History of Ankr

The Evolution and History of Ankr: From Distributed Computing to Web3 Infrastructure

Ankr’s journey began with a foundational goal: democratizing cloud computing by leveraging underutilized computing power across distributed systems. Initially inspired by the inefficiencies and centralization of traditional cloud services, the team envisioned a decentralized alternative that could offer developers more robust infrastructure without the overhead of centralized providers like AWS or Google Cloud. It positioned Ankr early within a niche intersection of blockchain and cloud computing—before "Web3 infrastructure" became a mainstream term.

The core idea materialized around 2017–2018 during the first wave of enterprise-grade interest in Web3 infrastructure. Unlike many crypto projects born from whitepapers, Ankr’s roots were deeply technical, built on the premise of trusted hardware (TEE: Trusted Execution Environments) and off-chain computations—a model that initially resonated more with distributed systems engineers than DeFi speculators.

The original architecture rested on a Proof of Useful Work concept, where miners provided computing services instead of brute-force hash power. However, challenges emerged: verifying useful work on-chain proved far more complex than anticipated. This put early architectural ambitions at odds with proven blockchain models like PoW or PoS, causing a pivot.

By 2019-2020, Ankr recalibrated its strategy. Rather than compete directly in utility computing or smart contract platforms, it repositioned as a node hosting and API provider. This pivot aligned it with the growing demand from developers needing low-latency access to different layer-1 protocols without the hassle of running full nodes themselves. From here, Ankr evolved into a multi-chain infrastructure platform supporting Ethereum, BNB Chain, Avalanche, and others—successfully embedding itself within the broader move toward scalable Web3 tooling.

However, Ankr’s trajectory wasn’t without growing pains. A security exploit in its node validator infrastructure in 2022 exposed architectural shortcomings around reliance on semi-centralized node operators—a stark contradiction to its decentralization ethos. These tensions continue to shadow the protocol, especially as it attempts to balance efficiency with trustlessness.

In light of these developments, Ankr has increasingly moved toward offering services akin to "infrastructure-as-a-service" in the Web3 era, joining a cohort of middleware players like The Graph and Infura. That evolution mirrors how other infrastructure-focused protocols such as https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-evolution-of-numeraire-a-crypto-journey have shifted focus from experimental data models to production-ready tooling.

Today, Ankr straddles a dual identity: a decentralized infrastructure dreamer and a pragmatic DevOps provider. It no longer chases the decentralized cloud mythos with blind idealism, but instead builds robust tooling while carefully trying to preserve decentralization through governance layers and staking mechanisms—now more tested, less theoretical. For those interested in engaging with Ankr’s infrastructure firsthand, participation via Binance offers exposure to both staking and its token utility.

How Ankr Works

Unpacking the Architecture: How Ankr Crypto Works

Ankr operates as a decentralized infrastructure platform with a dual-layered structure combining node infrastructure provisioning and staking-as-a-service. The core of its operation lies in its globally distributed network of full nodes, validator nodes, and RPC endpoints, which deliver Web3 connectivity for developers, dApps, and staking participants.

The platform’s staking arm supports both delegation and validator services for proof-of-stake chains like Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Avalanche. Through its liquid staking protocol, users stake assets like ETH or BNB and receive liquid staking derivatives (such as aETHc or aBNBc), allowing them to maintain exposure to DeFi without giving up staking rewards. This model mirrors certain strategies utilized in protocols like Lido Finance, though Ankr prioritizes a multi-chain, non-custodial approach.

Unlike traditional staking platforms that rely on centralized server architecture, Ankr distributes node operations across independent node providers. These are incentivized through the ANKR token, which also serves governance and payment utility within the protocol. However, dependency on a small concentration of node operators remains a friction point, especially concerning validator performance and redundancy. In certain ecosystems, a lack of active slashing penalization also reduces risk-based staking dynamics.

One underappreciated facet of Ankr’s architecture is its reliance on the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) layer. By offering low-latency access via decentralized RPC endpoints, it supports dApp scalability with higher reliability. This positions Ankr as infrastructure more akin to services like Infura or Alchemy, but hosted across a permissionless network. This RPC layer significantly empowers cross-chain DeFi, but also presents attack vectors—if the relay nodes are not properly maintained, there's a potential vulnerability in transaction reliability and response finality.

