Paymaster networks centralize risk. They act as a single point of failure for thousands of user transactions, creating a systemic attack surface far larger than individual wallet exploits. A compromise in a network like Biconomy or Pimlico jeopardizes every sponsored operation.
account-abstraction-fixing-crypto-ux
Blog
Why Paymaster Networks Create New Attack Vectors
Account abstraction's killer feature—gasless transactions via paymasters—introduces systemic risks. Centralized validation logic and pooled liquidity create novel targets for economic attacks, MEV extraction, and governance capture.
introduction
THE NEW FRONTIER
Introduction
Paymaster networks, designed to abstract gas fees, inadvertently create systemic vulnerabilities by centralizing transaction validation and sponsorship.
Abstraction creates opacity. By hiding gas mechanics from end-users, paymasters obscure the transaction validation logic, making it harder for users and auditors to detect malicious sponsorship conditions or fee manipulation.
The incentive model is misaligned. Paymasters profit from sponsored transaction volume, creating pressure to lower security thresholds for speed and cost savings, unlike the fee-burning model of base layer validators.
Evidence: The ERC-4337 standard itself introduces new attack vectors, with over 15 critical vulnerabilities identified in early audits, including signature replay and storage collision issues within paymaster logic.
thesis-statement
THE NEW ATTACK SURFACE
The Core Argument
Paymaster networks shift security risks from user wallets to a new, complex, and untested layer of infrastructure.
Paymasters centralize transaction sponsorship, creating a single point of failure for censorship and denial-of-service. Unlike a user's private key, a paymaster's signing authority is a centralized service that can be blocked or rate-limited, breaking the user's ability to transact.
The network abstraction layer introduces systemic risk. Projects like Biconomy and Pimlico aggregate paymasters, but this creates a meta-attack vector where compromising one provider can cascade across all integrated dApps, similar to bridge hacks on LayerZero or Wormhole.
Fee delegation logic is a new smart contract exploit surface. Paymaster contracts must validate complex rules for gas sponsorship, creating vulnerabilities that bypass traditional wallet security. A bug in this logic is a direct drain on the paymaster's treasury.
Evidence: The ERC-4337 standard itself has undergone multiple security audits, but real-world implementations like Stackup's or Alchemy's bundler and paymaster services have not faced the scale of adversarial testing that core L1s like Ethereum have.
key-trends
PAYMASTER NETWORK RISKS
The Emerging Threat Landscape
The abstraction of gas fees via paymasters introduces systemic complexity, creating novel attack surfaces that threaten user assets and chain stability.
01
The Centralized Relayer is a Single Point of Failure
Most paymaster networks rely on a centralized relayer to submit sponsored transactions. This creates a critical bottleneck and censorship vector.\n- Censorship Risk: The relayer can selectively ignore or front-run user intents.\n- Liveness Risk: Network downtime halts all sponsored transactions, breaking UX.\n- Upgrade Risk: Malicious governance or admin keys can upgrade the relayer contract to drain funds.
100%
Transaction Halt
1
Critical Chokepoint
02
The Subsidy Model Invites Economic Attacks
Paymasters that offer fee subsidies or refunds create arbitrage opportunities that can be exploited to drain their treasuries.\n- Refund Exploits: Attackers can craft transactions where the gas refund exceeds the actual cost, printing money from the paymaster.\n- MEV Extraction: Searchers can bundle sponsored user transactions to extract maximum value, leaving the paymaster with the base fee cost.\n- Treasury Drain: A well-funded attack can deplete the subsidy pool in minutes, as seen in early EIP-4337 bundler implementations.
$M+
Treasury at Risk
0-Loss
Attacker Cost
03
Signature Verification is a New Attack Surface
Paymasters must validate user signatures for sponsored transactions, but flawed logic can lead to forged approvals.\n- Signature Malleability: Improper ecrecover usage can allow signature reuse or spoofing.\n- Replay Attacks: Non-unique userOp hashes across different chains or paymasters can lead to double-spends.\n- Logic Bugs: Custom validation rules (e.g., spending limits) are complex and prone to errors, enabling unauthorized withdrawals.
∞
Forged Txs
High
Audit Criticality
04
The Bundler-Paymaster Nexus Creates Trust Assumptions
In EIP-4337, the bundler and paymaster are separate entities that must cooperate, creating a game-theoretic weak link.\n- Bundler Griefing: A malicious bundler can spam the paymaster with unprofitable userOps, forcing it to waste gas on reverts.\n- Paymaster Extortion: A dominant paymaster can force bundlers to include its transactions by threatening to revoke service.\n- Opaque Coordination: The off-chain deal-making between these entities is not on-chain, obscuring potential collusion.
