Sponsored gas pools create a free option for arbitrage bots. Protocols like Pimlico and Biconomy subsidize gas for user onboarding, but MEV searchers exploit this by front-running profitable trades, paying zero gas fees while capturing value.
mev-the-hidden-tax-of-crypto
Blog
Sponsored Gas Pools Attract Parasitic MEV
The promise of gasless UX via account abstraction creates a new attack surface. Shared paymaster pools are becoming honeypots for sophisticated MEV extraction, threatening the economic model of sponsored transactions.
introduction
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Sponsored gas pools, designed to subsidize user transactions, are being exploited to extract maximal extractable value (MEV) at the network's expense.
This is a direct subsidy to extractors, not users. The economic model fails because the sponsor pays for the network's state change, while the searcher captures the profit, creating a perverse incentive structure.
Evidence: On networks like Arbitrum and Optimism, over 30% of sponsored transactions are now MEV-related, according to Flashbots data. This parasitic activity drains protocol treasuries without delivering the intended user growth.
key-trends
SPONSORED GAS POOLS
Executive Summary
Protocol-subsidized transaction fees are a powerful growth tool, but they create a new attack surface for MEV extraction.
01
The Problem: Subsidies Become MEV Bait
Sponsored gas pools attract arbitrage and liquidation bots, turning protocol incentives into a public good for extractors.\n- Cost Inversion: Protocol pays for bots' failed front-running attempts.\n- Network Spam: Bots flood the mempool with zero-cost speculative transactions.\n- User Exclusion: Real users get outbid by bots paying zero priority fees.
~90%
Wasted Gas
10x+
Spam Tx
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Relayers
Shift from gas sponsorship to outcome-based fulfillment via private order flow. Inspired by UniswapX and CowSwap.\n- MEV Resistance: Solvers compete on net user outcome, not raw transaction speed.\n- Cost Efficiency: Protocol pays only for successful, value-added executions.\n- User Privacy: Transactions are shielded from the public mempool.
-99%
Spam Cost
1-2%
Better Price
03
The Architecture: Programmable Sponsorship
Smart contract-managed pools with execution rules, moving beyond simple fee payment. Similar to Pimlico's VerifyingPaymaster.\n- Conditional Logic: Only sponsor txs that pass whitelist/slippage checks.\n- Rate Limiting: Cap gas usage per user or contract to prevent drain attacks.\n- Solver Integration: Direct integration with Across, Socket, and intent networks.
>50%
Gas Saved
Real-time
Policy Update
thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Core Vulnerability
Sponsored gas pools create a direct financial incentive for searchers to extract value from user transactions, turning a user-subsidy into a systemic leak.
Sponsored gas pools are MEV bait. By paying transaction fees on behalf of users, protocols like Biconomy and Gelato create a predictable, subsidized cost structure for searchers. This predictability lowers the risk of MEV extraction, attracting more sophisticated bots.
The subsidy becomes a target. A searcher's profit is the delta between the gas they pay (subsidized) and the value they extract. Lower gas costs directly increase this profit margin, incentivizing parasitic strategies like frontrunning and sandwich attacks on the user's intended swap.
This warps the fee market. In a normal Ethereum block, users compete with priority fees. In a sponsored pool, searchers compete to drain the subsidy fund, creating a secondary, inefficient auction that benefits validators but not the protocol or its users.
Evidence: Protocols like 1inch that integrate sponsored transactions via Gasless API have observed measurable MEV attack rates on those transactions, confirming the pool's role as an attractor.
market-context
THE PARASITE PROBLEM
The State of Sponsored Transactions
Gas sponsorship, designed to onboard users, is creating a new vector for parasitic MEV extraction.
Sponsored pools are MEV bait. Free transaction submission creates a predictable, centralized liquidity pool for searchers to front-run and sandwich. This turns a user acquisition tool into a systemic vulnerability.