Notably, Ankr's node marketplace mirrors some early DAO concepts by allowing users to spin up and monetize custom nodes. However, the failure to decentralize governance features fully—e.g., through on-chain voting for node reputation or protocol upgrades—has limited true decentralization. Comparisons can be drawn here to deeper DAO-based models such as the ones explored in The Overlooked Importance of MetaGovernance in Enhancing Decentralized Autonomous Organizations.

Additionally, Ankr integrates with popular staking portals and centralized exchanges. Some users opt for staking via Binance for convenience, though that naturally reintroduces custodial risks.

Ultimately, Ankr’s value matrix lies in merging open node infrastructure with liquid staking, but protocol-level decentralization, slashing mechanisms, and node reputation systems remain partial implementations, not yet fully hardened or autonomous.

Use Cases

Ankr Use Cases: Unlocking Core Functions for Web3 Infrastructure

Ankr’s use cases are inherently tied to its mission of decentralized infrastructure provisioning, centering around facilitating multi-chain dApp development, blockchain node deployment, and staking services. For developers, validators, and enterprise clients exploring Web3 integration, Ankr serves as a middleware layer offering API endpoints, RPC services, and SDKs for streamlined blockchain interaction.

Decentralized Node Infrastructure on Demand

One of the most technically intensive tasks in Web3 development is deploying and managing blockchain nodes. Ankr abstracts this complexity by supplying access to full, archive, and validator nodes via its decentralized network. This is critical for dApps requiring consistent, low-latency interaction with smart contract platforms like Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Polygon. However, centralization concerns persist. Despite Ankr’s decentralized claim, a significant portion of backend infrastructure has, at times, leaned on centralized cloud providers such as AWS — exposing applications to the very single points of failure they aim to escape.

Liquid Staking Protocols and Derivatives

Ankr operates liquid staking solutions across multiple chains, offering assets like aETHc or aMATICb which represent staked positions with yield-generating capacity. These tokens unlock composability in DeFi without locking up collateral. While useful, these derivatives aren't without systemic risk. Protocol dependencies and smart contract risk can cascade through DeFi stacks — a concern that’s been notably present in broader discussions on staking derivative fragility. Concerns mirror those discussed in governance-focused articles like Injective Protocol, where protocol integrity is contingent on a few core actors.

Multi-Chain API and RPC Marketplace

Ankr offers developers access to a crypto-native RPC Marketplace, enabling participation from independent node providers to serve blockchain data requests. This builds redundancy, reduces latency, and creates monetization opportunities for providers. Nonetheless, throughput and query rates are variable, and consistency across chains remains a development hurdle. The economic incentives in the RPC marketplace have also come under scrutiny — with some participants questioning the sustainability of reward distribution mechanisms when compared to centralized counterparts.

Validator-as-a-Service and Enterprise Deployment

Ankr’s backend tooling enables institutions and ecosystem developers to launch validators with minimal infrastructure overhead. This is particularly powerful on PoS chains like Avalanche and Cosmos SDK-based projects. However, concerns about validator centralization and governance influence inevitably surface. The very notion of simplifying validator operations for enterprise clients runs the risk of undermining decentralized ethos — a debate familiar across protocols promoting governance models emphasizing token-weighted influence, as explored in Injective’s governance breakdown.

Bridging and Cross-Chain Capabilities

Ankr also participates in facilitating cross-chain asset and data transfer. While less advertised than its RPC services, this role is becoming more integral to its offerings. However, trust assumptions in bridge security continue to pose unresolved risks — echoed across the DeFi space, where protocol bridges often become breach vectors.

For those actively deploying validators or offering staking services, onboarding via platforms like Binance can provide liquidity and access to relevant staking assets compatible with the Ankr ecosystem.

