DAO-Specific Relay Services like Snapshot and Tally excel at simplicity and cost-efficiency for pure governance. They operate off-chain, aggregating signatures and submitting them in a single, optimized transaction. This results in near-zero cost per vote for members and predictable, manageable gas budgets for the DAO treasury. For example, a large DAO like Uniswap or Aave can process thousands of votes per month for a fraction of the cost of on-chain execution.
LABS
Comparisons
DAO-Specific Relay vs Generalized Gasless Infrastructure
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects evaluating the trade-offs between building a custom gasless relay for a single DAO versus integrating a generalized, multi-dApp infrastructure like Biconomy, Gelato, or OpenZeppelin Defender.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Gasless Governance Dilemma
A technical breakdown of two competing approaches to enabling gasless voting for DAOs.
Generalized Gasless Infrastructure such as Biconomy, Gelato, and OpenZeppelin Defender takes a different approach by providing a programmable relayer network. This allows for gasless execution of any arbitrary smart contract call, not just voting. The trade-off is increased complexity and potentially higher cost, as you pay for a generalized service layer and the gas for more varied transaction types. This flexibility is crucial for DAOs that need gasless interactions with DeFi protocols (e.g., Compound, Aave) or custom treasury management.
The key trade-off is between specialization and flexibility. If your DAO's sole priority is secure, low-cost, off-chain voting with deep integrations into tools like Safe{Wallet} and Discourse, a DAO-specific relay is the optimal choice. Choose a generalized gasless infrastructure when your governance model requires gasless execution of complex, on-chain operations beyond simple voting, such as parameter adjustments, asset swaps, or cross-chain actions.
tldr-summary
DAO-Specific Relay vs. Generalized Gasless Infrastructure
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side comparison of two dominant approaches to abstracting gas fees, highlighting their core architectural and operational trade-offs.
01
DAO-Specific Relay (e.g., Safe{Wallet}, DAOhaus)
Deep DAO Integration: Built directly into the treasury management stack. This matters for on-chain governance where proposals must execute complex, multi-step transactions without user gas.
Key Advantage: Treasury-First Security. Relays are whitelisted and funded by the DAO's own Safe or multisig, creating a closed, accountable system. Ideal for protocol upgrades, grants distribution, and parameter changes.
100%
Treasury-Funded
02
Generalized Gasless (e.g., Biconomy, OpenGSN, Pimlico)
Broad Application Support: A paymaster/relayer network that any dApp can integrate. This matters for mass-market consumer apps needing seamless onboarding.
Key Advantage: Sponsorship Flexibility. Gas can be paid by the dApp, a third-party sponsor, or via ERC-20 tokens. Enables 1-click transactions, subscription models, and freemium tiers. Think SocialFi, Gaming, and high-volume DeFi.
1000+
dApps Integrated
03
Choose DAO-Specific Relay If...
Your primary use case is sovereign, on-chain governance. You need:
- Deterministic Cost Control: Gas budgets are approved via proposals.
- High-Value, Low-Volume Txns: Treasury management, contract upgrades, large fund transfers.
- Maximal Accountability: Every gas spend is tied directly to a DAO vote.
Example Stack: Aragon OSx + Safe + Snapshot.
04
Choose Generalized Infrastructure If...
You are building a user-facing dApp where frictionless UX is critical. You need:
- Scalable User Onboarding: Sponsor gas for thousands of new users.
- Payment Abstraction: Let users pay with USDC or your app's token.
- High Transaction Volume: Social interactions, game moves, micro-transactions.