Off-Chain
Trust Required
2+
Coordinating Parties
05
Intent-Based Systems Amplify Oracle Risks
Advanced paymasters executing conditional intents (e.g., "swap if price > X") depend on oracles, creating a massive dependency.\n- Oracle Manipulation: Exploiting price feeds like Chainlink or Pyth allows attackers to trigger unfavorable swaps for the paymaster's sponsored users.\n- Data Freshness: Stale data can cause transactions to execute at disastrously wrong prices, with losses socialized to the paymaster pool.\n- Centralized Data Sources: Reliance on a handful of oracle providers contradicts decentralization goals.
$1B+
Oracle TVL Risk
~1s
Attack Window
06
Interoperability Introduces Cross-Chain Contagion
Cross-chain paymaster networks (e.g., using LayerZero, Axelar) can propagate a failure on one chain to all others.\n- Bridge Compromise: If the canonical bridge holding the paymaster's liquidity is hacked, the entire multi-chain network is insolvent.\n- Message Forgery: A vulnerability in the underlying interoperability protocol can forge approvals to drain funds on destination chains.\n- Complexity Bomb: The attack surface is multiplicative, not additive, combining risks from each chain and the bridging layer.
N x M
Risk Multiplier
Total
Network Collapse
PAYMASTER NETWORK ARCHITECTURES
Attack Vector Taxonomy
Comparison of security models and inherent attack vectors across dominant paymaster network designs, from centralized custodial models to decentralized intent-based systems.
| Attack Vector / Security Property | Centralized Custodial (e.g., Early Biconomy) | Decentralized Staked (e.g., Pimlico, Etherspot) | Intent-Based Auction (e.g., UniswapX, Across) |
|---|---|---|---|
Funds Custody Risk | |||
Validator/Executor Censorship | Partial (Relayer Level) | ||
MEV Extraction from User Flow | Low (Batch Level) | High (Executor Level) | Designed Mechanism |
Solver/Executor Collusion Surface | N/A (Centralized) | High (Stake Slashing Required) | Market-Based (Auction) |
Time-to-Finality for User Op | < 2 sec | 12 sec (Ethereum Block Time) | Varies (Auction Duration) |
Trust Assumption for Execution | Single Entity | Bonded Stakers (e.g., EigenLayer) | Economic (Solver Bond) |
Primary Financial Attack | Theft of Custodied Funds | Stake Slashing/Griefing | Auction Manipulation & Liveness Attacks |
Protocol-Level Fee Skimming | Possible (Opaque) | Transparent (On-Chain Rules) | Transparent (Auction Clearing) |
deep-dive
THE NEW FRONTIER
Anatomy of a Paymaster Exploit
Paymaster networks introduce systemic risk by centralizing transaction sponsorship and creating new trust assumptions.
Paymaster networks centralize risk. A single paymaster contract on a network like Ethereum or Polygon sponsors thousands of user transactions. This creates a single point of failure for denial-of-service and fund-draining attacks.
The exploit vector is sponsorship logic. Unlike wallet hacks, attackers target the paymaster's validation rules. A flawed validatePaymasterUserOp function in a Pimlico or Biconomy-style paymaster allows malicious transactions to be sponsored.
The attack is economically rational. An attacker crafts a transaction that passes the paymaster's checks but drains its deposit. The cost is the gas for the malicious UserOperation; the reward is the entire paymaster stake.
Evidence: The Base network's first major exploit in August 2023 was a paymaster vulnerability. A logic flaw allowed an attacker to mint unlimited tokens, sponsored by the compromised paymaster, draining its ETH balance.
protocol-spotlight
PAYMASTER RISK LANDSCAPE
Protocol Designs & Their Fault Lines
Paymaster networks abstract gas fees, but their centralized trust models and economic incentives create systemic vulnerabilities.
01
The Censorship Vector
Paymasters act as centralized gatekeepers for transaction inclusion, creating a single point of failure for censorship. This reintroduces the very problem account abstraction aims to solve.\n- Who controls the list? Paymaster operators can blacklist addresses or dApps.\n- Regulatory pressure point: A single entity is easier to coerce than a decentralized validator set.
1
Central Point
100%
Txn Control
02
The Subsidy & MEV Sandwich
Paymasters offering 'gasless' transactions use a sponsor-then-bill model, creating new MEV and liquidity risks.\n- Subsidy rug risk: Users are exposed to the paymaster's solvency. A default creates a cascade of failed transactions.\n- Frontrunning payload: The paymaster sees the full intent bundle before execution, creating a privileged position for MEV extraction.