Ankr Tokenomics

ANKR Tokenomics: Utility, Supply Dynamics, and Ecosystem Integration

Understanding the tokenomics of ANKR requires attention to its multi-pronged structure: utility within the Ankr platform, staking incentives across decentralized infrastructure, and the evolving governance components. ANKR operates as an ERC-20 token but is also bridged across prominent networks including Binance Smart Chain and Polygon, enabling cross-chain liquidity. This interoperability makes ANKR a functional asset in both staking and API monetization contexts.

Total Supply and Circulating Mechanics

ANKR initially launched with a fixed maximum supply of 10 billion tokens. Unlike inflationary models that dilute value over time, ANKR’s capped supply structure introduces deflationary potential—conditional on burn mechanics and locked staking—in driving long-term scarcity. However, a significant portion of tokens has historically been allocated to team and ecosystem wallets, raising concerns among some token holders about centralization of supply and potential sell-side pressure.

Although vesting schedules have reduced over time, early VC and team-controlled allocations still influence market dynamics. This mirrors the supply centralization critiques leveled at other ecosystems such as Osmosis’ tokenomics, where distribution imbalances became a governance flashpoint.

Staking Incentives and Node Participation

ANKR accrues value from its role in facilitating node operations for dozens of blockchains as part of the Ankr protocol’s decentralized infrastructure network. Participants can stake ANKR to support validator nodes, thereby earning yield through protocol revenue sharing. The staking model captures network participation value, yet some critics argue the APY structure favors large holders due to non-linear compounding mechanics.

In proof-of-stake integrations, ANKR also operates within the Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSD) space, similar to frameworks seen in Lido Finance. The ANKR token is used to mint synthetic assets like aETH or aMATIC, which represent staked positions with liquidity benefits. This enhances capital efficiency but introduces smart contract risk and potential de-pegging events—issues that remain under-addressed in protocol documentation.

Governance Use and Limitations

While ANKR has outlined governance ambitions via its protocol DAO structure, token holder influence remains limited. Unlike governance-heavy models such as those powering Arbitrum, ANKR currently lacks robust on-chain decision-making capabilities. Governance activities are partially off-chain and discretionary, creating a trust bottleneck in protocol evolution.

For users keen to engage with staking utility or governance, ANKR remains accessible on centralized exchanges like Binance, providing liquidity for participation. However, such entry points centralize access—contrary to the network’s decentralization ethos.

Ankr Governance

ANKR Governance: A Layered Delegated System with Centralized Anchors

ANKR's governance framework presents a nuanced blend of on-chain and de facto centralized elements, revealing both its modular potential and its bottlenecks. The governance is technically delegated via the ANKR token, operating across governance proposals and validator selection mechanisms. However, the actual execution flow is more top-down than community-led.

The Ankr DAO claims to implement decisions through DAO proposals, voted on by token holders. These proposals cover validator onboarding, staking parameters, and development fund usage. Yet, most decision-making power over staking infrastructure, RPC node operations, and ecosystem direction remain with the Ankr team and associated operators. Unlike protocols driven by community operators (see models like Decentralized Governance in Rocket Pool Explained), the concentration in Ankr's node-as-a-service model means tokenholder voting power is largely advisory.

With native staking and validator selection executed on blockchains like Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Polygon, Ankr governance spans multiple chains through liquid staking derivatives. However, governance fragmentation arises since decisions about each staking service (e.g., aETHc, aMATICb) aren’t always synchronized. This is a problem echoed in governance models where products proliferate across chains but governance doesn’t scale linearly.

Proposal lifecycles are off-chain initiated—typically in forums or community chats—before selected items are moved onto platforms like Snapshot for binding or signaling votes. Snapshot voting, although gasless, lacks enforcement mechanisms, particularly concerning parameters maintained by core developers or vendor-aligned infrastructure. These trust dependencies significantly dilute DAO purity.

There’s also the matter of token distribution. A sizeable portion of ANKR tokens is held by early project insiders and centralized exchanges, raising concerns over vote skewing. This issue is not unlike criticisms outlined in protocols like Navigating Governance in Waves, where perceived decentralization masks high concentration.

Furthermore, governance interoperability remains underdeveloped. While Ankr builds tools for staking across chains, it doesn’t yet offer a unified cross-chain governance layer. This gap reduces operational cohesion and limits collective action by tokenholders who may be engaged in only one staking product.

