Paymaster development is infrastructure-heavy. The core function—sponsoring user gas fees—requires a secure, always-on, and funded smart contract wallet, which demands significant capital lockup and operational security.
wallet-wars-smart-accounts-vs-embedded-wallets
Blog
The Cost of Building a Paymaster: Infrastructure vs. Aggregation
A first-principles analysis of paymaster economics. Building robust relayers and signers is a capital-intensive commodity business. Sustainable value accrues to aggregators that optimize across providers, not to the infrastructure layer.
introduction
THE COST DILEMMA
Introduction
Building a paymaster forces a choice between expensive, custom infrastructure and the commoditized logic of aggregation.
The real cost is not the contract. The primary expense is the backend infrastructure for transaction simulation, fraud detection, and gas price oracles, which mirrors the complexity of running a validator or sequencer.
Aggregation abstracts this cost. Protocols like Biconomy and Pimlico commoditize paymaster logic, allowing dApps to sponsor gas via simple API calls, trading custom control for operational simplicity and faster time-to-market.
Evidence: The ERC-4337 standard defines the paymaster interface, but successful implementations like Stackup's Bundler show that the competitive edge lies in the off-chain bundling and simulation engine, not the on-chain contract.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Core Thesis: Aggregation Eats Infrastructure
Building monolithic infrastructure is a capital-intensive trap; the winning model aggregates existing primitives into a superior user experience.
Aggregation abstracts infrastructure complexity. A protocol that builds its own paymaster, bundler, and RPC stack burns capital on undifferentiated heavy lifting. Aggregators like Pimlico and Biconomy provide these services as composable modules, allowing developers to focus on application logic.
Infrastructure becomes a commodity. The value accrues to the layer that owns the user relationship and transaction flow. This is the UniswapX model applied to system operations: it doesn't run its own solver network, it aggregates them. The same pattern will dominate account abstraction.
Evidence: The rapid adoption of ERC-4337 bundler services proves the point. Teams building custom bundlers struggle with MEV optimization and uptime, while aggregators leverage scale. The winning paymaster will be a meta-aggregator of gas tokens and sponsorship rules, not a single implementation.
key-trends
PAYMASTER ARCHITECTURE
The Current Battlefield: Key Trends in Sponsorship
The strategic choice between building custom infrastructure or leveraging aggregation services defines the next wave of user onboarding and protocol growth.
01
The Infrastructure Trap
Building a full-stack paymaster in-house is a massive capital and engineering sink. It's not just smart contracts; it's liquidity management, gas price oracles, and 24/7 operational security.
- Capital Lockup: Requires $1M+ in native tokens for gas sponsorship liquidity.
- Dev Overhead: 6-12 months for a senior team to build, audit, and maintain.
- Operational Risk: You become a target for MEV bots and gas price volatility.
6-12mo
Dev Time
$1M+
Capital Locked
02
The Aggregator Play (Pimlico, Biconomy)
Aggregators abstract the entire stack into an API. They pool liquidity, manage gas pricing, and handle relayers, turning a CapEx problem into an OpEx one.
- Time-to-Market: Integrate a production-ready paymaster in under a week.
- Cost Predictability: Pay per-user, per-transaction fees instead of locking capital.
- Optimized Execution: Leverage their aggregated liquidity and MEV-aware bundlers for better gas prices.
<1 Week
Integration
Pay-per-use
Pricing Model
03
Vertical Integration (AAVE, Uniswap)
Major protocols with their own stablecoins or tokens are building paymasters as a strategic moat. It's not about cost savings; it's about capturing the entire user journey.
- Token Utility: Sponsor gas fees exclusively in your native token (e.g., GHO, UNI).
- User Lock-in: Create a seamless experience from wallet to swap to lending within your ecosystem.
- Data Sovereignty: Own the entire transaction flow and user intent data, a la UniswapX.
Strategic
Moat
Full Funnel
Control
04
The Modular Future: Intent-Based Sponsorship
The endgame isn't paying for gas; it's fulfilling user intent. Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract gas sponsorship into the settlement layer, paid from the trade surplus.
- User Abstraction: User never sees gas; sponsor is the solver network.
- Efficiency: Gas costs are netted against MEV savings and better trade execution.
- Protocol Play: Turns the paymaster from a cost center into a profit center via order flow auctions.
