User-Paid Fees, as seen in Uniswap V3 and Curve Finance, excel at predictable protocol revenue and capital efficiency. This model directly aligns user actions with protocol costs, ensuring a sustainable treasury from swap fees (e.g., 0.01% to 1% per trade). For example, Uniswap's fee switch activation on select pools demonstrates how this model can generate significant, verifiable on-chain revenue to fund development and governance.
LABS
Comparisons
User-Paid Fees vs Protocol-Paid Fees: The DEX Fee Model Showdown
A technical comparison of user-paid and protocol-paid fee models for decentralized exchanges. This analysis covers cost structures, user experience, protocol sustainability, and trade-offs to help CTOs, VPs of Engineering, and Protocol Architects make informed infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Fee Dilemma in DEX Design
The choice between user-paid and protocol-paid fee models defines a DEX's economic sustainability, user experience, and long-term growth strategy.
Protocol-Paid Fees, exemplified by dYdX (v3) and early versions of Perpetual Protocol, take a different approach by subsidizing transaction costs for users. This strategy, often funded by token emissions or treasury reserves, results in a superior, gas-free user experience but creates a critical trade-off: it shifts the financial burden to the protocol, creating inflationary pressure or unsustainable treasury drain if not carefully managed with alternative revenue streams.
The key trade-off: If your priority is protocol-owned sustainability and capital efficiency for a permissionless, long-lived AMM, choose a user-paid model. If you prioritize maximum user adoption and seamless onboarding for a targeted, high-frequency trading product (like a perps DEX), and have a robust plan to monetize via order flow or other means, consider a protocol-paid subsidy model.
tldr-summary
User-Paid Fees vs Protocol-Paid Fees
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of the dominant fee models, highlighting their core strengths and ideal applications.
01
User-Paid Fees (Ethereum, Solana, Arbitrum)
Direct Cost Assignment: Users pay for their own transactions (gas). This creates a direct, predictable cost for on-chain actions. This matters for protocols with diverse, unpredictable user behavior (e.g., Uniswap, OpenSea) as it prevents a single entity from subsidizing spam.
>99%
of L1/L2s use this model
02
User-Paid Fees: Pros
Economic Sustainability: Protocol revenue is not spent on gas, allowing for treasury growth and protocol-owned liquidity. Anti-Spam: High costs for users naturally deter spam and Sybil attacks. User Sovereignty: Users can prioritize their transactions by adjusting gas fees.
03
User-Paid Fees: Cons
UX Friction: Gas estimation, wallet pop-ups, and token approvals create a poor onboarding experience. Cost Volatility: Users bear the risk of network congestion and gas price spikes. Microtransaction Barrier: Makes sub-$1 transactions economically unviable.
04
Protocol-Paid Fees (ERC-4337, Solana cNFTs, Gas Stations)
Abstracted Cost: The dApp or protocol sponsors transaction fees on behalf of users. This matters for mass-market applications (e.g., social apps, gaming) where seamless, gasless onboarding is critical for adoption.
ERC-4337
Standard for this model
05
Protocol-Paid Fees: Pros
Frictionless UX: Enables one-click interactions, removing the biggest barrier for non-crypto natives. Predictable CAC: Protocols can budget for user acquisition costs. Enables New Models: Makes microtransactions and session-based gaming viable.
06
Protocol-Paid Fees: Cons
Capital Intensive: Requires deep treasury reserves to subsidize activity; unsustainable for high-volume DeFi. Spam Vulnerability: Requires robust sybil resistance (e.g., proof-of-personhood, captchas). Complex Accounting: Must track and manage gas sponsorship across chains and users.