No native slashing or penalization mechanisms exist within the governance framework, removing any economic accountability for validators or decision participants. Without incentives for sustaining governance integrity, voter turnout and proposal quality often suffer.

For users looking to participate or delegate in ANKR’s governance processes, platforms like Binance offer access to ANKR tokens and staking services, though this introduces additional centralization factors to consider.

Technical future of Ankr

ANKR Technical Roadmap: Infrastructure Enhancements and Modular Blockchain Capabilities

Ankr has positioned itself as a Web3 infrastructure protocol focused on decentralized node hosting, RPC services, and staking integrations. Its technical roadmap reveals a strategic pivot toward modularity, protocol composability, and performance optimizations aimed at accommodating next-stage dApp scalability.

One of the core development tracks involves enhancing Ankr's RPC service layer to support multi-chain, load-balanced access with automatic geographic rerouting. This introduces a reliability upgrade for developers relying on Ankr's endpoints across chains like Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Polygon. This backend refactor draws from microservices design patterns, separating validator-specific tasks from gateway-level data management for horizontal scalability.

The introduction of the Ankr SDK stack signals another major focus: enabling dApp builders to interact with multiple chains through a unified interface. This goes beyond conventional node APIs and introduces protocol-specific hooks, allowing logic-specific functions—like KYC verification or transaction simulations—to be abstracted into self-contained modules. Compared to legacy single-protocol toolkits, this approach lessens complexity for cross-chain dApp architectures, which is in line with modular paradigms explored in projects analyzed in demystifying-arbitrum-ethereum-layer-2-solution.

Ankr’s ongoing work with its AppChains framework—the bespoke blockchain infrastructure provisioned through Ankr cloud—has been slow to reach full adoption. Block confirmation times and network idle latency remain significant when compared to ecosystems such as Cosmos SDK and Substrate-based chains. While AppChains offer on-demand infrastructure for projects needing isolated environments, their developer onboarding remains fragmented, without seamless integration into DevOps tools or established CI pipelines. This limits their viability for projects prioritizing production-ready environments.

A discreet technical direction that deserves attention is Ankr’s gradual move toward ZK-Rollup integrations at both the staking and RPC level. Though not yet fully implemented, the design intends to compress validator reward logic off-chain while committing aggregated data to Ethereum L2s. The challenge lies in verifier generation times and recursive proof latency, which raises concerns about end-to-end finality—an issue also detailed in the-overlooked-importance-of-transaction-finality-in-decentralized-finance-understanding-the-impact-on-trust-and-user-experience.

Finally, while Ankr’s staking dashboard and liquid staking services continue to grow, they still face criticism for lacking non-EVM chain support and custom validator program flexibility. There’s no timeline for Cosmos or Avalanche native staking integration, which hampers developers with multi-chain delegation needs.

For developers interested in building within Ankr’s ecosystem or running nodes across multiple chains, exploring staking and RPC infrastructure via Binance gives access to paired services offered through third-party platforms.

Comparing Ankr to it’s rivals

ANKR vs FTM: A Data-Centric Comparison of Blockchain Infrastructure Design

Ankr (ANKR) and Fantom (FTM) represent fundamentally different approaches to solving blockchain infrastructure challenges, particularly in staking, validator services, and developer support. While both projects aim to improve scalability and decentralization, their methodologies diverge substantially—ANKR prioritizes Web3 infrastructure decentralization through RPC node hosting and staking as a service, whereas FTM is focused on high-performance Layer-1 execution leveraging its aBFT (asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerance) consensus.

Ankr’s strength lies in its abstraction of complex infrastructure management for multi-chain compatibility. Its protocol allows developers to connect to dozens of blockchains—Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, and more—through a simplified API layer, enabling easier dApp development. In contrast, Fantom prioritizes native execution speed using Lachesis, its proprietary consensus engine, achieving sub-second finality and high throughput. However, this performance comes with trade-offs: reliance on a smaller set of validators raises decentralization concerns, despite technical merit.