Example Stack: Next.js + Pimlico Paymaster + Account Abstraction SDK.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
DAO-Specific Relay vs Generalized Gasless Infrastructure
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for on-chain governance and user onboarding.
| Metric / Feature | DAO-Specific Relay (e.g., Safe, Tally) | Generalized Gasless (e.g., Biconomy, OpenZeppelin Defender) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Use Case | On-chain governance & treasury ops | General dApp user onboarding |
Gas Abstraction Model | Relayer pays from DAO treasury | Sponsor pays via paymaster or meta-transactions |
Transaction Cost to End-User | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Smart Contract Wallet Required | ||
Native Multi-Sig Support | ||
Avg. Relay Latency | < 2 sec | < 5 sec |
Supports Custom Gas Policies | ||
Integration Complexity | High (custom governance modules) | Low (SDK/API) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
DAO-Specific Relay vs Generalized Gasless Infrastructure
Key architectural and operational trade-offs for DAOs choosing between custom-built and off-the-shelf gas sponsorship solutions.
01
DAO-Specific Relay: Pros
Tight Governance & Treasury Integration: Directly hooks into on-chain governance (e.g., Snapshot, Tally) and multi-sigs (Safe) for policy enforcement. This matters for DAOs requiring granular control over subsidy rules and member eligibility.
Protocol-Specific Optimization: Can be fine-tuned for the DAO's primary dApps (e.g., a Uniswap DAO relay prioritizing swap transactions), reducing latency and maximizing utility per sponsored gas dollar.
Sovereignty & No Vendor Lock-in: Eliminates dependency on a third-party service's roadmap, pricing, or uptime. The DAO fully controls the relay logic and infrastructure stack.
02
DAO-Specific Relay: Cons
High Development & Maintenance Overhead: Requires building and securing custom smart contracts (relay hubs, paymasters) and off-chain signer infrastructure. Ongoing costs include DevOps, monitoring, and security audits.
Limited User Reach: Typically only works for the DAO's own ecosystem. Users cannot use the same gasless experience for interacting with other protocols (e.g., a user of DAO A's relay cannot use it for a transaction on Compound).
Capital Inefficiency: Sponsored gas capital is siloed within the DAO's relay contract. It cannot be dynamically allocated or shared across a network of applications, leading to idle funds or shortages.
03
Generalized Infrastructure (e.g., Biconomy, OpenGSN): Pros
Plug-and-Play Integration: SDKs and APIs (like Biconomy's Dashboard or OpenGSN's client) enable dApp integration in hours, not months. This matters for DAOs needing rapid deployment without in-house web3 dev expertise.
Network Effects & User Familiarity: Users may already have a 'gas tank' with the provider from other dApps, reducing onboarding friction. A single transaction can bundle actions across multiple supported protocols.
Economic Efficiency & Risk Pooling: Providers aggregate demand across hundreds of dApps, allowing for optimized gas purchasing, dynamic fee pricing, and insurance against gas price spikes. DAOs pay for usage, not idle capital.
04
Generalized Infrastructure (e.g., Biconomy, OpenGSN): Cons
Governance Abstraction & Control Loss: Relies on the provider's policy engine. DAOs cede control over nuanced rules (e.g., "sponsor only for members with >100 tokens") and are subject to the provider's fee structure and service terms.
Protocol Agnosticism as a Limitation: Optimization is for broad compatibility, not the DAO's specific transaction patterns. This can lead to higher effective costs or latency for complex, custom contract interactions.
Centralization & Counterparty Risk: The DAO's user experience depends on the provider's uptime and financial health. A service outage or business failure directly impacts the DAO's operations.
pros-cons-b
DAO-SPECIFIC RELAY VS GENERALIZED GASLESS INFRASTRUCTURE
Generalized Gasless Infrastructure: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating user onboarding and transaction sponsorship strategies.
01
DAO-Specific Relay: Pros
Tightly integrated governance: Native support for Snapshot, Tally, and DAO-specific voting standards. This matters for protocols like Compound or Aave where gasless voting is a core governance requirement.
Predictable, capped costs: Budgets are set and managed via the DAO treasury (e.g., using Safe{Wallet}), preventing runaway sponsor fees. Ideal for fixed quarterly operational budgets.
02
DAO-Specific Relay: Cons
Limited user scope: Only serves your DAO members or token holders. Cannot be used for broader dApp user onboarding or non-governance actions.