ECONOMIC MODEL COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: User-Paid vs Protocol-Paid Fees
Direct comparison of fee models for blockchain applications and end-users.
| Metric | User-Paid Fees | Protocol-Paid Fees |
|---|---|---|
End-User Transaction Cost | $0.10 - $50.00+ | $0.00 |
Gas Abstraction for Users | ||
Protocol Revenue Source | Block Rewards Only | Fees + Block Rewards |
Developer Subsidy Complexity | None (User bears cost) | Required (e.g., Paymaster, Gas Tank) |
Typical Use Case | General-Purpose L1s (Ethereum) | Consumer dApps, Gaming (Polygon, zkSync) |
Wallet Requirement for Users | Native Token for Gas | Any ERC-20 Token or None |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
User-Paid Fees vs Protocol-Paid Fees
A technical breakdown of the dominant fee models, highlighting key architectural trade-offs for protocol designers and application developers.
01
User-Paid: Predictable Protocol Economics
Direct cost recovery: Every transaction directly funds network security (validators/miners) and protocol revenue. This creates a sustainable, predictable economic model for protocols like Ethereum and Solana. It matters for protocols requiring long-term security guarantees without relying on inflationary token emissions or external subsidies.
02
User-Paid: Superior UX for Power Users
Granular control: Advanced users and bots (e.g., on Uniswap or dYdX) can optimize gas fees, priority fees, and MEV strategies for execution speed and cost. This matters for high-frequency trading, arbitrage, and complex DeFi operations where transaction timing and cost are critical competitive advantages.
03
User-Paid: Barrier to Mass Adoption
Friction and complexity: Requiring users to hold the native token for gas (e.g., ETH, AVAX, MATIC) creates a significant onboarding hurdle. Tools like ERC-4337 Account Abstraction and Gas Station Networks (GSN) are complex workarounds. This matters for consumer dApps and games targeting non-crypto-native users who expect seamless, app-store-like experiences.
04
Protocol-Paid: Frictionless User Onboarding
Gasless transactions: The protocol or dApp sponsors transaction fees, abstracting away crypto complexity. Standards like EIP-2771 (MetaTransactions) and solutions from Biconomy or OpenGSN enable this. This matters for mass-market applications, NFT mints, and onboarding campaigns where removing every point of friction is paramount for growth.
05
Protocol-Paid: Simplified Product Design
Unified cost structure: Developers can bundle transaction costs into a service fee or subscription, similar to web2 cloud API pricing. This enables predictable operational budgeting and simpler user-facing pricing. This matters for SaaS-style dApps, enterprise blockchain solutions, and applications with recurring revenue models.
06
Protocol-Paid: Sustainability & Attack Risks
Economic vulnerability: The sponsoring entity must manage a wallet with sufficient funds, creating a central point of failure and potential for Sybil attacks or wallet drainage. Protocols like Polygon's gasless relayer require careful rate-limiting. This matters for protocols with open, permissionless access where managing sponsor costs and preventing abuse is a continuous operational challenge.
pros-cons-b
USER-PAID VS PROTOCOL-PAID
Pros and Cons: Protocol-Paid Fee Model
A critical trade-off between user experience and sustainable economics. Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
User-Paid Fee Model: Pros
Direct Cost Alignment: Users pay for the exact resources they consume (compute, storage). This creates a predictable, usage-based revenue stream for validators and aligns incentives with network security. This matters for general-purpose L1s like Ethereum and Solana, where diverse, unpredictable workloads are the norm.
02
User-Paid Fee Model: Cons
Poor UX & Adoption Friction: Every transaction requires a wallet with native tokens, creating a significant barrier for new users. Gas fee volatility (e.g., Ethereum spikes to $200+) can break application logic. This matters for mass-market dApps like social or gaming, where seamless onboarding is critical.
03
Protocol-Paid Fee Model: Pros
Frictionless User Onboarding: Users interact without holding the base layer token, enabling gasless transactions. This is a proven growth driver for dApps. This matters for consumer-facing protocols like social (Farcaster) or gaming, where abstracting blockchain complexity is essential for scale.
04
Protocol-Paid Fee Model: Cons
Complex Economic Sustainability: The protocol (or dApp) must fund a wallet to subsidize fees, creating a runway risk. Poorly designed models can lead to insolvency or require constant VC funding. This matters for long-term protocol viability; unsustainable subsidies were a major failure mode in early L2s.