From an ecosystem perspective, ANKR plays a more protean role as middleware across other Layer-1 chains, while FTM is vertically integrated and self-contained. This divergence affects how each project supports DeFi and enterprise adoption. Fantom’s verticality forces developer lock-in within its Opera chain environment, while Ankr’s RPC aggregator design enables interoperability for existing L1 ecosystems—positioning ANKR as a provider of infrastructure neutrality, more aligned with cross-chain tooling.

Staking dynamics offer another contrast. FTM uses delegated proof-of-stake (dPoS), offering high rewards but requiring active validators to maintain uptime and performance levels. Ankr, by contrast, offers liquid staking and validator-as-a-service—particularly impactful for Ethereum 2.0 staking, where it simplifies validator onboarding. However, Ankr’s protocol has limited control over native governance in underlying chains, creating layers of dependency risk. FTM, as a Layer-1 protocol, has direct control over its on-chain governance structure.

Both ecosystems face technical critiques. Fantom’s claimed decentralization has been contested, with node concentration among a few validators. For a deeper dive into the implications of validator trust assumptions, readers may find value in resources like The Overlooked Importance of Transaction Finality in Decentralized Finance. Ankr, meanwhile, has previously faced scrutiny for its semi-centralized RPC infrastructure, although the project aims to continually decentralize its backend through staking-enabled operator models.

In developer traction, ANKR benefits from its ability to plug into multiple protocols, streamlining access via tools compatible with Ethereum JSON-RPC standards. Fantom, while less universally compatible, offers tailored SDKs for high-throughput, EVM-compatible apps hosted natively. This friction between zero-friction entry vs. high-performance optimization defines the philosophical core of their competition. For advanced users wanting to utilize platforms like these, registering with a robust exchange such as Binance offers access to both assets for deployment and testing.

Ankr vs The Graph (GRT): Decentralized Infrastructure Face-Off

When it comes to decentralized infrastructure, both Ankr and The Graph (GRT) aim to facilitate frictionless access to blockchain data—but their methodologies, architecture, and scaling strategies diverge significantly.

While Ankr operates full-node hosting and staking infrastructure across over 30 blockchains, The Graph focuses almost exclusively on indexing blockchain data through subgraphs. These subgraphs act as open APIs for querying blockchain event data, optimizing on-chain information retrieval within decentralized applications.

One of the main architectural differences lies in Ankr's broader orchestration layer, which leverages containerized node infrastructure for cross-chain scalability and faster deployment. In contrast, The Graph commits to query reliability through its decentralized network of Indexers, Curators, and Delegators. While this layered economic model ensures aligned incentives, it introduces overhead and latency, especially when indexing less common chains or newly launched protocols.

A notable issue with The Graph’s performance arises around sync times and responsiveness during high throughput events. Indexers must maintain and update their subgraphs in near real-time, and this process can falter depending on network conditions or protocol upgrades. Ankr sidesteps this issue by providing direct node access, which, while more resource-intensive, offers lower latency for developers requiring real-time data feeds.

Interoperability is another key distinction. Ankr integrates with a wider variety of chains, including EVM and non-EVM networks. GRT's original implementation heavily emphasized Ethereum, and while it has since embraced multi-chain support via its Graph Node implementation, onboarding new chains remains relatively centralized through its core team and grants program. This dependency dampens fully autonomous interoperability compared to Ankr’s plug-and-play compatibility.

From a developer tooling perspective, The Graph’s GraphQL framework is more tailored for dApps requiring complex filtering and conditional queries. However, this adds a learning curve not present in Ankr’s more traditional RESTful API offerings. Performance trade-offs, in terms of caching and rate limits, affect both platforms, but Ankr's reliance on bare-metal and containerized nodes provides greater configuration flexibility.

Finally, governance under The Graph DAO, while decentralized in theory, centralizes around a few dominant staking pools and protocol delegates. Ankr, although promoting decentralization, hasn’t completely escaped critique for late implementation of community governance mechanisms. Readers interested in challenges around governance can explore Unlocking Arbitrum Governance for context related to similar decentralized projects.

