User-Paid Gas is the industry standard, offering predictable, protocol-aligned economics. Users directly pay for their transactions, creating a clear cost-to-value relationship and preventing spam. This model is battle-tested on networks like Ethereum and Solana, where tools like MetaMask and Phantom manage fee estimation. However, it introduces a significant onboarding barrier: new users must acquire native tokens before their first interaction, a process that can see drop-off rates exceeding 50% for non-crypto-native audiences.
LABS
Comparisons
Gas Fee Sponsorship (Paymaster) vs User-Paid Gas
A technical analysis for gaming CTOs and protocol architects comparing Paymaster gas sponsorship with traditional user-paid models. We evaluate the impact on player onboarding, game economics, and operational complexity.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Onboarding Friction Dilemma
The choice between gas sponsorship and user-paid gas defines your user experience and business model from day one.
Gas Fee Sponsorship (Paymaster) eliminates this upfront friction by allowing applications to cover transaction costs. Protocols like Biconomy, Candide, and native solutions on zkSync Era and Polygon Supernets enable sponsored transactions and gasless meta-transactions. This results in a Web2-like sign-in experience, dramatically improving conversion. The trade-off is operational complexity and cost absorption; the sponsoring dApp must manage gas budgets and is vulnerable to economic attacks if logic isn't carefully designed with tools like GsnForwarder.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing user acquisition and simplifying onboarding for mainstream audiences, choose a Paymaster solution. If you prioritize economic sustainability, minimizing operational overhead, and aligning user incentives with network security, the user-paid model is superior. For high-frequency, low-value transactions (e.g., social or gaming), sponsorship is often essential. For high-value DeFi or NFT mints, user-paid gas remains the standard.
tldr-summary
Gas Fee Sponsorship (Paymaster) vs User-Paid Gas
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. Choose based on your target user experience and business model.
01
Paymaster: Superior UX & Onboarding
Frictionless onboarding: Users sign transactions without holding native tokens (ETH, MATIC). This is critical for mass-market dApps like social apps (Farcaster) or gaming (Pixels) where user acquisition is paramount. Enables gasless transactions and abstracted fee payment in stablecoins or ERC-20s.
~40%
Lower Drop-off Rate
03
User-Paid: Predictable Protocol Economics
Simplified cost structure: Protocol revenue and costs are directly tied to user activity, avoiding complex subsidy accounting. This is vital for DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) and permissionless public goods where sustainability and transparent fee mechanics are non-negotiable.
0%
Sponsorship Liability
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Paymaster vs User-Paid Gas
Direct comparison of gas fee sponsorship models for user onboarding and transaction execution.
| Metric | Paymaster (Sponsored Gas) | User-Paid Gas |
|---|---|---|
User Onboarding Friction | ||
Avg. User Cost for First Transaction | $0.00 | $5-15 |
Protocol Gas Subsidy Cost | $0.10 - $0.50 per tx | $0.00 |
ERC-4337 Account Abstraction Support | ||
Native Support on Chains | Polygon, Optimism, Arbitrum | All EVM Chains |
Developer Implementation Complexity | High (Smart Contract) | Low (Standard SDK) |
Gas Fee Predictability for User | High (Fixed by Sponsor) | Low (Market Volatile) |
pros-cons-a
Gas Fee Models Compared
Pros & Cons: Gas Fee Sponsorship (Paymaster)
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for dApp developers choosing a gas fee model.
03
User-Paid Gas: Predictable Protocol Economics
Simplifies cost structure and security model. The dApp has zero gas liability, eliminating the operational overhead and financial risk of managing a paymaster contract and its balance. This is preferred for DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) where economic alignment between user and network security is paramount.
04
User-Paid Gas: Maximum Decentralization & Composability
Relies on the base layer's native economic security. Transactions are universally compatible with all infrastructure (wallets, explorers, indexers) without requiring custom support for paymaster logic. This is essential for permissionless DeFi legos and protocols that prioritize censorship resistance over UX optimizations.
05
Paymaster: Increased Complexity & Cost
Introduces significant operational overhead. You must:
- Fund and manage a paymaster smart contract wallet.
- Monitor for depletion to avoid transaction failures.
- Audit custom logic for security vulnerabilities.
- Pay for the extra calldata of paymaster interactions, increasing base cost.
06
User-Paid Gas: Limits Addressable Market
Requires users to hold the chain's native token. This excludes crypto-curious but non-holder users, creating a major hurdle for consumer dApps. Even with bridging solutions, the UX is fragmented. This model struggles in highly competitive verticals (NFT minting, social) where competitor dApps offer sponsored gas.
pros-cons-b
PROS & CONS
Gas Fee Sponsorship (Paymaster) vs User-Paid Gas
Key architectural and business trade-offs for onboarding and transaction execution.
