppliers earn POKT for serving them.
Usage is intended to create token scarcity. Since PIP-41, 100 POKT burned produces only 97.5 POKT of protocol minting, creating a 2.5% structural reduction per settlement before considering other mechanisms.
It has actual RPC infrastructure operating today. Pocket says its public RPC program provides access to 60+ chains, with the Foundation and community gateways operating the infrastructure.
The roadmap is expanding beyond conventional RPC. Pocket is positioning its relay infrastructure for additional workloads, including AI-agent traffic and potentially gRPC-based workloads.
The economic loop is unusually easy to map: more RPC demand → more relays → more POKT burned → supplier rewards → more infrastructure capacity.
The important caveat
The key question isn't simply “Will decentralized RPC grow?” It's:
Does growth in decentralized RPC accrue enough economic value to POKT holders rather than primarily benefiting RPC customers and node operators?
That's where I'd focus the investment research.
For POKT, I'd monitor four numbers rather than just RPC request counts:
Revenue/rewards per supplier relative to the POKT required to stake.
Token valuation relative to actual network usage — essentially a crypto-native infrastructure multiple.
There's also a subtle issue: Pocket's current documentation has some different allocation figures depending on which documentation page you're looking at, and tokenomics parameters are governance-controlled. So I'd use the live on-chain parameters rather than assuming a static token model.
Bottom line: If your investment thesis is specifically “the decentralized RPC/relay layer wins,” POKT is one of the clearest tokens to research because the protocol explicitly connects network consumption to token economics. That is different from buying a general-purpose L1 and hoping RPC demand eventually accrues to it.
If you want, I can also do a POKT vs. other decentralized RPC/infrastructure tokens comparison, including token capture, current valuation, usage, supply dynamics, competitors, and the main ways the thesis could fail.
Investing in decentralized Remote Procedure Call (RPC) infrastructure means targeting the middleware layer that connects dApps, wallets, and AI agents to blockchains . While centralized giants like Alchemy, Infura, and QuickNode dominate market share, decentralized networks rely on native utility tokens to incentivize independent node operators, secure routing, and settle data queries.
The primary and most established assets in this specific infrastructure vertical feature distinct architectural and tokenomic models:
POKT (Pocket Network)
Role/Mechanism: Operates its own Layer-1 protocol coordinating a massive global network of independent nodes. It uses $POKT to incentivize node runners who relay data across dozens of blockchains.
Evolution: Upgrades (such as the Shannon upgrade and Grove's PATH framework) have expanded $POKT's utility from strictly blockchain RPC to a broader usage-based burn model handling generalized open-data and decentralized AI model requests.
Pros/Cons: Highly battle-tested with multi-year operational history and billions of relays processed, though it has historically battled high token inflation dynamics which later upgrades aimed to curb via usage-based burns.
LAVA (Lava Network)
Role/Mechanism: Coordinates multi-chain RPC traffic and aggregates modular data providers, directing user requests based on the real-time speed and reliability of competing node operators.
Evolution: Focuses heavily on high-uptime enterprise and institutional requirements (such as multi-chain indexing, cross-border payment rails, and custody integration) while rewarding protocol stakers and providers.
Pros/Cons: Tapped heavily into modular ecosystems and multi-chain expansion (supporting dozens of networks with automatic failovers), positioning itself well for modern appchains and AI agent data requirements.
ANKR (Ankr Network)
Role/Mechanism: A hybrid decentralized-to-enterprise infrastructure provider. While Ankr offers centralized enterprise endpoints, its token ($ANKR) is utilized across its decentralized node marketplace, staking, and governance for supporting multi-chain infrastructure.
Pros/Cons: More diversified commercial revenue and massive request volume, but less of a pure-play "decentralized coordination layer" token compared to POKT or LAVA, as it straddles centralized and decentralized infrastructure business models.
Choosing the Right Asset
Pocket Network is a pioneer in decentralized RPC, and their shift toward general-purpose open data with Shannon makes POKT an interesting play on decentralized infrastructure.
Lava’s focus on routing traffic dynamically based on real-time provider performance gives LAVA a sharp edge for modern multi-chain and AI agent use cases.
If you want a pure-play, protocol-governed decentralized relay network with massive historical scale, POKT is the veteran choice. If you prefer a newer modular approach tailored to multi-chain failovers and high-performance routing for contemporary apps and AI, LAVA represents the newer architectural wave.
Are you leaning more toward a pure decentralized protocol token (like POKT or LAVA) or a hybrid infrastructure utility token (like ANKR)? Let me know and we can look closer at their tokenomics or current network metrics.