For developers deciding between them, the choice often comes down to use case: persistent query indexing (GRT) vs low-latency node access (Ankr). For users looking for staking benefits or deeper infrastructure integrations, comparing available staking opportunities on platforms like Binance may serve as a useful next step.

ANKR vs AKT: Infrastructure Scope and Pricing Strategy in Decentralized Cloud Services

When comparing Ankr (ANKR) to Akash Network (AKT) — both operating in the decentralized infrastructure layer — a core differentiation emerges in their market approach: public network monetization versus compute-specific specialization. While Ankr provides a broad suite of Web3 infrastructure services, including RPC endpoints, Staking-as-a-Service, and AppChains, Akash is laser-focused on decentralized compute provisioning via a decentralized marketplace for unused compute resources.

Akash's decentralized cloud compute model relies on open-market bidding to determine pricing, which introduces fluctuating rates based on demand and provider competition. This creates potential cost efficiencies, especially for high-volume workloads, but also unpredictable performance in terms of latency and service reliability. In contrast, Ankr centralizes portions of its service ecosystem by deploying globally distributed nodes often optimized for stability and low-latency API serving. This divergence drives a clear tradeoff: AKT offers a lower barrier to entry for compute hosting, but at the potential cost of variable QoS; Ankr offers robust performance and SLAs, typically attractive for enterprise-grade applications.

From a governance perspective, AKT operates under the Cosmos SDK ecosystem with staking-based governance mechanisms, but this has raised friction with regards to DAO participation rates and the long-term network decentralization strategy. The governance model implemented by Ankr has its own shortcomings, with limited visibility into validator selection and infrastructure provider decentralization. This places both at a disadvantage compared to networks optimized around transparency-first governance, as explored in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decentralized-governance-the-heart-of-injective-protocol or https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decentralized-governance-mina-protocol.

Another critical point lies in service targeting. Akash leans toward GPU-intensive and compute-heavy workloads, which has made it increasingly popular for AI model training, transcoding, and other high-capacity operations. This positions AKT as a niche player in DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks). Ankr, by providing lower-lift infrastructure like RPC services and validator hosting, serves more developer-friendly tooling aligned with Web3 onboarding—particularly relevant in multi-chain dApp development.

Onboarding to AKT's system often requires familiarity with containerization (e.g., Docker) and complex yaml config setups. In contrast, Ankr abstracts much of this friction through GUI-based dashboards and simplified API plug-and-play offerings. For developers prioritizing low DevOps overhead, this UX/UI distinction is nontrivial.

For individuals looking to experiment with decentralized infrastructure services or get hands-on with Akash’s compute marketplace, it's advisable to onboard through a trusted exchange such as Binance, where AKT tokens are more accessible for use in validator delegation or compute bidding.

Primary criticisms of Ankr

Major Criticisms of ANKR: Centralization, Security, and Token Utility Flaws

Despite its positioning as a Web3 infrastructure enabler, ANKR has faced persistent scrutiny from segments of the crypto community regarding several core aspects of its architecture, governance, and token model. Among the most pressing concerns is the “decentralization gap” between ANKR’s marketing narrative and the actual operational control of its protocol.

At the heart of ANKR’s offering is a set of RPC nodes and staking infrastructure. However, the entity behind ANKR—Ankr Inc.—has retained a considerable degree of control over the network and its decision-making processes. Unlike projects that implement robust community governance mechanisms or on-chain voting systems (such as those discussed in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decentralized-governance-osmos-community-centric-model), ANKR uses a pseudo-decentralized model with limited transparency. Critics argue that this contradicts the foundational principles of Web3 and creates single points of failure—both regulatory and technical.

Another significant issue is ANKR’s questionable token utility. The ANKR token is ostensibly used for payments and governance, but in practical terms, its role within the ecosystem remains underdeveloped. On-chain metrics suggest that significant portions of network fees are still off-chain and bypass token-based incentives entirely. The disconnect between token demand and infrastructure usage leads to speculation about whether ANKR operates more as a centralized business model attempting to leverage crypto branding rather than a truly tokenized infrastructure layer.