Intent-Driven
Paradigm
Profit Center
Model Shift
PAYMASTER STRATEGY
Infrastructure vs. Aggregator: A Cost-Benefit Matrix
A first-principles comparison of building a native paymaster infrastructure versus integrating a third-party aggregator for gas sponsorship.
| Feature / Metric | Build Native Infrastructure | Use Third-Party Aggregator | Hybrid (Aggregator-First) |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to MVP | 6-12 months | < 2 weeks | 2-4 weeks |
Initial Dev Cost | $200K-$500K+ | $5K-$20K | $20K-$50K |
Ongoing Operational Overhead | High (DevOps, monitoring, upgrades) | Low (API integration only) | Medium (Limited infra for fallback) |
Gas Fee Abstraction Control | Full (Custom rules, bundling) | Partial (Aggregator's rules, e.g., Biconomy, Pimlico) | Partial with Fallback |
Native Token Integration | True | False | Conditional (via custom logic) |
Max UserOps/sec Throughput | Defined by own infra (e.g., 1K-10K) | Defined by aggregator's public RPC | Bottlenecked by aggregator |
Fee Revenue Capture | 100% of sponsor markup | 0% (Pays aggregator fee: 5-15 bps) | Partial (Pays fee, captures on fallback) |
Protocol Lock-in Risk | None | High (Vendor-specific APIs) | Medium (Mitigated by fallback) |
Custom Logic (e.g., Subsidies, Quotas) | True | False | True (via own backend) |
deep-dive
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
The Build vs. Buy Dilemma for Paymasters
Building a native paymaster requires significant, non-recurring engineering investment in gas abstraction logic and sponsor management.
Building a native paymaster demands deep protocol integration. Teams must implement the ERC-4337 IPaymaster interface, manage sponsorship logic, and handle gas token conversion, which is a multi-month engineering commitment.
Aggregation is the pragmatic path. Services like Biconomy and Stackup abstract this complexity. They provide battle-tested paymaster contracts, a relayer network, and user-friendly APIs, turning a capital-intensive build into an operational expense.
The hidden cost is flexibility. Native builds enable custom sponsorship rules (e.g., fee subsidies for specific dApp actions). Aggregators offer speed but impose their fee structure and policy constraints on your user experience.
Evidence: The dominant paymaster on Polygon zkEVM processes over 70% of all UserOps, demonstrating the winner-take-most dynamics and high barrier to entry for new native implementations.
protocol-spotlight
THE COST OF BUILDING A PAYMASTER
Aggregator Archetypes in the Wild
The decision to build a paymaster is a fundamental infrastructure vs. aggregation trade-off, with significant implications for capital, security, and user experience.
01
The Full-Stack Infrastructure Play
Building a paymaster from scratch requires deep capital and operational commitment. This is the path of Alchemy's Gas Manager and Biconomy, who treat gas sponsorship as a core infrastructure primitive.
- Requires $1M+ in capital for gas liquidity and relayers.
- Assumes full security risk for smart account abstraction and transaction relaying.
- Delivers maximum control over fee logic, bundling, and user onboarding.
$1M+
Capital Locked
100%
Control
02
The Aggregator-as-a-Service Model
Protocols like Pimlico and Stackup abstract the capital and operational burden. They aggregate liquidity from multiple sources and provide a unified API, turning paymaster functionality into a commodity service.
- Near-zero capital requirement for the integrating dApp.
- Aggregates liquidity from ERC-20 paymasters, L1s, and grant programs.
- Shifts risk to the service provider, who manages relayers and fee optimization.
~$0
Upfront Cost
5+
Liquidity Sources
03
The Vertical Integration Trap
Attempting to build a paymaster solely for your own dApp is often a misallocation of resources. The fixed costs of security audits, monitoring, and liquidity management are high, while the benefits are non-exclusive.
- High fixed cost for a single-use component.
- Fragments user liquidity instead of tapping into a shared network.
- Diverts engineering focus from core protocol differentiation to commodity infrastructure.
-50%
ROI vs. Aggregator
12+
Months Lag
04
The Bundled Abstraction Winner
The end-state is a bundled abstraction layer. Account Kit from Alchemy and ZeroDev's Kernel combine smart accounts, paymaster aggregation, and transaction simulation into a single SDK. The paymaster cost becomes a line item, not a build decision.
- Eliminates infrastructure choice fatigue for developers.
- Monetizes via API calls and bundling, not capital efficiency.
- Creates a moat through developer adoption and integrated tooling.
10x
Faster Integration
1 SDK
Unified Stack
counter-argument
THE COST OF ABSTRACTION
Steelman: Why Build Infrastructure At All?
Building a Paymaster is a strategic choice between owning core infrastructure or outsourcing to an aggregator.
The Core Trade-Off is control versus speed. Building a Paymaster grants direct control over gas sponsorship logic, fee abstraction, and user onboarding. Aggregating a service like Biconomy or Pimlico is faster but cedes control over the user experience and fee economics.
Infrastructure is a Moat. Owning the Paymaster contract creates a defensible integration point. It becomes the user's primary on-chain identity for sponsored transactions, locking in retention and enabling direct fee monetization strategies that aggregators abstract away.
Aggregation commoditizes you. Relying on a third-party Paymaster service turns your application's gas experience into a generic feature. You compete on the same UX plane as every other dApp using Biconomy, eliminating a potential differentiator.
Evidence: Protocols with complex fee logic, like gaming or social apps, build. Simple DeFi frontends often aggregate. The 4337 standard enables both, but the choice dictates who owns the user's gas session.
risk-analysis
THE COST OF BUILDING A PAYMASTER
The Bear Case: What Could Derail Aggregators?
