LayerZero vs Stargate: Transfer Fees

Fixed messaging cost: Pay only for the gas on source and destination chains, plus a small protocol fee. No hidden slippage or liquidity fees. This matters for arbitrary message passing where you need a known, upfront cost for smart contract calls, not just token transfers.

Higher baseline for simple transfers: For a basic token bridge, you pay the full messaging overhead. Using applications like Stargate or Rage Trade on top adds their fees. This matters if your primary use case is simple asset transfers, as a direct bridge is often cheaper.

All-inclusive swap fee: Fee bundles gas, bridge operation, and a liquidity provider fee (typically 1-6 bps). No separate messaging payment. This matters for end-users and dApps performing cross-chain swaps who want a single, simple fee quote without managing gas on multiple chains.

Cost tied to liquidity depth: Fees can fluctuate based on pool imbalance and demand (e.g., high volume on a low-TVl pool). This matters for high-frequency traders or large transfers, where slippage and variable costs can significantly impact total expense compared to a fixed-rate model.

Fixed messaging fee: Pay only for the gas to relay a message via the Ultra Light Node (ULN). No liquidity pool fees. This is ideal for arbitrary data transfers (NFTs, governance, oracle data) where you don't need native asset bridging.

• Cost Structure: Primarily destination chain gas + a small Oracle/Relayer fee.
• Example: Sending a governance vote from Arbitrum to Polygon may cost ~$0.50 in total gas.

Pure messaging layer: Since LayerZero doesn't hold liquidity, there are zero slippage costs and zero LP fees. This is a critical advantage for high-value, non-financial messages where cost predictability is paramount.

• Use Case: Perfect for secure cross-chain contract calls and state synchronization for protocols like Pendle Finance or Radiant Capital.

Unified fee bundle: Users pay one fee that includes LayerZero message cost + swap fee + liquidity provider fee. This abstracts complexity but combines variable costs.

• Fee Breakdown: Typically 1-6 bps LP fee + a fixed $0.10-$1.00 cross-chain message fee.
• Best For: End-users and dApps wanting native asset transfers (e.g., USDC from Ethereum to Avalanche) in a single transaction.

Inefficient for pure messaging: Using Stargate to send a token without needing a swap (e.g., sending USDC on Ethereum to USDC on Polygon) incurs unnecessary LP fees (1-6 bps). For a $1M transfer, this adds $100-$600 in avoidable cost.

• Alternative: A direct LayerZero message with a custom adapter would be >90% cheaper for this specific use case.

Fixed-fee model: Fees are bundled and quoted upfront, covering gas, security, and protocol fees. This matters for user experience and budgeting, as senders see the exact cost before confirming. No hidden costs from destination chain gas spikes.

Automatic gas provisioning: Transfers include a small amount of native gas on the destination chain for the initial transaction. This matters for new users or wallets with zero balance on the target chain, removing a major onboarding friction.

Gas-Only Model: Users pay for message verification gas on the destination chain, plus a small protocol fee. This matters for high-volume, cost-sensitive applications that can optimize for gas efficiency and don't need the bundled service layer.

Variable cost risk: Users must estimate and pay for destination chain gas, which can be volatile. This matters for applications requiring precise cost control, as underestimating leads to failed transactions, adding operational overhead.