According to @Gajpower, the proposed term "rpcchains" highlights blockchains that rely on trusted RPC providers, signaling centralized access risk that matters for on-chain trade execution and reliability (source: @Gajpower). Historical incidents show this risk is real: Ethereum apps that depended on a single provider saw disruptions when Infura experienced a major service incident on Nov 11, 2020, hindering transaction submissions and data reads for connected services (source: Infura incident report, Nov 11, 2020). MetaMask also acknowledged regional access blocks when its default Infura endpoint restricted service in certain jurisdictions in 2022, illustrating censorship exposure at the RPC layer (source: ConsenSys/MetaMask service statements, 2022). For trading, RPC fragility can delay transaction propagation, inflate effective slippage, and interrupt bot-driven strategies and liquidation participation during volatility on networks that fit the "rpcchains" profile (source: Infura incident report, Nov 11, 2020). Mitigations include configuring multiple RPC providers, implementing automatic failover, and self-hosting nodes to preserve broadcast and state access during provider outages (source: Infura best practices and Alchemy reliability guides). Traders should actively monitor provider status pages and employ conservative slippage and leverage parameters when provider instability is detected to reduce execution and liquidation risk (source: provider status advisories and RPC provider operational guidance).