High maintenance overhead: Requires the DAO to manage relay server infrastructure, monitor gas price spikes, and handle top-ups. Adds operational burden for engineering teams.
03
Generalized Gasless Infrastructure: Pros
Full-stack dApp enablement: Supports any user action—minting, swapping, staking—via ERC-4337 Account Abstraction or Gas Station Network (GSN) relays. Used by Uniswap and OpenSea for seamless onboarding.
Developer velocity: Integrate with a single SDK (e.g., Biconomy, OpenZeppelin Defender). No need to build or maintain relay logic. Cuts weeks off development timelines.
04
Generalized Gasless Infrastructure: Cons
Variable, opaque costs: Pricing models (pay-per-user, subscription) can scale unpredictably. Less control compared to a self-hosted DAO relay solution.
Vendor lock-in risk: Dependence on a third-party's uptime and policies. If Etherspot or Stackup changes fees or shuts down, migration is complex.
DAO-SPECIFIC RELAY VS GENERALIZED GASLESS INFRASTRUCTURE
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture & Security
This section breaks down the core architectural trade-offs and security models between specialized DAO relayers and broad gasless platforms, helping you choose the right foundational layer for your governance or application.
A dedicated DAO relayer like Safe{Wallet} or Tally is inherently more secure for governance. It operates with a strict, whitelisted policy where only the DAO's treasury can sponsor transactions, eliminating the risk of a malicious third-party draining a general gas tank. Generalized solutions like Biconomy or OpenZeppelin Defender, while secure, introduce a broader attack surface by managing pooled funds for multiple applications, increasing the complexity of access control and sponsorship logic.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
DAO-Specific Relay for Governance
Verdict: The definitive choice. Strengths: Purpose-built for governance security and member management. Features like SafeSnap (Snapshot + on-chain execution) and Tally integration provide seamless proposal lifecycle handling. Native support for multisig execution, timelocks, and gasless voting via delegation or sponsored transactions is critical. The infrastructure is optimized for low-frequency, high-value transactions where voter participation and security trump speed.
Generalized Gasless Infrastructure for Governance
Verdict: A viable alternative for simple operations. Strengths: Can be used to sponsor votes via ERC-4337 Account Abstraction or Gelato Relay. Offers flexibility if your DAO also interacts with DeFi or NFT protocols within the same user session. However, it lacks native governance tooling, requiring custom integration for proposal management and execution, which adds complexity and potential security surface.
Key Metric: For DAOs with >1,000 members or >$10M TVL, the integrated security model of a DAO-specific relay is non-negotiable.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between a DAO-specific relay and a generalized gasless infrastructure is a strategic decision that hinges on governance control versus operational flexibility.
DAO-Specific Relays (e.g., Safe's Relay Service, DAO-specific instances of OpenZeppelin Defender) excel at providing sovereign control and predictable cost structures because they are owned and governed by the DAO itself. For example, a DAO like Aave or Compound can configure its relay to enforce custom policies, sponsor only its own protocol's transactions, and achieve cost predictability by pre-funding a dedicated wallet. This model is ideal for established DeFi protocols with high-value, governance-driven operations where security and budget oversight are paramount.
Generalized Gasless Infrastructures (e.g., Biconomy, Gelato, OpenZeppelin Defender's public relay) take a different approach by offering a multi-chain, pay-as-you-go abstraction layer. This results in superior developer velocity and user experience for applications that require flexibility—supporting ERC-20 fee sponsorship, session keys, and cross-chain transactions out-of-the-box. The trade-off is a reliance on a third-party's operational security and pricing model, which can introduce variable costs and potential centralization risks compared to a self-hosted solution.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing governance control, auditability, and cost predictability for a single, high-value protocol, choose a DAO-specific relay. If you prioritize rapid iteration, multi-chain deployment, and abstracting gas complexity for a broad user base (common for consumer dApps or gaming), choose a generalized gasless infrastructure. For many teams, a hybrid approach—using a generalized service for development and user onboarding before migrating critical functions to a dedicated relay—proves optimal.
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