I think the post is definitely mentioning a few valid points which need to be addressed in proper GraphQL API designs. But most of REST "solutions" over GraphQL considerations are just pushing issues from the server side to the client side.

For example the whole n+1 data fetching topic: Yes this issue exists and like the author is mentioning: GraphQL has a well understood and common solution for this problem. On the other hand: In REST world you can have exactly the same issue, but either create a custom solution for this issue or push the issue to the client side, where this issue needs to be solved, too. I could not exactly follow the explanation of the special case of the n+1 problem in context of authorization. "This is actually trickier [...], because authorisation code is not alway run in a GraphQL context." OK authorisation code is not run in a GraphQL context, but why is this then a GraphQL issue?

On the rate limiting issue I also do not see why these issue would by design just exist in GraphQL world: Yes you can have recursive data structures and write queries which can take a lot a processing time to resolve. But again: Why would the same recursive data structure not be possible to be modeled for a rest api and why would the same data not be queriable from a rest api? My guess again is: You _can_ model the same data structure and also _can_ query the same amount of data. And also again: In case of the rest api the complexity of querying this data is just pushed to the client side and that is why it seems easier to rate limit individual rest endpoints. But actually I see no reason why a GraphQL API could not rate limit e.g. on data loader or any expensive operation level, too.

Generally regarding malicious (e.g. malformed) queries: I think this is definitely a valid issue, which should be addressed in GraphQL APIs. I think there should be a common way for application developers to sign their queries somehow and query engines should only attempt to process signed queries. This way only trusted developers are able to write arbitrary queries.

On the "Authorisation" section I can not quite follow the reasoning. Aside from implementation-specific extra-calls to a presumed authorisation framework: Why would domain requirements be different when they are implemented either as REST API or as a GraphQL API?

"Compare this to the REST world where [...] you would authorise every endpoint". OK if you can implement an authorization requirement simply on a REST endpoint, why could you not implement this simply on a Query-Type field in an equivalent GraphQL API? If this is about authorization on nested data structures: Can you not have equally nested data structures on REST endpoints, too? I think in these cases authorization on REST endpoints wouldn't be sufficient, too. Assuming you would avoid nested data structures: Would this not simply push the n+1 problem from the server side to the client side?

My general feeling about the REST vs GraphQL debate is both worlds can in principal cause pretty much the same issues. Even for client side caching I see no real design issue which prevents GraphQL queries and responses to be cached, but probably more like a middleware issue. On the other hand I still see a lot of benefit in using GraphQL: Especially the query flexibility for developers, the solved the n+1 query problem (which may still exists on the rest client side or is solved by a custom solution) and the error handling. I still hate to define exact use of HTTP status codes and custom error payload structure in every context where REST is a new or badly defined concept again and again.