Security-wise, ANKR faced backlash over past exploits and vulnerabilities in its staking services. These exploits were not just technical failures but pointed to an architectural weakness in how key systems were centralized and unaudited. This aligns with broader critiques happening across Web3 where infrastructure plays a critical yet vulnerable role, as highlighted in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-overlooked-importance-of-layer-1-security-innovations-on-decentralized-finance-exploring-new-frontiers-in-blockchain-safety.

Furthermore, its heavy integration with centralized exchanges has exposed ANKR to additional risks around token issuance centralization and liquidity bottlenecks. While such integrations may improve retail access, they are antithetical to the values of permissionless participation. For users considering exposure, platforms like Binance may offer liquidity, but the structural concerns around decentralization remain unresolved.

As node provider competition intensifies and more transparent, permissionless alternatives emerge, these criticisms of ANKR’s foundational trade-offs continue to be amplified by developers, validators, and decentralization purists alike.

Founders

Inside Ankr’s Founding Team: A Technical Core with Enterprise Roots

Ankr was founded by a team with dual expertise in Web3 infrastructure and traditional cloud services, a rare combination that has defined its approach to decentralized node hosting. The founding trio—Chandler Song, Ryan Fang, and Stanley Wu—brought a distinctive blend of enterprise-grade know-how and blockchain ambition, though not without controversy or criticism over the years.

Chandler Song serves as Ankr’s visible face and strategic lead. A graduate of UC Berkeley with a background in computer science, Song previously interned at Amazon Web Services—a foundation that heavily influenced Ankr’s early vision as a decentralized alternative to AWS. Critics, however, have pointed out that this vision has at times drifted more toward AWS-style centralization than truly permissionless infrastructure. The tension between user empowerment and scalability has remained unresolved in Ankr’s trajectory.

Ryan Fang, co-founder and former CFO/COO, came to Ankr from an investment banking background at Morgan Stanley, offering a financial perspective that’s often been lauded for securing early partnerships and capital. However, Fang stepped away from daily operations in the project’s early years. This shift has led some to question how strongly the team’s original strategy has been preserved, and whether subsequent pivots truly reflect community-oriented decision-making.

Stanley Wu, the third co-founder and Ankr’s former CTO, was also a senior software engineer at AWS. His background bolstered Ankr’s infrastructure credibility from the beginning, particularly around optimizing distributed systems for performance and security. Wu’s departure from the CTO role raised eyebrows in the developer community, especially given the importance of infrastructure reliability in Ankr’s decentralized staking and RPC services.

Unlike other blockchain startups that lack real-world credentials, Ankr’s core team brought genuine industry chops. But that same professionalism has, at times, blurred Ankr’s stance on true decentralization versus enterprise optimization. The team's AWS lineage means the protocol has oscillated between calls for trustless node orchestration and an arguably more centralized validator framework—akin to the governance tensions covered in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-overlooked-importance-of-metagovernance-in-enhancing-decentralized-autonomous-organizations.

Although elements of Ankr’s node architecture and staking pools have been decentralized, critics have flagged the disproportionately large control wielded by the team in technical upgrades and validator selection. This has drawn comparisons to early-stage Web3 ventures that, despite decentralization promises, remain team-dominated.

For those seeking to participate in ANKR staking or node operations, onboarding via a reputable exchange is still a common entry point—learn more through this registration link.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://www.ankr.com
• https://www.ankr.com/papers/ankr-whitepaper.pdf
• https://www.ankr.com/docs/
• https://app.ankr.com/
• https://github.com/Ankr-network/dccn-specs
• https://medium.com/ankr-network
• https://blog.ankr.com
• https://twitter.com/ankr
• https://etherscan.io/token/0xf307910a4c7bbc79691fd374889b36d8531b08e3
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ankr
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ankr/
• https://defillama.com/protocol/ankr
• https://github.com/Ankr-network
• https://www.stakingrewards.com/earn/ankr/
• https://www.binance.com/en/price/ankr
• https://docs.ankr.com/staking/
• https://docs.ankr.com/rpc/
• https://rewards.ankr.com/
• https://dappradar.com/binance-smart-chain/infrastructure/ankr
• https://cryptoslate.com/coins/ankr/