In Venezuela, MetaMask users were surprised when they were unable to access the Ethereum (ETH) network for several hours. We take a look at the reasons for this temporary blocking, which raises questions about decentralisation.
MetaMask temporarily unusable from Venezuela
On Thursday, March 3, access to the Ethereum blockchain (ETH) was impossible for several hours for MetaMask users in Venezuela. Indeed, when one of the residents of the country wanted to make a transaction, he saw a message displayed. This message indicated that the wallet could not connect to the blockchain due to legal problems with the geographical area.
The problem was also reportedly encountered by Iranian investors. The problem was caused by the services of Infura, developed by ConsenSys, the parent company of MetaMask. Indeed, it is via their API that the wallet can access Ethereum, and the official explanation evokes a problem of parameterization following sanctions of the United States being able to be related to the current crisis:
In response to the concerns we have been hearing, we want everyone to know that we corrected the problem that so many of you have pointed out. In changing some configurations as a result of the new sanctions directives from the United States and other jurisdictions, we
– Infura (@infura_io) March 3, 2022
While the problem has now been solved, it still raises questions about the so-called decentralisation of some Web 3.0 services and the consequences that could arise if a country wanted to ban access to decentralised finance (DeFi) on its soil.
Solutions to get around the problem
First, it should be understood that it was only access to the Ethereum network via Infura’s APIs, which was affected by the problem. This means that not only were blockchains like Polygon (MATIC) or Avalanche C-Chain (AVAX) still accessible with MetaMask, but Ethereum was also accessible if you used another RCP to bypass Infura’s APIs.
In other words, the application’s connection settings had to be changed so that it would use a different path to access the network. One of the alternatives was, for example, the Ankr RCP.
One of the other solutions put forward was also the use of a virtual private network (VPN). Thus, a Venezuelan or Iranian changing his IP address to that of another country could use his wallet as it should be.
Changing the wallet is also a possibility in a similar situation. An alternative could for example be found in XDEFI, or Frame, which offers Alchemy’s APIs in addition to Infura’s to access Ethereum.
If MetaMask was able to solve the problem with relative speed, this event shows us that it is always good to have several strings to your bow in order to prepare for this kind of eventuality.
This episode also shows us that the term “decentralisation”, which is used all the time, has its limits. For example, it can be applied to a blockchain with a limited number of validators, such as the NBB Chain, and this leads to debate. Or in this case, we see that the access point to the decentralised world is via an interface controlled by a centralised company.
