Gas abstraction is inevitable. Users will not tolerate managing native L2 gas tokens; protocols like EIP-4337 Account Abstraction and Particle Network's Gas Tank prove demand for seamless UX.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
The Future of Rollup Economics: Subscriptions Over Gas Tokens
ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service (RaaS) is commoditizing rollup deployment, shifting the fundamental revenue model from unpredictable transaction fees to predictable SaaS subscriptions. This evolution dismantles the traditional utility of a dedicated gas token, forcing a re-evaluation of L2 tokenomics.
introduction
THE SHIFT
Introduction
Rollup economics are transitioning from volatile, user-paid gas tokens to predictable, application-subsidized subscription models.
Applications will subsidize costs. The winning model is subscription-based fee abstraction, where dApps or wallets prepay for user transactions to capture market share, mirroring web2 cloud credits.
This changes L2 revenue. Rollup sequencers like Arbitrum and Optimism will sell bulk transaction capacity to applications, not individual gas to users, creating stable, recurring revenue streams.
Evidence: Base's Onchain Summer subsidized over 7M user transactions, demonstrating that application-sponsored gas drives adoption and reshapes the fundamental L2 business model.
key-trends
FROM GAS TO SERVICE
Executive Summary: The Three Shifts
The current pay-per-transaction model is a UX dead-end for mass adoption. The future is predictable, user-abstracted economics.
01
The Problem: Volatile Gas is a UX Tax
Users face unpredictable costs and sign endless transactions. This kills composability and makes budgeting impossible for real businesses.
- Mainnet gas spikes can make simple swaps cost $50+.
- L2 gas fees, while lower, still require constant wallet interaction.
- The model is a direct barrier to non-crypto native applications.
1000x
Fee Variance
$50+
Spike Cost
02
The Solution: Protocol-Level Subscriptions
Rollups like Arbitrum Orbit and zkSync Hyperchains will offer flat-rate, prepaid access. Think AWS for blockchains.
- Apps/Sovereign Chains pay a monthly fee for unlimited, predictable capacity.
- Enables true SaaS models onchain, where end-users never see gas.
- Base's Onchain Summer and Farcaster Frames are early experiments in abstracted sponsorship.
-99%
Fee Opacity
Fixed
Monthly Cost
03
The Enabler: Intent-Based Abstraction
User pays nothing; the protocol finds the best execution path and bills the dApp or a sponsor. This is the UniswapX and CowSwap model, applied to all interactions.
- ERC-4337 Account Abstraction allows for sponsored transactions.
- Solana's priority fee system is a primitive step; the endgame is full session keys.
- Across and LayerZero's modular design is built for this flow.
0
User Gas
~500ms
Intent Resolution
market-context
THE ECONOMIC SHIFT
The Commoditization of the Rollup Stack
Rollup economics will shift from volatile gas token speculation to predictable subscription models as infrastructure commoditizes.
Gas tokens become irrelevant as the rollup stack commoditizes. The value accrual moves from the L2's native token to the application layer and shared sequencing networks like Espresso and Astria.
Subscription models replace speculation. Protocols like Caldera and Conduit already offer managed rollup services for a flat fee, abstracting gas economics from end-users and developers.
The real competition is data availability. The cost and performance of data availability layers like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail determine the final subscription price, not the L2 token.
Evidence: Arbitrum's sequencer generates ~$1M monthly in fees, but its tokenomics are disconnected from this revenue. The value is in the activity, not the tollbooth.
THE FUTURE OF ROLLUP ECONOMICS
Economic Model Comparison: Gas Token vs. SaaS Subscription
A first-principles breakdown of how rollups capture value, contrasting the dominant but volatile gas token model with the emerging, predictable subscription model.