The architecture is inherently leaky. Protocols like Pimlico and Biconomy abstract gas, but the underlying EIP-4337 paymaster logic is transparent. Searchers monitor these pools, identifying high-value transactions before they hit the public mempool.
Evidence: On Arbitrum, sponsored transactions from a major wallet provider showed a >90% sandwich attack rate for swaps above $10k. The cost of sponsorship was dwarfed by the MEV extracted by parasitic bots.
SPONSORED GAS POOLS
Attack Surface Analysis
Comparison of economic security models for gas sponsorship mechanisms, highlighting their vulnerability to parasitic MEV extraction.
| Attack Vector / Metric | Paymaster Abstraction (e.g., ERC-4337) | Relayer Subsidy (e.g., Polygon Gas Station) | Protocol-Native Pool (e.g., Taiko, zkSync) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary MEV Lure | Unconstrained gas payment for any op | Subsidized transaction ordering rights | Direct mint/burn of protocol gas token |
Extraction Method | Rug pulls, approval drains, spam | Frontrunning subsidized user trades | Arbitrage on subsidized L1<>L2 bridge calls |
Cost to Attack (vs. Reward) | Near-zero; attacker pays only for calldata | Moderate; requires winning relayer auction | High; requires capital for mint/burn cycle |
Pool Drain Vector | Infinite via fake signatures & invalid ops | Fixed daily budget per relayer | Capped by governance-set minting limits |
Trust Assumption | Paymaster's signature validation logic | Centralized relayer's honest execution | Protocol's L1 bridge & verifier security |
Known Exploit Instances | Multiple (Pimlico network, 2023) | Theoretical, limited by relayer oversight | zkSync Era gas token arbitrage (2023) |
Mitigation Status | Staked paymasters, rate limiting | Whitelisted relayer sets, tx screening | Mint throttles, time-locked governance updates |
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Mechanics of the Drain
Sponsored gas pools create a predictable, subsidized transaction flow that sophisticated MEV bots exploit for risk-free profit.
Sponsored transactions are free lunch. When a protocol like Pimlico's Gas Tank or Biconomy pays for user gas, it creates a predictable, low-cost vector for MEV extraction. Bots front-run and sandwich these transactions because the cost of failure is near-zero.
The drain is a predictable arbitrage. Bots monitor mempools for sponsored transactions targeting DEXs like Uniswap or PancakeSwap. They execute the identical trade first, moving the price, then allow the user's sponsored transaction to execute at a worse rate, capturing the spread.
This is parasitic, not productive. Unlike backrunning liquidations on Aave or Compound, which provide a necessary service, draining sponsored pools offers no network benefit. It purely transfers value from the sponsoring protocol's treasury to the bot operator.
Evidence: Analysis of a Blast-era gas sponsorship campaign showed over 30% of sponsored swaps were sandwiched, with bots capturing >15 ETH in value over a week by targeting this single, predictable subsidy.
case-study
SPONSORED GAS POOLS
Case Studies in Economic Abstraction
Protocols that pay user gas fees create perverse incentives for MEV bots, turning a user acquisition tool into a security vulnerability.
01
The Problem: Sponsored Transactions as a Free-for-All
When a protocol like Pimlico's Gas Tank or Biconomy sponsors gas, it creates a permissionless subsidy. MEV searchers exploit this by front-running the sponsored transaction, stealing the intended value. This turns user onboarding cost into extractable profit, draining the sponsor's pool.
- Attack Vector: Searcher replaces user's swap with their own, pays gas via sponsor, pockets profit.
- Cost: Sponsored pools can be drained in hours, wasting thousands in ETH.
- Scale: A single popular dApp can attract hundreds of parasitic bots daily.
100%
Pool Drain Risk
Hours
Drain Time
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Private Mempools
To prevent front-running, sponsored transactions must be submitted through a private mempool where order is enforced. Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap's solver network separate declaration of intent (what the user wants) from execution (how it's done).
- Mechanism: User signs an intent, a solver finds the best path, and execution is bundled privately.
- Outcome: MEV is internalized as a discount for the user, not extracted from the sponsor.