If your thesis is specifically “decentralized RPC/data-access infrastructure becomes a major Web3 primitive,” my top token pick today would be POKT (Pocket Network), with LAVA (Lava Network) as the higher-risk alternative.
My ranking
POKT — best pure-play infrastructure bet
LAVA — best asymmetric/speculative bet
ANKR — broader infrastructure exposure, but weaker fit for a pure decentralized-RPC thesis
Why I favor POKT
Pocket Network is unusually direct exposure to the actual economic activity you're describing: applications consume RPC/data services, providers supply them, and the POKT token sits inside that payment/reward mechanism.
The important development is Shannon + PIP-41. POKT now has a usage-linked burn/mint model: applications burn POKT for relays, while only 97.5% of the burned amount is reminted to network participants. Thus, more RPC usage mechanically creates more token burn and modest supply contraction.
Pocket says it currently has 5,000+ independent nodes and 60+ supported blockchains, which is substantial infrastructure rather than merely a token with an RPC narrative.
And the valuation is interesting: POKT's September 11, 2026 market cap was roughly $19.4M, with a September 10 closing price around $0.00815. CoinGecko That's small enough that successful adoption could theoretically produce very large multiples—but also means this is highly speculative.
Where LAVA fits
Lava Network is arguably the cleaner technological expression of the decentralized-RPC thesis. Rather than simply operating a decentralized node network, Lava is essentially a marketplace/routing layer connecting applications to independent RPC providers and selecting providers based on performance.
Its token also has direct infrastructure utility: LAVA holders can restake to RPC providers, increasing their stake weight and helping direct traffic toward providers.
The tradeoff is valuation and maturity. LAVA's September 11 market cap was only about $11.8M, with a September 10 close around $0.0197. CoinGecko That gives it enormous upside if the network becomes a dominant routing layer, but you're taking substantially more execution/adoption risk.
The key distinction
I'd frame the investments like this:
Thesis
Better token
RPC demand → token demand/burn
POKT
Decentralized node-provider network
POKT
RPC aggregation/routing marketplace
LAVA
Maximum asymmetric upside
LAVA
Best risk-adjusted pure-play, IMO
One thing I wouldn't do is simply buy whichever token has the lowest market cap. The critical question is whether economic value accrues to the token as RPC usage scales. POKT currently has a particularly explicit answer to that question: relay consumption burns POKT, suppliers are compensated in POKT, and PIP-41 makes the burn exceed the remint by 2.5%.
Bottom line: If I had to own one token for a 3–5 year decentralized-RPC thesis, I'd choose POKT. If I wanted to make a smaller, venture-style bet seeking a potentially much larger multiple, I'd pair it with LAVA.
I wouldn't treat either as a conventional investment, though—both are microcaps, and infrastructure adoption, token liquidity, emissions/governance, and competition from centralized providers are major risks.
If you want, I can also do a POKT vs LAVA deep-dive with current market caps, FDV, token unlocks/emissions, actual RPC usage, revenue/fees, node counts, and a bull/base/bear valuation for 2028–2030.
When looking to gain exposure to the decentralized Remote Procedure Call (RPC) and blockchain data infrastructure vertical, the market broadly centers around a few key protocols that turn node operation and bandwidth into a decentralized economy.
The two primary projects leading this space take different architectural and tokenomic approaches: Pocket Network ($POKT) and Lava Network ($LAVA).
1. Pocket Network ($POKT)
Pocket Network is one of the pioneers in decentralized infrastructure, acting as a relay chain that coordinates a global network of independent nodes serving RPC requests for dozens of blockchains.
How it works: Applications or gateways buy and burn $POKT to pay for compute units/relays, which are then distributed to node operators.
Tokenomics & Catalysts: Following major structural overhauls (like the Shannon upgrade), Pocket transitioned into a permissionless open data fabric. Crucially, governance implementations introduced a net-deflationary mint-and-burn mechanism (e.g., burning more than is minted based on network usage), directly tying protocol utility to supply contraction.
Main Risk: Historically plagued by high token emission rates that heavily favored node inflation over organic buy-pressure, making economic sustainability tightly dependent on scaling real developer demand.
2. Lava Network ($LAVA)
Lava is a modular data access layer and decentralized RPC marketplace designed to aggregate node providers and dynamically route traffic based on live quality-of-service (QoS) measurements.
How it works: Lava functions as a decentralized aggregator where requests are scored live and sent to the most responsive, reliable independent provider with automatic failover. It is heavily integrated into ecosystems needing enterprise-grade multi-chain reliability (such as institutional custody tools and multi-chain payment rails).