01
Paymaster: Superior User Onboarding
Frictionless UX: Users can interact with dApps without holding native tokens (e.g., ETH, MATIC). This is critical for mass-market adoption in gaming (e.g., Immutable zkEVM) or social apps. Abstracts complexity, removing a major barrier for non-crypto-native users.
02
Paymaster: Flexible Business Models
Enables sponsored transactions where dApps cover fees as a customer acquisition cost. Supports gasless meta-transactions via ERC-4337 Account Abstraction. Allows fee payment in ERC-20 tokens (e.g., USDC), simplifying financial operations for enterprises.
03
Paymaster: Added Complexity & Cost
Introduces a trusted relay component (Paymaster contract) that must be funded and secured. Increases gas overhead by ~20-40k gas per transaction for validation. Shifts cost burden to the dApp operator, requiring sustainable monetization to offset.
04
User-Paid: Maximum Decentralization
No trusted intermediaries; users interact directly with the network's base fee market. Aligns with Ethereum's core security model, where fee payers prioritize transactions. Simplifies protocol design by relying on the chain's native economic security.
05
User-Paid: Predictable Economics
Direct cost attribution: Users pay for their own compute, creating clear incentive alignment. No hidden subsidies or complex accounting for dApp developers. Protocol revenue (e.g., EIP-1559 burns) remains intact and verifiable on-chain.
06
User-Paid: Onboarding Friction
Requires users to acquire native tokens before first use, a significant drop-off point. Exposes users to gas price volatility (e.g., Ethereum mainnet spikes). Poor fit for non-financial dApps where micro-transactions or free trials are standard.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Gas Fee Sponsorship (Paymaster) for User Onboarding
Verdict: The clear winner for growth and acquisition. Strengths: Eliminates the primary UX barrier for new users by abstracting away the need for native tokens (e.g., ETH, MATIC). Enables gasless transactions or payment in stablecoins/ERC-20 tokens via services like Biconomy, Pimlico, and Candide. Critical for mass-market dApps, e-commerce integrations, and any application targeting non-crypto-native audiences. Key Protocols: Account Abstraction (ERC-4337) with Paymasters, Starknet's native fee abstraction, zkSync's paymaster system.
User-Paid Gas for User Onboarding
Verdict: A significant friction point. Weaknesses: Requires users to acquire and manage a specific blockchain's native token before their first interaction. This creates a steep learning curve and conversion drop-off. While tools like MetaMask's Buy Crypto and Onramp.money help, they add steps. Only suitable for applications where the target user is already deeply embedded in the crypto ecosystem.
GAS SPONSORSHIP MODELS
Technical Deep Dive: Paymaster Implementation & Risks
A critical analysis of the two primary models for handling transaction fees on account abstraction-enabled blockchains, examining their technical implementations, security trade-offs, and optimal use cases for enterprise adoption.
Paymaster sponsorship is cheaper for end-users, as it reduces their cost to zero. The protocol or dApp sponsoring the transaction absorbs the gas fee. However, the total system cost can be higher due to paymaster overhead and potential premium charges. User-paid gas is predictably cheaper for the application builder but shifts the entire cost burden onto the user, which can be a significant UX barrier.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict & Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Paymaster-sponsored and user-paid gas models is a strategic decision impacting user acquisition, cost structure, and protocol design.
User-Paid Gas excels at simplicity and predictable cost recovery because it directly aligns transaction costs with usage. This model is the bedrock of decentralized networks like Ethereum and Solana, where protocols such as Uniswap and Jupiter pass operational costs directly to the end-user. This results in a sustainable, transparent economic model where protocol revenue isn't diluted by subsidizing network fees, a critical factor for protocols with high-volume, financially-savvy users.
Gas Fee Sponsorship (Paymaster) takes a different approach by abstracting away gas complexity to drive user adoption. This strategy, central to account abstraction standards like ERC-4337 and implemented by infra providers like Biconomy and Pimlico, allows dApps to sponsor transactions or let users pay with ERC-20 tokens. This results in a trade-off: superior UX and onboarding conversion (studies show up to a 40% reduction in drop-off) for increased operational complexity and a variable, often opaque, cost structure for the dApp.
The key trade-off is between sustainable unit economics and frictionless growth. If your priority is maximizing user acquisition for a consumer-facing app (e.g., a social or gaming dApp) and you have the budget to absorb variable gas costs, choose a Paymaster solution. If you prioritize predictable margins, serving a high-frequency DeFi power user base, or building a permissionless public good, the User-Paid Gas model remains the robust, battle-tested standard.
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