| > Move them where? Google Cloud, Azure, deploy a server yourself, etc. > As we've seen more recently with the OFAC list blocking... once one big player starts to block, the rest follow suit pretty quickly. There's a big difference between something that is made illegal (eg the OFAC sanctions) and a private action by a company. If your service is illegal then you are going to have other problems than just AWS refusing to host. > Many of the large players are also tied to AWS deployment APIs... moving means rewriting those. There's a big difference between using AWS as dumb compute and using AWS features. The more AWS features you use the more control AWS has. The same applies to any software you use - if a license can be withdrawn there is an element of control. These things are much more important than if the physical machine you are running on is owned by Amazon. As I said above: Control is the important thing. |
My point is that if AWS decides to follow Hetzner, the rest will too. If it was so easy to just deploy a server yourself, then more people would be doing that already. Right now, AWS is the lowest bar cause that's what half the people running this stuff know already [1].
> If your service is illegal
PoS / staking is a grey zone right now... there is a lot of discussion over the legalities.
> There's a big difference between using AWS as dumb compute and using AWS features.
Correct, but even the dumb compute involves setting up VPC's, networking, disk, monitoring, logging... etc... and each provider does it differently. For one staker, no big deal... but for the larger ones... it gets a lot more complicated.
[1] https://github.com/verida/storage-node#lambda-deployment