This is true today. But the standard approach in this industry is to start by offering access to an open service and then quickly build in value-add services that aren’t available in the open service. So for example, the smart move would be for Infura to offer a proprietary chain or rollup that gets widely used but isn’t available outside of Infura. If they can pull that off, competition could get much harder.

I second this. If history has thought us anything is that every web3 company will work toward increasing the competitive gap.

Right, this was my point. People don't usually run Postgres themselves (e.g. set up Postgres in a docker container), but it's not very hard to do.

The article makes it sound like Infura has a moat. There's no moat, it's as easy to switch as it is to switch Postgres clouds.

To be clear, I agree with most of their findings, this on is just a bit off.

> People don't usually run Postgres themselves (e.g. set up Postgres in a docker container), but it's not very hard to do.

It's easy to do a basic install.

It's quite hard to do it right, at scale, with workload-appropriate configuration, replication, backup etc.

My point... neither Postures nor Indira, or any other blockchain solution are easy to install and maintain in a fully scaled-up, fault-tolerant, multi-node deployment