| Key Metric | Gas Token Model (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | SaaS Subscription Model (e.g., Eclipse, Caldera) | Hybrid Model (e.g., zkSync, Starknet) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Revenue Source | Sequencer MEV + L1 Gas Price Spread | Fixed Monthly/Usage Fee from Developers | Gas Token + Protocol-Governed Fees |
User Payment Currency | Native Rollup Token (e.g., ARB, OP) | Stablecoin (e.g., USDC) or Credit Card | Native Rollup Token (e.g., ZK, STRK) |
Developer Cost Predictability | |||
Protocol Revenue Volatility | High (Tied to L1 Gas & TX Volume) | Low (Recurring, Contractual) | Moderate (Mix of Both) |
Value Accrual to Token | Direct (Gas Fees Burned/Staked) | Indirect (Revenue Used for Buybacks/Burns) | Direct (Gas Fees) + Indirect (Treasury) |
Time to Profitability for Rollup |
| <6 Months (SaaS Margins ~70-90%) |
|
Example Implementation | Arbitrum Nitro, Optimism Bedrock | Eclipse, Caldera, Conduit | zkSync Era, Starknet |
deep-dive
THE ECONOMIC MISMATCH
Why Gas Tokens Fail in a RaaS World
Rollup-as-a-Service commoditizes execution, making native gas tokens an unsustainable economic model for rollup operators.
Gas tokens create user friction by forcing new economic onboarding for every new chain. Rollups built with RaaS providers like Conduit or Caldera compete on UX, and requiring a bespoke token for fees is a non-starter.
The revenue model is broken. A rollup's value accrues to its sequencer, not its gas token holders. Protocols like Arbitrum and Optimism capture value via sequencer profits and MEV, not token appreciation, rendering a dedicated fee token economically inert.
Subscription models align incentives. Platforms like EigenLayer and AltLayer demonstrate that staking for security is the scalable revenue stream. Rollup operators will charge recurring SaaS fees for block space and data availability, not speculate on token volatility.
Evidence: The migration is already visible. Major Ethereum L2s use ETH for gas, and emerging chains built on OP Stack or Arbitrum Orbit overwhelmingly default to ETH or stablecoins, rejecting the extra complexity of a native token.
protocol-spotlight
THE FUTURE OF ROLLUP ECONOMICS
RaaS in the Wild: Business Model Breakdown
The gas token model is a legacy burden. The next wave of rollups will monetize through predictable SaaS-like subscriptions.
01
The Problem: Gas Tokens Are a Terrible Business
Native tokens for L2s create massive friction and misaligned incentives. They force users to bridge assets just to pay fees, fragment liquidity, and expose projects to speculative volatility. The business model is a tax on usage, not a service fee.
- Friction: Users must acquire a new, illiquid asset.
- Volatility: Protocol revenue swings with token price, not usage.
- Complexity: Requires a full tokenomics design and market-making effort.
>90%
Of L2 Users
$0
Predictability
02
The Solution: The SaaS Pivot (Gelato, Caldera, Conduit)
Leading RaaS providers like Gelato, Caldera, and Conduit are shifting to flat-rate subscriptions. Developers pay a monthly fee for infrastructure (sequencing, proving, RPC) and pass gas costs directly to users, who pay in ETH or stablecoins.
- Predictable Revenue: Recurring SaaS income uncorrelated with crypto cycles.
- User Experience: Pay with the chain's base asset (e.g., ETH, ARB).
- Simplified GTM: Launch a chain without designing a token.
$0.01-$0.10
Per Tx Cost
$1k-$50k/mo
Subscription
03
The Arbiter: Shared Sequencers as a Utility
The true moat shifts from token value to sequencing service quality. Providers like Astria and Espresso offer decentralized sequencing as a neutral utility, charging fees for ordering, censorship resistance, and fast finality. This commoditizes a core piece of the stack.
- Neutrality: Prevents the RaaS provider from being a centralized point of control.
- Interoperability: Enables atomic cross-rollup composability.
- Revenue Stream: Fee-per-batch or subscription for sequencing rights.
~500ms
Finality
-99%
MEV Risk
04
The Endgame: Appchain-as-a-Service
The final evolution is a full-stack, no-code deployment platform. Think Vercel for blockchains. The RaaS provider bundles the sequencer, prover, bridge, explorer, and indexer into one dashboard. The business model is a premium subscription for scale, support, and advanced features.
- Total Abstraction: Developers manage a chain like a cloud database.
- Value Capture: Premium tiers for higher TPS, custom DA, and priority support.
- Network Effects: Ecosystem of templates and plugins locks in developers.