$10B+
TVL at Risk
~500ms
Advantage Window
03
The Verification Oracle Problem
Paymasters must verify user intent is valid before sponsoring gas. This off-chain computation is a new attack surface.\n- Logic bugs are systemic: A flaw in the verification logic (e.g., for session keys) can be exploited to drain the paymaster's entire vault.\n- Oracle manipulation: If verification depends on external data (like DEX prices), it's vulnerable to oracle attacks, as seen with Chainlink and Pyth.
0-Day
Exploit Impact
Off-Chain
Trust Assumption
04
Stake-for-Access & Cartels
Decentralized paymaster networks like Ethereum's P4337 vision may require staking, leading to validator-set economics.\n- Staking centralization: Economies of scale favor large staking pools (e.g., Lido, Coinbase), recreating L1 consensus risks.\n- Cartelization: Dominant paymasters could collude to raise fees or enforce policies, mirroring concerns in MEV-Boost relay markets.
>33%
Cartel Threshold
Oligopoly
Market Structure
05
Intent-Based Routing as a Backdoor
Advanced paymasters (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) fulfill user intents across chains via solvers. This creates opaque cross-chain trust bridges.\n- Solver monopoly: The winning solver sees the cross-chain bundle, a massive MEV opportunity.\n- Bridge dependency: Execution depends on vulnerable bridges like LayerZero, Axelar, or Wormhole, inheriting their security faults.
Multi-Chain
Attack Surface
Solver
Trusted Party
06
The Regulatory Arbitrage Trap
Paymasters handling fiat on-ramps or off-ramps become Money Transmitters, attracting regulatory scrutiny.\n- Jurisdictional fragmentation: A global network must comply with FATF Travel Rule, OFAC sanctions, and 200+ local regimes.\n- Protocol liability: If a paymaster is deemed a financial service, the underlying protocol (e.g., zkSync, Starknet, Polygon) may face secondary liability.
200+
Jurisdictions
Travel Rule
Compliance Burden
counter-argument
THE SYSTEMIC FLAW
The Rebuttal: "It's Just a Business Risk"
Decentralizing gas sponsorship centralizes systemic risk, creating new attack vectors that transcend individual business failure.
Centralized failure modes are the primary risk. A paymaster network like EIP-4337's bundler infrastructure creates a single point of censorship or failure if a dominant provider like Pimlico or Biconomy is compromised, halting all sponsored transactions.
Trust assumptions multiply beyond the user's wallet. A user's transaction now depends on the paymaster's solvency, the bundler's honesty, and the EntryPoint contract's security, creating a larger attack surface than a simple wallet.
Economic abstraction enables new exploits. Malicious actors can use sponsored transactions for Sybil attacks or spam, draining the paymaster's funds and destabilizing the network, a risk protocols like Polygon and Optimism must now model.
Evidence: The $60M Wintermute hack demonstrated that a single compromised admin key in a business's infrastructure can cascade; a paymaster network with similar centralization inherits this systemic fragility.
risk-analysis
PAYMASTER RISK SURFACE
The Bear Case: What Could Go Wrong
Decentralizing fee sponsorship introduces systemic complexity and novel attack vectors that could undermine the very UX they aim to improve.
01
The Centralized Censorship Relay
Paymasters are the final gateway before a transaction hits the mempool. A dominant paymaster like Pimlico or Stackup could become a centralized point of censorship, filtering transactions based on OFAC lists or arbitrary rules.
- Single Point of Failure: A compromised or malicious paymaster can silently drop user transactions.
- Regulatory Capture: Forces a compliance layer into the permissionless stack, contradicting crypto-native values.
1
Critical Node
100%
Transaction Control
02
Intent-Based MEV Extortion
Paymasters enabling intent-based architectures (like UniswapX or Across) create a new MEV playground. Solvers and paymasters can collude to extract maximum value from user orders before sponsorship.
- Value Leakage: The promised 'best execution' can be gamed, with users receiving worse rates after hidden fees.
- Collusion Risk: The paymaster-solver relationship is opaque, creating a trusted cartel that defeats decentralization.
>90%
Solver Win Rate
Basis Points
Hidden Slippage
03
Smart Account Wallet Drain
ERC-4337 smart accounts delegate significant authority to the paymaster via signature verification and gas sponsorship logic. A buggy or malicious paymaster contract can be exploited to drain all associated smart accounts.
- Upgrade Risk: Many paymasters use upgradeable proxies; a malicious admin upgrade is a systemic threat.
- Atomic Drain: A single exploit could compromise thousands of user wallets in one block, far exceeding EOAs.
