Multi-Chain Paymasters excel at providing a unified, chain-agnostic user experience by allowing a single entity to sponsor gas fees across disparate networks. For example, platforms like Biconomy and Pimlico leverage paymaster contracts on EVM chains (e.g., Arbitrum, Polygon) to enable meta-transactions, abstracting gas complexity. This model is powerful for dApps targeting broad user adoption, as it can batch transactions and offer fee subsidies, directly improving metrics like user activation rates and session depth.
LABS
Comparisons
Multi-Chain Paymasters vs. Chain-Specific Relayers
A technical comparison of two dominant fee abstraction models, analyzing operational complexity, cost efficiency, and security for CTOs and protocol architects managing cross-chain applications.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Fee Abstraction Architecture Decision
A foundational comparison of two dominant models for handling user transaction fees in multi-chain ecosystems.
Chain-Specific Relayers take a different approach by operating dedicated, optimized infrastructure for a single blockchain or a tightly-coupled ecosystem. This results in superior performance and lower latency for that specific chain, as seen with Ethereum's Flashbots relay or Solana's Jito. The trade-off is fragmentation; supporting multiple chains requires integrating and managing separate relayers, increasing engineering overhead and potentially creating inconsistent user experiences across your application's footprint.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer simplicity and a consistent cross-chain UX, choose a Multi-Chain Paymaster. If you prioritize maximizing performance, minimizing latency, and accessing advanced features (like MEV protection) on a primary chain, choose a Chain-Specific Relayer. The decision often hinges on whether your application is a multi-chain aggregator or a high-performance dApp native to a single L1/L2.
tldr-summary
Multi-Chain Paymasters vs. Chain-Specific Relayers
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for infrastructure architects.
01
Multi-Chain Paymaster Strength: Cross-Chain UX Unification
Single integration point for user onboarding across multiple EVM and non-EVM chains (e.g., Base, Arbitrum, Polygon). This matters for dApps like PancakeSwap or LayerZero that require seamless user experiences across ecosystems without managing separate gas balances.
02
Multi-Chain Paymaster Strength: Sponsor & Abstraction Flexibility
Enables ERC-4337 Account Abstraction patterns like gas sponsorship, batched transactions, and pay-in-any-token (e.g., USDC on Arbitrum, MATIC on Polygon). This is critical for enterprise onboarding and consumer apps seeking to abstract blockchain complexity.
03
Chain-Specific Relayer Strength: Performance & Cost Optimization
Lower latency and fees by operating directly on a single chain's mempool (e.g., a dedicated Starknet relayer or an Optimism transaction bundler). This matters for high-frequency DeFi protocols like Uniswap or dYdX where every millisecond and wei counts.
04
Chain-Specific Relayer Strength: Deep Protocol Integration
Tighter integration with native chain features and security models (e.g., Flashbots MEV protection on Ethereum, app-specific rollup sequencers). Essential for protocols like Aave or Compound that require maximum security and control over transaction ordering.
MULTI-CHAIN PAYMASTERS VS. CHAIN-SPECIFIC RELAYERS
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for user onboarding and transaction sponsorship.
| Metric | Multi-Chain Paymasters | Chain-Specific Relayers |
|---|---|---|
Native Chain Support | 10+ (e.g., Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base) | 1 (e.g., Ethereum-only, Polygon-only) |
Gas Abstraction | ||
ERC-4337 Bundler Integration | ||
Avg. Sponsor Fee | 0.5-3% of gas cost | Fixed fee per tx (e.g., 0.001 ETH) |
Developer SDKs | Biconomy, Pimlico, Stackup | Gelato, OpenZeppelin Defender |
Time to Integrate | < 1 day | 1-3 days per chain |
Account Abstraction Required |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Multi-Chain Paymasters vs. Chain-Specific Relayers
Key architectural trade-offs for user onboarding and transaction sponsorship.
01
Multi-Chain Paymaster Strength
Unified User Experience: A single integration (e.g., Biconomy, Pimlico) sponsors gas across 10+ EVM chains. This matters for dApps launching on Arbitrum, Polygon, and Base simultaneously, reducing dev overhead by ~70%.
10+
EVM Chains
02
Multi-Chain Paymaster Weakness
Increased Latency & Cost: Relies on cross-chain messaging (e.g., LayerZero, Axelar) for fund management, adding 20-60 seconds of latency and ~$0.05-$0.15 in extra fees per sponsored tx. This matters for high-frequency trading or micropayments.
20-60s
Added Latency
03
Chain-Specific Relayer Strength
Native Performance & Cost: Direct integration with a chain's mempool (e.g., Alchemy's Gas Manager on Ethereum, Blast API on Starknet) enables sub-second sponsorship with minimal overhead (< $0.01 fee). This matters for gaming and DeFi protocols where every millisecond counts.
< $0.01
Fee Overhead
04
Chain-Specific Relayer Weakness
Fragmented Integration & Liquidity: Requires separate contracts, API keys, and gas token balances for each chain (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism). This matters for teams with limited DevOps resources, as managing liquidity across 5+ chains can tie up $500K+ in idle capital.
$500K+
Idle Capital Risk
pros-cons-b
Multi-Chain Paymasters vs. Chain-Specific Relayers
Chain-Specific Relayers: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for teams choosing a gas sponsorship strategy.