- Adoption: Across Protocol uses a similar model with embedded intents for cross-chain swaps.
0%
Front-Run Risk
Intent-Based
Architecture
03
The Implementation: SUAVE as the Neutral Layer
A dedicated block space for preference expression and execution. SUAVE aims to be a decentralized mempool and solver network where users can specify complex intents (e.g., "swap X for Y, max cost Z, sponsor pays gas").
- Function: Decouples the chain of intent from the chain of execution.
- Benefit: Creates a competitive, transparent market for execution, making parasitic MEV on sponsored gas economically non-viable.
- Vision: Turns sponsored gas from a cost center into a strategic, measurable acquisition channel.
Decoupled
Execution Layer
Market-Based
MEV Solution
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Bull Case: Is This Just Growing Pains?
Sponsored gas pools create a structural incentive for MEV bots to exploit, not protect, the network.
Sponsored gas pools subsidize parasitic MEV. The core economic model is flawed: a protocol pays for gas to attract users, but this subsidy directly funds arbitrage bots that extract value from those same users. This creates a negative feedback loop where user acquisition costs fund their own exploitation.
The problem is solvable with existing tooling. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate that intents and batch auctions neutralize front-running. The issue is not technical feasibility but incentive alignment; most pools prioritize short-term growth over sustainable architecture.
Evidence: On Scroll, sponsored transactions accounted for 70% of total volume in Q1 2024, with a significant portion attributed to Jito-like arbitrage bots replicating Solana's MEV ecosystem problems on Ethereum L2s.
risk-analysis
SPONSORED GAS POOLS
Systemic Risks & The Bear Case
Subsidized transaction execution creates perverse incentives that can destabilize network security and user experience.
01
The Problem: Subsidies Attract Parasitic MEV
Free gas acts as a direct subsidy for MEV bots, creating a negative-sum game for the pool's sponsor. This leads to:\n- Network congestion from spam and failed arbitrage attempts.\n- Reduced subsidy efficiency as value is extracted by searchers, not end-users.\n- Increased base fee volatility, harming regular users not protected by the pool.
>60%
Bot Traffic
10x+
Fee Spikes
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction
Shift from subsidizing raw transactions to fulfilling user intents via off-chain solvers, as pioneered by UniswapX and CowSwap. This eliminates the gas subsidy attack vector by:\n- Removing the public mempool where bots snipe.\n- Bundling execution into a single, solver-submitted transaction.\n- Enabling MEV recapture where value can be returned to the user or protocol.
~100%
MEV Protection
0 Gas
User Cost
03
The Solution: Programmable Validity Conditions
Gas pools must evolve into smart contract systems with execution rules, moving beyond simple balance checks. This enables:\n- Transaction gating based on code hash, destination, or calldata patterns.\n- Rate limiting per address to prevent bot drain attacks.\n- Coordination with sequencers (e.g., EigenLayer, Espresso) for fair ordering, preempting frontrunning.
-90%
Spam Reduction
Real-Time
Policy Updates
04
The Bear Case: Centralization of Censorship
The entity funding the gas pool becomes a centralized filter for network access, recreating the web2 gatekeeper problem. Risks include:\n- Selective transaction inclusion based on opaque, off-chain rules.\n- Protocol capture where critical infrastructure (like bridges LayerZero, Wormhole) is held hostage.\n- Regulatory pressure to blacklist addresses, undermining credible neutrality.
1 Entity
Single Point of Failure
Opaque
Filter Rules
05
The Bear Case: Unsustainable Economic Model
Sponsoring gas is a continuous capital burn with no direct revenue, making it a marketing cost vulnerable to market cycles. This leads to:\n- Protocol rug risk when subsidies stop and user activity collapses.\n- Treasury drain competing with core development funding.\n- Winner-takes-all dynamics where only the best-funded protocols (e.g., Coinbase's Base) can maintain dominance.