05
Hybrid & Account Abstraction Models
Best of Both Worlds via ERC-4337: Paymasters allow dApps to sponsor gas fees in stablecoins or any token, while users can still pay directly. Key metric: Over 4.5M UserOperations processed via AA bundlers. This matters for enterprise dApps needing flexible billing (e.g., subsidized first 10 tx, then user-paid).
06
Decision Framework
Choose User-Paid if: Your dApp has sophisticated users (DeFi, trading), you prioritize decentralized validator incentives, or you cannot guarantee a subsidy treasury.
Choose Protocol-Paid if: You are building a high-volume consumer app where onboarding conversion is the #1 metric, and you have a clear monetization path to cover gas costs.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
User-Paid Fees for DeFi
Verdict: The Standard. Essential for permissionless composability and user sovereignty. Strengths: Enables complex, multi-step transactions (e.g., flash loans, arbitrage) without protocol treasury risk. Users can pay for priority (e.g., Ethereum's Priority Fee). This model underpins the entire DeFi stack on Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base. Weaknesses: Creates UX friction (gas estimation, wallet pop-ups) and can price out small users during congestion.
Protocol-Paid Fees for DeFi
Verdict: A Strategic Subsidy. Best for onboarding and specific growth loops. Strengths: Drives user adoption by abstracting gas (e.g., dYdX on StarkEx, some LayerZero configurations). Protocols like Aave have used fee subsidies for liquidity mining campaigns. Weaknesses: Not sustainable for all transactions; introduces centralization vectors and requires robust treasury management. Limits composability as the protocol controls the transaction bundle.
USER-PAID VS PROTOCOL-PAID
Technical Deep Dive: Implementation and Sustainability
The fee model is a foundational design choice that dictates user experience, economic sustainability, and developer incentives. This section compares the technical trade-offs between user-paid (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) and protocol-paid (e.g., Polygon AggLayer, Starknet) fee architectures.
Protocol-paid models are superior for mainstream adoption. They abstract away gas fees, providing a Web2-like experience where users don't need native tokens or understand transaction costs. Projects like dYdX on Starknet and many Polygon AggLayer chains use this to onboard millions. However, user-paid models (Ethereum, Solana) offer more direct economic alignment and are preferred by power users and DeFi protocols where cost predictability is critical.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between user-paid and protocol-paid fee models is a foundational architectural decision with profound implications for user experience, growth, and sustainability.
User-Paid Fees (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) excel at aligning costs with usage and ensuring protocol sustainability without inflationary pressures. This model creates a predictable revenue stream for validators and a direct economic barrier against spam. For example, during the 2021 NFT minting craze, Ethereum's base fee mechanism successfully priced out congestion, protecting network stability while generating over $10B in annualized fee revenue for stakers. It empowers users with fee market control via tools like EIP-1559 and MetaMask's advanced settings.
Protocol-Paid Fees take a different approach by subsidizing transaction costs to maximize user adoption and developer experimentation. This results in a trade-off: seamless onboarding (as seen with dApps on Polygon's gasless transactions via Biconomy) versus creating complex sustainability challenges. Protocols must fund subsidies through treasury reserves (risking depletion) or inflationary token emissions, which can lead to significant sell pressure. Avalanche's initial subnet incentives and Hedera's treasury-funded low fixed fees are prime examples of this growth-first strategy.
The key architectural trade-off is between sustainable economic alignment and frictionless growth. If your priority is building a long-term, credibly neutral public good with clear cost attribution—such as a DeFi lending protocol like Aave or a decentralized exchange like Uniswap V3—the user-paid model is the industry-standard choice. Choose the protocol-paid model when launching a consumer-facing dApp requiring mass adoption, like a high-frequency GameFi project or a social network, where removing the onboarding friction of gas fees is a critical success factor, and you have a clear monetization path to offset the subsidy costs.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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