<5 mins
Deploy Time
10x
Dev Velocity
counter-argument
THE ECONOMIC MISMATCH
The Bull Case for Gas Tokens (And Why It's Wrong)
Gas token speculation creates misaligned incentives that are solved by subscription-based fee models.
Gas tokens are mispriced assets. Their value derives from future network usage, but their price is set by speculators, not users. This creates a principal-agent problem where token holders profit from high fees that degrade the user experience.
Subscriptions align protocol and user incentives. Models like EIP-4337 account abstraction enable fee sponsorship and predictable billing. This mirrors the SaaS model, where revenue scales with utility, not speculation.
The evidence is in adoption. StarkWare's paymaster system and zkSync's native account abstraction demonstrate that users prefer flat-rate predictability. Arbitrum's transaction dominance proves ecosystems win on UX, not tokenomics.
The future is fee abstraction. Protocols like Pimlico and Biconomy are building the infrastructure for gasless transactions. The winning rollup will be the one that makes its gas token invisible to the end-user.
risk-analysis
THE SUBSCRIPTION TRAP
The New Risks: Centralization and Contract Lock-in
Rollups are shifting from user-pays-gas to app-pays-subscription, creating new economic and technical lock-in vectors.
01
The Problem: Sequencer as a Rent-Seeking Monopolist
With a subscription model, the rollup's sequencer becomes the sole revenue extractor, not just a block builder. This centralizes pricing power and creates a single point of failure for the entire economic stack.
- Revenue Capture: Sequencer captures 100% of the fee market, disincentivizing decentralized sequencing.
- Censorship Vector: Apps can be economically deplatformed by being priced out of the subscription tier.
- Sticky Lock-in: Migrating to a new rollup requires renegotiating the core business expense.
100%
Fee Capture
1
Choke Point
02
The Solution: Shared Sequencer Networks (Espresso, Astria)
Decouple sequencing from settlement by using a neutral, shared sequencing layer. This turns the sequencer from a landlord into a commodity, forcing competition on price and latency.
- Economic Neutrality: Apps can subscribe to a network, not a single operator, preventing rent-seeking.
- Portable State: Atomic cross-rollup composability becomes native, reducing contract lock-in.
- Market Pricing: Multiple sequencers bid for bundle inclusion, driving costs toward marginal cost.
~500ms
Attestation Time
N-to-1
App-to-Sequencer
03
The Problem: Contract-Level Vendor Lock-in
Subscriptions are often implemented via custom precompiles or privileged contracts controlled by the rollup team. This creates technical debt that is impossible to fork or migrate.
- Non-Portable Code: Custom opcodes for fee abstraction don't exist on other L2s or Ethereum L1.
- Admin Key Risk: Upgradeable contracts controlled by a multisig can change subscription terms arbitrarily.
- Fork Inertia: A community fork loses the subsidized economics, stranding users and liquidity.
High
Switching Cost
Multisig
Admin Control
04
The Solution: Standardized EIPs and Intent-Based Architecture
Push for Ethereum-level standardization of subscription primitives (e.g., EIP-3074, ERC-4337 for sponsorship) and adopt intent-based designs that abstract the payer from the execution layer.
- Protocol-Level Portability: Standards allow contracts to work on any chain that implements them.
- User Sovereignty: Intent architectures (like UniswapX, CowSwap) let users define outcomes, not pay for specific L2 gas.
- Reduced Dependence: Apps rely on open protocols, not one-off rollup implementations.
ERC-4337
Standard
Intent-Based
Design
05
The Problem: The L2 as a Walled Garden
Subscription models incentivize rollups to maximize internal transaction volume, not external interoperability. This leads to economic siloing that harms the broader Ethereum ecosystem.
- Cross-Chain Tax: Bridges and interoperability layers become cost centers, not seamless pathways.
- Liquidity Fragmentation: TVL is sticky within the subsidized environment, reducing composability with chains like Arbitrum or Optimism.
- Ethereum Security Discounted: The economic model minimizes DA and settlement calls to L1, weakening the base layer's fee revenue and security.
$10B+
Siloed TVL
High
Bridge Tax
06
The Solution: Force Settlement and Verifier-Based Economics
Architect rollups where the primary economic relationship is with the verifier/DA layer, not the sequencer. Force frequent settlement to L1 and make L1 gas the base unit of account.