01
Multi-Chain Paymaster Strength
Unified User Experience: A single integration (e.g., Biconomy, Pimlico, Stackup) enables gasless transactions across Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Base. This matters for dApps targeting multiple ecosystems where you want a consistent onboarding flow without managing separate relayers per chain.
02
Multi-Chain Paymaster Strength
Operational Simplicity: Manage one set of smart accounts (ERC-4337), one dashboard, and one funding source. This reduces devops overhead and simplifies treasury management for protocols with limited engineering bandwidth.
03
Chain-Specific Relayer Strength
Optimized Performance & Cost: Native relayers like Gelato on Arbitrum or Alchemy on Optimism are deeply integrated with the chain's sequencer. This can result in lower latency (< 1 sec relay times) and potentially lower fees for high-volume applications specific to one L2.
04
Chain-Specific Relayer Strength
Access to Native Features: Leverage chain-specific upgrades first. For example, using Base's native paymaster provides early access to EIP-7702 or other L2-specific account abstraction primitives. This is critical for protocols that are chain-maximalists and want to build on the cutting edge.
05
Multi-Chain Paymaster Drawback
Potential for Higher Latency: Adding an abstraction layer can introduce 100-200ms of additional latency vs. a direct, native relayer integration. This is a trade-off for high-frequency trading apps or real-time games where every millisecond counts.
06
Chain-Specific Relayer Drawback
Integration Fragmentation: Supporting Ethereum, Polygon, and zkSync means managing three different SDKs, funding three separate wallets, and monitoring three dashboards. This creates significant operational complexity for cross-chain dApps.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Multi-Chain Paymasters for DeFi
Verdict: The Strategic Choice for Cross-Chain UX. Strengths: Enable seamless cross-chain user onboarding by sponsoring gas fees in any token (e.g., USDC on Arbitrum, MATIC on Polygon). This is critical for DEX aggregators like 1inch or lending protocols like Aave that operate across multiple L2s. Services like Biconomy and Stackup abstract away the native token requirement, drastically improving user conversion. Gasless transactions can be sponsored by the protocol to acquire users. Weaknesses: Introduces a dependency on an external service and its fee model. For simple, single-chain DeFi operations, the complexity may not be justified.
Chain-Specific Relayers for DeFi
Verdict: Optimal for High-Volume, Single-Chain Efficiency. Strengths: Unmatched performance and cost control on their native chain. A relayer built specifically for Arbitrum or Optimism can be fine-tuned for that chain's gas auction mechanics and mempool, offering the lowest possible fee execution for high-frequency actions like liquidations on Compound or swaps on Uniswap. They avoid the overhead of cross-chain message passing. Weaknesses: Locks your application and its users into a single ecosystem. Forces users to hold the chain's native gas token, creating a friction point.
MULTI-CHAIN PAYMASTERS VS. CHAIN-SPECIFIC RELAYERS
Technical Deep Dive: Security and Implementation Nuances
Choosing between a multi-chain paymaster and a chain-specific relayer involves critical trade-offs in security, operational complexity, and protocol dependency. This section breaks down the technical distinctions to inform your infrastructure decision.
Chain-specific relayers generally offer a more secure, auditable surface. Their security is bounded to a single chain's consensus and validator set (e.g., Ethereum's L1 security for an L2 relayer). Multi-chain paymasters, like those from Pimlico or Biconomy, introduce cross-chain trust assumptions, relying on bridging protocols (e.g., Axelar, LayerZero) and off-chain signer networks, which expands the attack surface. For maximum security in a single ecosystem, a dedicated relayer is superior. For cross-chain UX, a paymaster's security depends on its underlying interoperability stack.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between multi-chain paymasters and chain-specific relayers is a strategic decision that hinges on your application's core requirements for reach versus control.
Multi-Chain Paymasters (like Biconomy, Pimlico, Stackup) excel at user experience and developer velocity because they abstract away gas complexities across multiple networks. For example, a dApp using Biconomy's ERC-20 gas sponsorship can achieve >90% user onboarding completion by eliminating the need for native tokens on chains like Polygon, Arbitrum, and Base. Their aggregated liquidity pools and meta-transaction standards (ERC-4337) provide a unified, scalable entry point for mass-market applications.
Chain-Specific Relayers (e.g., Gelato Network on Polygon, OpenZeppelin Defender on Ethereum, bespoke solutions) take a different approach by optimizing for security, cost, and deep chain integration. This results in a trade-off: you gain fine-grained control over transaction scheduling, gas price policies, and private mempool access, but at the cost of operational overhead. A protocol like Aave uses dedicated relayers for governance execution to ensure >99.9% uptime and deterministic finality on its primary chain, prioritizing reliability over cross-chain convenience.
The key trade-off is abstraction versus optimization. If your priority is rapidly scaling a user-facing dApp across an ecosystem with a seamless, gasless experience, choose a Multi-Chain Paymaster. If you prioritize maximum security, lowest cost per transaction, and deep control for critical backend operations (like treasury management or protocol upgrades) on a primary chain, choose a Chain-Specific Relayer. For many mature protocols, the optimal strategy is a hybrid: using a paymaster for frontend user ops and a dedicated relayer for core contract maintenance.
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