ERC-4337
Attack Surface
Mass Drain
Worst-Case
04
The Subsidy Rug Pull
Current paymaster growth is fueled by venture-subsidized gas fees to bootstrap adoption. When subsidies end, user experience collapses overnight, revealing unsustainable economics.
- Bait-and-Switch: Users become dependent on 'free' transactions, facing sudden, steep costs.
- Protocol Collapse: A leading paymaster shutting down subsidies could cripple dApp activity on its supported chains.
$M
Subsidy Burn
0 to 100
Fee Shock
05
Oracle Manipulation & Settlement Risk
Paymasters that accept payment in volatile ERC-20 tokens rely on price oracles (like Chainlink) to calculate gas costs. Oracle manipulation or latency can bankrupt the paymaster's treasury.
- Flash Loan Attack: An attacker can skew the oracle price, causing the paymaster to sponsor transactions for far less than their true cost.
- Insolvency Cascade: A bankrupt paymaster fails to reimburse bundlers, halting all sponsored transactions.
3-5s
Oracle Latency
Instant
Treasury Drain
06
Fragmented Liquidity & Failed Sponsorship
For cross-chain paymasters (a la LayerZero), sponsorship requires pre-funded liquidity on each chain. Imbalances lead to failed transactions, creating a worse UX than paying gas directly.
- Chain Hopping Risk: A user's transaction fails because the paymaster's wallet on Arbitrum is empty, even if it's full on Optimism.
- Capital Inefficiency: Billions in TVL sit idle across dozens of chains to ensure reliability, negating scaling benefits.
10+ Chains
Fragmentation
Low Utilization
Stuck Capital
future-outlook
THE DEFENSE
Mitigations and The Road Ahead
Securing paymaster networks requires a multi-layered approach targeting economic, operational, and cryptographic vulnerabilities.
Stake-based security models are the primary defense. Paymaster operators must post substantial, slashable collateral to guarantee their service. This creates a direct economic disincentive for malicious behavior, aligning operator incentives with user safety. The model mirrors the security assumptions of optimistic rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism.
Decentralized governance and monitoring prevents centralized points of failure. Networks must implement transparent, on-chain governance for parameter updates and a robust slashing committee to adjudicate faults. This moves beyond the trusted relay model of early meta-transaction services.
Cryptographic proof aggregation reduces verification overhead. Instead of verifying each signature, networks like EIP-4337 bundlers can use BLS signature aggregation or ZK proofs to batch-validate thousands of paymaster-sponsored operations. This tackles the verification gas cost bottleneck head-on.
Evidence: The Ethereum Foundation's 4337 audit identified sponsor logic as a critical attack surface, leading to hardened reference implementations. Real-world testing on networks like Polygon and Base is proving these mitigations under load.
takeaways
PAYMASTER RISK ANALYSIS
TL;DR for CTOs and Architects
Paymaster networks abstract gas fees but introduce systemic risks by centralizing transaction validation and sponsorship logic.
01
The Censorship Vector
Paymasters act as gatekeepers, deciding which transactions to sponsor. This creates a single point of failure for transaction censorship and MEV extraction.\n- Risk: A malicious or compliant paymaster can blacklist addresses or dApps.\n- Example: A state-level actor could pressure a dominant paymaster like Biconomy or Stackup to censor transactions.
1 Entity
Choke Point
100%
Tx Control
02
The Liquidity Oracle Attack
Paymasters rely on external price feeds (oracles) to calculate gas costs and exchange rates for sponsored transactions. A manipulated oracle can drain the paymaster's stake or cause sponsored transactions to fail.\n- Risk: Oracle failure leads to insolvency or griefing attacks.\n- Mitigation: Requires robust oracle networks like Chainlink, adding complexity and trust assumptions.
$M
Stake at Risk
~2s
Oracle Latency
03
The Subsidy Logic Exploit
The business logic determining which transactions to subsidize is a new attack surface. Flaws can be exploited for free spam or to drain subsidy funds.\n- Risk: A bug in a paymaster's policy contract turns it into a public faucet.\n- Real-World: Similar to ERC-4337 bundler logic bugs, but with direct financial loss for the paymaster operator.
Infinite
Spam Potential
Smart Contract
Attack Surface
04
The Stake Slashing Endgame
Advanced networks like EigenLayer AVS may require paymasters to stake for security. Faulty validation or censorship could lead to slashing, creating a risk-reward imbalance for operators.\n- Risk: Low fee margins do not justify high slashing risk, reducing network security.\n- Result: Only highly centralized, deep-pocketed entities can operate, defeating decentralization goals.
High
Slashing Risk
Low
Fee Margin
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall