Layer 2 Native Gasless excels at predictable, near-zero cost per transaction by leveraging the L2's inherent low-fee environment. For example, a vote on Optimism or Arbitrum can cost less than $0.001, making it economically viable for high-frequency, micro-governance actions. This model is ideal for protocols like Snapshot X or Tally that have integrated directly with L2s, offering users a seamless, cost-free experience without intermediary dependencies.
LABS
Comparisons
Layer 2 Native Gasless vs L1 Gasless Relayers
A technical analysis comparing built-in L2 fee abstraction mechanisms with custom L1 relayer networks for implementing gasless voting in DAO governance. Evaluates architecture, cost structure, security, and optimal use cases.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Gasless Voting Dilemma
A technical breakdown of the two dominant architectural approaches for enabling gasless user interactions in governance.
Layer 1 Gasless Relayers take a different approach by abstracting gas fees on Ethereum mainnet through meta-transactions and paymaster contracts like those in EIP-4337 (Account Abstraction). This results in a critical trade-off: superior security and finality by settling on L1, but at a higher and more variable operational cost for the sponsoring DAO or protocol, which must fund the relayer network.
The key trade-off: If your priority is scalability and ultra-low, predictable cost for a high-volume voting application, choose a Layer 2 Native solution. If you prioritize maximum security, L1 composability, and are willing to manage a relayer budget, choose a Layer 1 Gasless Relayer system like Gelato Relay or OpenZeppelin Defender.
tldr-summary
Layer 2 Native Gasless vs Layer 1 Gas Relayers
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for user onboarding and transaction sponsorship.
03
Choose L2 Native Gasless For...
- Building a new application from scratch on an L2 stack.
- Ultra-low, predictable fee sponsorship (e.g., $0.001 per tx on zkSync).
- Deep wallet integration with native account abstraction (Argent, Braavos).
- Protocols where gas logic is a core feature, not an add-on.
04
Choose L1 Gas Relayers For...
- Adding gasless features to an existing Ethereum mainnet dApp.
- Multi-chain strategies where you need a consistent UX across L1 and L2s.
- Use cases requiring maximum security/decentralization of Ethereum L1 settlement.
- When you cannot migrate but need to improve onboarding for DeFi protocols like Compound.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Layer 2 Native Gasless vs Layer 1 Gasless Relayers
Direct comparison of infrastructure for user-paid transaction fees.
| Metric / Feature | Layer 2 Native Gasless | Layer 1 Gasless Relayers |
|---|---|---|
User Transaction Cost | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Sponsor's Cost Per Tx | $0.001 - $0.01 | $2.00 - $50.00 |
Architectural Layer | L2 Protocol (e.g., zkSync, Starknet) | L1 Smart Contract (e.g., OpenGSN, Biconomy) |
Gas Abstraction | ||
Requires Paymaster Deposit | ||
Finality Source | L2 Sequencer | L1 Consensus (~12 sec) |
Sponsorship Complexity | Low (Native opcode) | High (Relayer network) |
pros-cons-a
L2 Native vs L1 Relayers
Pros & Cons: Layer 2 Native Gasless
Key architectural and economic trade-offs for CTOs choosing a gasless strategy.
01
L2 Native: Lower Cost & Predictability
Sub-cent transaction fees: L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism have base fees ~$0.001-0.01. This makes sponsoring user transactions via account abstraction (ERC-4337) or paymasters financially sustainable at scale. No unpredictable L1 gas spikes.
02
L2 Native: Simpler Integration
Built-in primitives: Use the chain's native EIP-4337 Bundlers (e.g., Alchemy, Stackup) or L2-specific paymaster contracts. Avoids managing complex relay server infrastructure, reducing devops overhead and security surface area.
03
L1 Relayer: Maximum Security & Composability
Inherits Ethereum's full security: Transactions settle directly on Mainnet. Critical for high-value DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave, Uniswap) where finality and censorship resistance are non-negotiable. Seamlessly composes with any L1 contract.
04
L1 Relayer: Protocol Agnostic
Works with any EVM chain: A relayer service like Gelato Network or OpenZeppelin Defender can sponsor gas on Ethereum, Polygon, BSC, etc., from a single dashboard. Ideal for multi-chain dApps that cannot be locked into one L2 ecosystem.
05
L2 Native: Faster User Experience
Sub-second confirmations: L2s like StarkNet zkRollups or Arbitrum Nitro provide near-instant pre-confirmations. Users experience true gasless flow without waiting for L1 finality (12-15 mins). Critical for gaming and social apps.
06
L1 Relayer: Maturity & Reliability
Battle-tested infrastructure: Relayer patterns have secured billions in TVL since 2020 (e.g., MetaTransactions). Mature tooling from OpenGSN and Biconomy offers proven reliability for mission-critical enterprise applications where new L2 opcodes carry inherent risk.
pros-cons-b
L2 Native vs L1 Relay Networks
Pros & Cons: L1 Gasless Relayers
Key architectural trade-offs and performance implications for user onboarding and transaction sponsorship.
01
L2 Native Gasless: Pros
Native Fee Abstraction: Transactions are gasless by design, using L2-specific account abstraction standards (e.g., Arbitrum's arbundles, zkSync's paymasters). This matters for protocols built exclusively on one rollup seeking seamless UX.
< $0.01
Avg. Sponsor Cost
< 1 sec
Validation Latency
02
L2 Native Gasless: Cons
Vendor Lock-in & Fragmentation: Solutions are chain-specific. A dApp on Optimism cannot use Polygon's paymaster. This matters for multi-chain dApps requiring a consistent UX across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base.
04
L1 Gasless Relayers: Cons
Higher Latency & Cost Overhead: Relayers add an extra hop, increasing finality time. Sponsoring L1 mainnet transactions is expensive (e.g., $5+ per sponsored tx). This matters for high-frequency trading dApps where every millisecond and cent counts.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Layer 2 Native Gasless for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for new applications. Strengths: Predictable, near-zero user costs are critical for high-frequency interactions like swaps on Uniswap or perps on dYdX. Native account abstraction (e.g., zkSync's paymasters, Starknet's fee abstraction) enables seamless onboarding and complex transaction batching. Superior UX drives adoption. Trade-offs: You inherit the L2's security model and potential sequencer downtime risks.
Layer 1 Gasless Relayers for DeFi
Verdict: Best for maximal security or existing L1 protocols. Strengths: Ethereum-level security is non-negotiable for high-value protocols like Aave or Compound. Use ERC-4337 Bundlers (e.g., Stackup, Alchemy) or meta-transaction relays (OpenGSN) to abstract gas. Ideal for migrating an existing L1 dApp without a full chain migration. Trade-offs: Relayer costs are variable and user operations are ultimately limited by L1 block space and gas prices.
L2 NATIVE VS L1 RELAYERS
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture & Security
A technical comparison of two dominant gasless models: Layer 2's native account abstraction versus Layer 1's external relayer networks, focusing on architectural trade-offs and security guarantees.
Layer 1 Relayers offer stronger base-layer security guarantees. Transactions are secured by the full consensus and validator set of the underlying L1 (e.g., Ethereum). Layer 2 native models inherit security from their specific L2's consensus (e.g., zkSync's zkRollup, Optimism's Optimistic Rollup), which is ultimately secured by the L1 but introduces a dependency on the L2's proving system and bridge. The L1 model has a simpler, more battle-tested security surface.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict & Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Layer 2 native gasless and L1 relayers is a strategic decision between ecosystem integration and sovereign flexibility.
Layer 2 Native Gasless excels at seamless user experience and predictable cost structures because it's a protocol-level feature. For example, Starknet's native account abstraction and zkSync's paymaster system allow applications to sponsor transactions with near-zero fees for users, leveraging the L2's low base cost of ~$0.01 per transaction. This deep integration enables complex gas policies and session keys, making it ideal for high-frequency dApps like Particle Network's gaming or Argent's wallet services.
Layer 1 Gasless Relayers take a different approach by operating as off-chain meta-transaction services, such as Gelato Network or Biconomy. This results in a trade-off: you gain blockchain-agnostic flexibility (supporting Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche) and avoid vendor lock-in, but you introduce a trusted relay layer and must manage relay costs, which can spike during L1 congestion when base fees exceed your sponsored gas budget.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum UX simplicity, lowest cost per transaction, and deep integration with a specific L2 stack (like Arbitrum's Stylus or Optimism's Superchain), choose Native L2 Gasless. If you prioritize multi-chain deployment, infrastructure control, and avoiding ecosystem lock-in, choose L1 Relayers. For protocols like Uniswap or Aave deploying across 10+ chains, a relayer provides a unified gasless experience; for a native Starknet DeFi app targeting explosive growth, native sponsorship is the superior path.
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