Batch Sponsorship vs. Per-Transaction Sponsorship

Batch Sponsorship (e.g., Biconomy, Gas Station Network v1) excels at predictable, low-cost scaling for high-volume applications. By aggregating multiple user operations into a single on-chain transaction, it amortizes gas costs and reduces the effective fee per user action to near-zero. For example, a dApp processing 10,000 user actions can sponsor them in a single batch, achieving a cost-per-action of fractions of a cent versus the standard network gas fee.

Per-Transaction Sponsorship (e.g., native paymaster integrations in zkSync Era, Starknet, Base) takes a different approach by evaluating and sponsoring each user transaction individually. This results in superior flexibility and security—supporting complex sponsorship logic like token-based payments (ERC-20) or transaction validation—but introduces higher marginal gas overhead per sponsored tx and requires more sophisticated smart contract infrastructure on the sponsor's side.

The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing cost for mass, simple interactions (e.g., social media likes, gaming micro-transactions), choose Batch Sponsorship. If you prioritize flexible sponsorship rules, security for high-value transactions, or integration with account abstraction standards, choose Per-Transaction Sponsorship. The decision hinges on whether your primary constraint is economic scalability or functional complexity.

Batch Sponsorship excels at predictable cost management and high-volume efficiency because it decouples gas payment from user activity. By sponsoring a large batch of transactions upfront, protocols like Biconomy and Pimlico can achieve a lower effective cost per transaction through economies of scale. For example, a dApp processing 1 million user actions can secure a fixed gas budget, insulating its operations from volatile on-chain gas prices and simplifying financial forecasting. This model is ideal for high-frequency, low-value interactions common in gaming or social applications.

Per-Transaction Sponsorship takes a different approach by tying costs directly to user actions, offering superior flexibility and granular control. This strategy, used by Gelato's Relay and OpenZeppelin Defender, results in a pay-as-you-go model where you only pay for successful transactions. The trade-off is exposure to real-time gas price fluctuations and potentially higher per-unit costs for sporadic traffic. However, it provides precise cost attribution per user or feature, which is critical for subsidizing specific high-value actions like NFT mints or governance votes without overcommitting capital.

The key trade-off: If your priority is cost predictability and throughput for mass adoption, choose Batch Sponsorship. It provides the financial stability needed for scaling consumer dApps. If you prioritize operational flexibility, precise subsidy targeting, and avoiding upfront capital lock-up, choose Per-Transaction Sponsorship. This is the strategic choice for protocols with variable traffic or those sponsoring selective, high-stakes operations. Your architecture—whether you use Account Abstraction (ERC-4337) paymasters or relayer networks—will further dictate the optimal model for your specific gas economics.