- L1-Centric Fees: Subscription credits are denominated in ETH/gas, aligning with Ethereum's security budget.
- Verifiable Cost: Costs are transparent and tied to a verifiable resource (L1 calldata), not opaque sequencer pricing.
- Interop by Default: Frequent settlement makes cross-rollup messaging (via LayerZero, Across) a first-class citizen, not an afterthought.
ETH
Base Currency
Force
Settlement
future-outlook
THE SUBSCRIPTION MODEL
The Endgame: Value Capture Shifts to Applications
Rollup economics will shift from volatile gas token speculation to predictable, application-driven subscription models.
Gas tokens become commodities. The value of native L2 tokens like OP and ARB will decouple from network usage, mirroring the fate of ETH post-EIP-1559. Their primary utility becomes governance over sequencer revenue, not speculative fee accrual.
Applications pay for users. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave will directly subsidize transaction fees via account abstraction bundles. This creates a B2B2C model where user acquisition costs shift from marketing budgets to the blockchain's cost layer.
Revenue flows to sequencers. The real economic activity is the sequencer auction, where applications bid for priority and bundled execution. This is the core cash flow, not the public mempool's spot gas market.
Evidence: Starknet's fee market already separates L1 settlement costs from L2 execution fees, creating a direct path for dApps to sponsor gas via paymasters like Argent and Braavos.
takeaways
THE NEW STACK
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The gas token model is a broken UX primitive. The future is predictable, subscription-based pricing that abstracts away volatile transaction fees.
01
The Problem: Gas Tokens Kill UX
Volatile, unpredictable fees create a hostile environment for users and developers. This is the single biggest barrier to mainstream adoption.
- User Friction: Needing native tokens for every chain is a non-starter.
- Dev Complexity: Building reliable gas estimates is impossible.
- Economic Inefficiency: Capital is locked in gas wallets, not productive DeFi.
1000x
Fee Volatility
-90%
User Retention
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction
Let users express what they want, not how to do it. Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across handle routing and gas payment.
- Gasless UX: Users sign intents; solvers pay gas and bundle transactions.
- Optimal Execution: Solvers compete to find the best route across chains (e.g., LayerZero, Axelar).
- Fee Abstraction: User pays in any token; solver handles conversion.
~0
User Gas Balance
30%
Better Price
03
The Model: Flat-Rate Subscriptions
Rollups like Arbitrum and zkSync will offer SaaS-style pricing for dApps. Pay a monthly fee for unlimited transactions within a quota.
- Predictable Costs: DApp developers can forecast operational expenses.
- User Acquisition: Apps can offer "free" transactions, absorbing costs.
- Revenue Stability: Rollups gain recurring revenue vs. volatile fee income.
$50K/mo
Predictable Cost
10M
TX Quota
04
The Infrastructure: Account Abstraction Wallets
ERC-4337 and smart accounts (e.g., Safe, Biconomy) are the enabling layer. They allow for sponsored transactions and session keys.
- Paymaster Integration: DApps or rollups can subsidize gas fees.
- Session Keys: Users approve a batch of actions with one signature.
- Custom Logic: Define who pays for gas and under what conditions.
1-Click
Batch TX
-100%
User Gas Cost
05
The Risk: Centralization of Solvers
Intent-based systems create a new MEV landscape. A small set of sophisticated solvers (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE) could dominate.
- Censorship Risk: Solvers can exclude certain transactions.
- Extractable Value: MEV is captured by solvers, not users.
- Opaque Pricing: Lack of solver competition leads to rent-seeking.
<10
Dominant Solvers
$1B+
Annual MEV
06
The Investment Thesis: Capture the Stack
Value accrual shifts from L1 gas tokens to infrastructure enabling abstraction. Invest in the plumbing, not the commodity.
- Intent Protocols: The new exchange layer (UniswapX, CowSwap).
- Solver Networks: The execution engines.
- AA Infrastructure: Paymasters, bundlers, and wallet SDKs.
- Subscription Platforms: Rollups with native billing APIs.
100x
TAM Expansion
New S-Curve
Growth Phase
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