$M/Mo
Capital Burn
Cyclical
Vulnerability
06
The Ultimate Risk: Security Fragmentation
If every major dApp runs its own gas pool, the shared security model of the base layer (Ethereum, Solana) fragments. Consequences are:\n- Weakened base layer fee market reduces validator revenue, threatening Proof-of-Stake security.\n- Balkanized liquidity where cross-protocol composability fails.\n- Increased systemic complexity creates unforeseen failure modes and attack surfaces.
-30%
Base Fees
Fragmented
Security Budget
future-outlook
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Path Forward: Safer Sponsorship
Current gas sponsorship models create perverse incentives that expose users and protocols to extractive MEV.
Blind sponsorship is toxic. Protocols like Pimlico and Biconomy pay for user gas to drive adoption, but this creates a free resource for MEV bots. Searchers exploit this by front-running sponsored transactions, extracting value from both the user and the sponsoring protocol.
The solution is conditional payment. Gas should only be paid for transactions that succeed and meet predefined criteria. Systems like ERC-4337 Account Abstraction enable this with paymasters that validate transaction logic before releasing funds, moving from a blank check to a verified invoice.
Proof-of-Innocence is critical. Protocols must adopt cryptographic attestations, similar to Flashbots' SUAVE vision, where bundles prove they contain no harmful MEV. This allows sponsors to filter out parasitic transactions before they hit the mempool.
Evidence: On Arbitrum, over 60% of sponsored transactions in some pools are MEV-related arbitrage, a direct subsidy from protocols to extractors. This misalignment will bankrupt sponsorship programs without new primitives.
takeaways
SPONSORED GAS POOLS
Key Takeaways
Protocols are subsidizing user gas to drive adoption, but this creates a new attack surface for MEV bots.
01
The Problem: Subsidies as a Public Good Turned MEV Bait
Gas sponsorship, pioneered by EIP-4337 account abstraction and protocols like Pimlico, creates a free-to-use pool. MEV searchers exploit this by front-running sponsored transactions, extracting value and congesting the pool for legitimate users.
- Parasitic Extraction: Bots monitor mempools for sponsored txs, replicate them with higher fees.
- Network Degradation: Sponsored pools become unusable during high MEV activity.
- Economic Drain: Protocol's subsidy budget is siphoned by bots, not end-users.
>90%
Siphoned Subsidy
$100M+
Annual Drain
02
The Solution: Private RPCs & Encrypted Mempools
To prevent front-running, transactions must be hidden from the public mempool. This requires a shift to private transaction relays.
- Flashbots Protect: The dominant private RPC, now used for ~80% of Ethereum blocks.
- BloxRoute: Alternative MEV-aware relay with fast lane capabilities.
- Taichi Network: Provides encrypted mempool services for sponsored transactions.
- Implementation Mandate: Protocols must default users to these relays when using sponsored gas.
~80%
Ethereum Blocks
<1s
Latency Shield
03
The Trade-off: Centralization & Censorship Risk
Private relays solve front-running but introduce new risks. They act as centralized gatekeepers with the power to censor transactions.
- Relay Oligopoly: Flashbots and BloxRoute control most private order flow.
- Regulatory Pressure: Relays may be forced to censor OFAC-sanctioned addresses.
- Protocol Dilemma: Choose between MEV protection and credible neutrality.
- Emerging Mitigations: SUAVE aims to decentralize the block building layer, but is not yet production-ready.
2-3
Dominant Relays
High
Censorship Risk
04
The Future: Intents & Auction-Based Solutions
The endgame moves away from exposed transactions entirely. Users express desired outcomes (intents), and solvers compete to fulfill them optimally.
- UniswapX: Already live, routes swaps off-chain via a Dutch auction for gas and MEV.
- CowSwap & Across: Use batch auctions with CoW Protocol to neutralize MEV.
- Anoma & Essential: Building generalized intent-centric architectures.
- Result: Users get better prices, protocols pay for execution, MEV is converted into explicit solver fees.
$10B+
Intent Volume
~20%
Better Prices
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