Tokenomics & Catalysts: Ecosystem projects and chains pay $LAVA stakers and providers directly to bootstrap guaranteed uptime across networks like NEAR, Starknet, and Filecoin. Its focus is heavily catered toward performance-incentivized routing and modular expansion (including support for decentralized AI agent data validation).
Main Risk: Competition from centralized high-performance giants (like Alchemy, QuickNode, and Infura) that offer slick enterprise features off-chain, meaning Lava must continually prove superior multi-chain redundancy.
Strategic Takeaway
If you want exposure to a pioneering network with hard-coded deflationary tokenomics tied directly to query volume, $POKT via Pocket Network is the veteran play.
If you prefer a performance-driven QoS routing protocol capturing modern multi-chain and modular ecosystem incentives, $LAVA via Lava Network represents the newer generation approach.
Are you looking to actively run nodes/stake to earn yield, or are you purely looking for liquid token investment exposure? Let me know and we can dive deeper into the risk/reward profiles.
Direct infrastructure exposure. Pocket is purpose-built around decentralized data delivery, with RPC as its core use case. Its network currently supports 60+ blockchain RPC endpoints.
The token is actually used for the service. Applications burn POKT to consume relay capacity, while infrastructure suppliers earn POKT for serving those relays. That's much cleaner exposure to RPC demand than a token that merely governs an RPC project.
Usage → token economics. Under the current Shannon economics, 100% of the relay fee is burned and 97.5% is subsequently minted to participants, with the remaining 2.5% permanently removed. Thus, increasing RPC/data usage creates increasing token burn.
Supplier economics are tied to actual work. Roughly 79% of the minted settlement goes to suppliers, rather than paying node operators through an arbitrary fixed inflation schedule.
The architecture is broader than RPC. Pocket's Shannon protocol is data-agnostic and can support blockchain RPC, AI inference and other data-delivery workloads. That gives POKT an option on a broader decentralized data market.
The important caveat
I wouldn't interpret this as “POKT is definitely the best crypto investment.” It's the token whose economics most directly express the thesis you're describing.
The investment question is really:
Will decentralized RPC/data demand grow faster than Pocket's token supply and competitive pressures dilute the value captured by POKT?
That's where I'd focus the diligence. Pocket still faces competition from centralized RPC providers and other decentralized infrastructure networks, and its token parameters are governance-controlled.
My ranking for this specific thesis:
POKT — strongest pure-play exposure
LAVA — worth investigating as a higher-risk alternative if you specifically want decentralized RPC infrastructure
Broader DePIN tokens — less direct exposure to RPC economics
If you want, I can also do a 2026 POKT vs. LAVA deep dive—market cap, actual RPC traffic, token value capture, supply dynamics, staking, competitors, and a bull/base/bear valuation—to determine which has the better risk/reward today.
Decentralized RPC infrastructure operates as a DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network) model, routing blockchain read/write requests across distributed independent node runners rather than centralized server clusters like AWS.
Comparative Overview of Decentralized RPC Tokens
Project / Token
Core Architecture
Key Metric / Scale
Primary Utility
Ankr Network (ANKR)
Hybrid decentralized node network coupled with centralized enterprise routing.
Billions of daily RPC requests across 70+ chains.
Node provider staking, premium tier service fee payments, and governance.
Pocket Network (POKT)
Relay-based protocol matching dApps needing data with independent node runners.
Multi-chain support across 35+ networks.
Staked by node runners as collateral to service requests and earn protocol rewards.
Key Project Breakdowns
Ankr Network (ANKR): Ankr combines a decentralized global node marketplace (DePIN) with high-performance traditional RPC enterprise solutions. The ANKR token is used for paying for premium enterprise RPC services, incentivizing independent node operators, and participating in network governance. It balances deep enterprise partnerships (such as working with major layer-1 and layer-2 foundations) with decentralized infrastructure.
Pocket Network (POKT): Pocket operates as an algorithmic relay protocol that functions purely as a middleware utility layer. Independent node operators stake POKT to secure the network and gain the right to service application API requests. Payment from dApps is translated into protocol-level minting and burning mechanics that reward node runners proportionally to the traffic they successfully route.
Investment Considerations & Trade-offs
Centralization vs. Purity: While POKT boasts a more purist decentralized, permissionless node-relay architecture, Ankr captures a larger share of mainstream developer traffic by blending decentralized node infrastructure with traditional enterprise-grade SLAs.
Tokenomics Risk: Decentralized infrastructure tokens face inflation and supply-demand pressures tied directly to overall blockchain transaction volume and developer activity. Usage must scale fast enough to offset node-operator emission rewards.