The promise of account abstraction is undermined by the immense operational overhead required to run a paymaster, shifting the competitive moat from software to infrastructure.
01
The Liquidity Sinkhole
A paymaster must pre-fund gas on every chain it supports, creating a massive, non-productive capital requirement. This isn't a tech problem; it's a balance sheet problem.
- Capital Lockup: Requires $1M+ per major chain just for operational float.
- Opportunity Cost: Idle capital that could be earning yield in DeFi or staking.
- FX Risk: Managing native token balances across 10+ chains introduces constant rebalancing overhead.
$1M+
Per Chain Float
0% APY
Idle Capital
02
The Bundler Commoditization Trap
Running a reliable, high-uptime bundler is a devops nightmare akin to running a validator. The real cost isn't the code—it's the 24/7 monitoring and chain-specific tuning.
- Infra Overhead: Requires dedicated DevOps teams, multi-region node deployments, and >99.9% SLA monitoring.
- Gas Optimization: Real-time MEV capture and gas price forecasting become critical, requiring bespoke infrastructure like Flashbots SUAVE.
- Winner's Curse: The most profitable bundles attract the most competition, squeezing margins to zero.
>99.9%
Uptime SLA
~0%
Bundler Margin
03
Aggregation Layer Zero (Aligned)
The winning model may not be a monolithic paymaster, but a meta-aggregator of paymaster services. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract complexity; the same will happen for gas abstraction.
- Solution: A liquidity layer where dApps plug into a network of competing paymasters and bundlers, similar to 1inch or Across for bridges.
- Outcome: Shifts the competitive edge back to software and aggregation logic, not capital and servers.
- Risk: Creates a new meta-layer where LayerZero or Polygon AggLayer could dominate, making today's aggregators the new middleware.
Meta-Layer
New Battleground
Capital-Light
Aggregator Model
future-outlook
THE COST CURVE
The 24-Month Outlook: Consolidation and Specialization
The paymaster market will bifurcate into high-cost infrastructure builders and low-cost aggregators, with the latter dominating user-facing applications.
Infrastructure builders face prohibitive costs. Developing a full-stack paymaster requires deep protocol integrations, custom gas pricing engines, and robust fraud detection. This capital expenditure creates a high barrier to entry for new players.
Aggregators will capture the majority of volume. Platforms like Pimlico and Biconomy abstract this complexity, offering a single API. Applications will integrate these aggregators, not build in-house, to focus on core product development.
The winner is the best bundler, not the best paymaster. The economic moat shifts from sponsorship logic to transaction bundling efficiency. The entity that aggregates the most user operations and secures the cheapest block space via EigenLayer, SUAVE, or Flashbots wins.
Evidence: The current ERC-4337 bundler market is already consolidating around a few players like Stackup and Alchemy, demonstrating the inevitable path for paymasters. Specialized sponsorship logic becomes a commodity feature.
takeaways
PAYMASTER STRATEGIES
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The choice between building custom paymaster infrastructure or using an aggregator defines your GTM speed, cost, and control.
01
The Infrastructure Trap
Building a full-stack paymaster requires non-trivial, ongoing capital and engineering overhead. You become a custodian of volatile assets and a target for MEV.
- Capital Lockup: Must pre-fund wallets with $100K+ in native tokens per chain.
- Operational Risk: You manage gas price oracles, relayers, and refund logic.
- Slippage & MEV: Handling user refunds in volatile markets exposes you to significant financial risk.
6-12 months
Dev Time
$100K+
Initial Capital
02
The Aggregator Play (e.g., Pimlico, Biconomy, Etherspot)
Aggregators abstract gas management by pooling liquidity and optimizing across users. This is the dominant model for dApps seeking speed.
- Zero Capital Overhead: No need to pre-fund; the aggregator's pool covers gas.
- Instant Integration: API-based integration in days, not months.
- Optimized Execution: They batch transactions and route for best price, similar to UniswapX for swaps.
~1 week
Integration
0
Capital Lockup
03
The Hybrid Future: Intent-Based Paymasters
The next evolution moves from transaction sponsorship to fulfilling user intents. Think UniswapX or CowSwap for gas. Users sign a desired outcome, not a tx.
- True Abstraction: User says "swap & bridge," the system finds the optimal path via Across or LayerZero.
- MEV Capture Redistribution: Solvers compete, converting extracted MEV into better rates or gas subsidies.
- Protocol Native: The paymaster becomes a core primitive, not a bolt-on service.
10x
UX Improvement
New Biz Model
MEV Redistribution
04
Build vs. Aggregate: Decision Matrix
Your protocol's needs dictate the path. Control has a steep price.
- BUILD IF: You are a top-10 DEX/L2 needing absolute control and can amortize cost over $1B+ TVL.
- AGGREGATE IF: You are any other dApp prioritizing GTM and developer efficiency.
- The Rule: Unless gas sponsorship is your core IP, aggregating is strictly superior.
>90%
Use Aggregator
<10%
Should Build
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