In your article, you don’t mention the fact that building applications on any of these APIs ignores the security, validity, and undenability of decentralized, consented-to data. How does the developer know that AmberData (or any provider) won’t: (a) withhold the data for increasing fees as the cost of maintaining the data monotonically increases; (b) introduce ‘custom’ derived data that, by using, the developer literally locks themselves into that API; and (c) introduces errors and purposeful changes to the data. (Why is the world coming to agreement on this data if we’re just going to return to old-fashioned web 2.0, unverified ways of accessing it)? Furthermore, I’ve never seen any of the above API providers detail how they intend to handle the coming sharded blockchain. How, in the face of an increase in the number of shards from one to 1,024 shards does AmberData intend to maintain its current price structure? Wouldn’t your costs rise 1,000 fold? Is that built into your business model and current prices? What options will your developers have in the future when your costs rise dramatically, and therefore your prices rise dramatically? Especially if they are locked into your proprietary API?