If you'd like, let me know:
Your preference for pure DePIN protocols vs. hybrid enterprise models
Whether you want to analyze tokenomics and emission schedules for ANKR or POKT
I can help you break down the risk-reward profiles further.
When investing in decentralized Remote Procedure Call (RPC) infrastructure, POKT (Pocket Network) and LAVA (Lava Network) are the primary native tokens explicitly tied to decentralized RPC and node provider networks.
While major centralized or hybrid enterprise tools like Alchemy, QuickNode , and Chainstack dominate market share for pure developer volume, they do not offer decentralized utility tokens. For pure decentralized RPC exposure, the market is divided between established and emerging network designs.
Leading Decentralized RPC Tokens
Project / Token
Core Architecture
Key Metric / Focus
Pocket Network (POKT)
Relay-based protocol routing data between dApps and an independent network of thousands of node runners.
One of the longest-running decentralized RPC layers with multi-chain expansion.
Focuses on incentivized quality-of-service, multi-chain access, and indexer modularity.
Key Differences to Consider
Pocket Network (POKT) operates as a foundational relay network where node runners stake POKT to service requests across dozens of blockchains, making its tokenomics directly tied to global relay volume.
Lava Network (LAVA) implements a modular specification framework designed to dynamically incentivize provider uptime, incentivize data quality, and support emerging chains or AI agent requests with built-in fault tolerance.
Ankr (ANKR) functions more broadly across liquid staking and remote node infrastructure, offering a token that captures value from enterprise node hosting rather than pure decentralized relay routing.
If you want to proceed, tell me:
Are you looking to evaluate tokenomics and inflation models , or do you want a comparison of network usage volume?
Are you interested in staking mechanics for node operation?
If your thesis is specifically “decentralized RPC becomes a major infrastructure vertical”, my strongest candidate is POKT (Pocket Network). I’d put LAVA second, with an important caveat.
My ranking
POKT — best pure-play exposure
LAVA — potentially higher-upside, but more execution/tokenomics risk
NKN — broader decentralized networking bet, not really an RPC bet
Why POKT stands out: Pocket is unusually direct exposure to the underlying RPC commodity. Its current Shannon architecture lets independent suppliers serve RPC/data requests, with applications paying in POKT and suppliers earning POKT. Importantly, PIP-41 introduced a mechanism where 100 POKT of relay fees are burned but only 97.5 POKT is re-minted, creating usage-linked deflation.
Pocket also isn't limiting itself to one or two chains: its current network supports 60+ blockchain networks/L2s, and Shannon is designed to support HTTP-based services beyond blockchain RPC, including things like AI inference and Web2 APIs.
Where LAVA gets interesting
LAVA may actually be the more interesting business model. It positions itself as a decentralized RPC marketplace/router: independent providers compete to serve requests, with routing based on performance, latency and reliability. Its public-RPC system lets chains fund infrastructure pools, while providers receive rewards based on performance.
That's a very compelling infrastructure thesis because it attacks the Alchemy/Infura-style centralized RPC oligopoly rather than merely operating another RPC network.
Lava currently reports 140B+ relays, 99.999% availability and 30+ RPC node providers on its public-RPC product page.
The catch is that I'd want to examine LAVA's token value capture much more carefully before concluding it's a better investment than POKT. A great decentralized RPC product does not automatically mean the token captures the economics.
The key distinction
I'd frame the two investments this way:
POKT
LAVA
Core thesis
Decentralized RPC network
Token used by infrastructure
Yes
Direct usage → token economics
Very strong
Current infrastructure breadth
Very broad
Token value-capture clarity
Excellent
My risk-adjusted pick
Pocket's tokenomics are unusually explicit: relay fees are burned, suppliers receive the majority of newly minted rewards, and staking is required to operate as a supplier.
One thing I'd not do is buy POKT simply because “decentralized RPC sounds inevitable.” The crucial question is whether decentralized RPC captures enough of the total RPC market to overcome centralized providers' advantages in latency, reliability, enterprise relationships and pricing.
If I had to pick one token today for a 3–5 year decentralized-RPC thesis, I'd choose POKT. LAVA would be the one I'd investigate next if I wanted a higher-risk/higher-upside position.
If you want, I can go one level deeper and compare POKT vs LAVA on market cap, FDV/unlocks, token velocity, actual RPC revenue/usage, provider economics, and valuation under 3 adoption scenarios. That would give us a much better answer to “which token is actually undervalued?”
, for example, operates decentralized RPC infrastructure and uses for payments/incentives, but has evolved into a broader Web3 infrastructure/API business. is also decentralized networking infrastructure, but its core thesis is broader data transmission/connectivity rather than specifically RPC.
