Gas-Based Fee Models, as used by Ethereum and Arbitrum, excel at aligning user incentives with network health through dynamic pricing. This model ensures transaction priority during congestion but introduces high volatility; for example, Ethereum mainnet gas fees have spiked from 20 gwei to over 200 gwei during popular NFT mints, making microtransactions cost-prohibitive. This volatility is a primary driver for layer-2 adoption, where solutions like Optimism and zkSync offer significantly lower, though still variable, costs.
LABS
Comparisons
Gas-Based Fees vs Fixed Fee Models for Gaming Asset Transfers
A technical analysis of two dominant fee models for blockchain gaming. This comparison evaluates their impact on player experience, studio revenue, and microtransaction viability across networks like Ethereum, Polygon, and Ronin.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Fee Model Battle in Blockchain Gaming
A data-driven comparison of gas-based and fixed-fee models for in-game asset transfers, highlighting the core trade-offs between predictability and network alignment.
Fixed Fee Models, pioneered by chains like Immutable X and Solana, take a different approach by decoupling transaction costs from network congestion. This results in predictable, sub-cent fees ideal for high-frequency gaming actions—Immutable X charges a flat 2% marketplace fee with no gas for trades. The trade-off is that the protocol absorbs the underlying blockchain's gas volatility, requiring sophisticated economic design and potentially limiting revenue models compared to pure gas fee capture.
The key trade-off: If your priority is predictable user experience and microtransactions—common in free-to-play or high-TPS games—choose a Fixed Fee Model on chains like Solana or Immutable X. If you prioritize deep liquidity, protocol revenue from fee capture, and integration with the broader DeFi/NFT ecosystem, a Gas-Based Model on Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum or StarkNet may be preferable, despite its cost variability.
tldr-summary
Gas-Based Fees vs. Fixed Fee Models
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the two dominant fee models for in-game asset transfers, highlighting their core strengths and ideal applications.
01
Gas-Based Fees (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum)
Market-driven pricing: Fees fluctuate with network demand, creating a transparent, permissionless fee market. This is critical for decentralized exchanges and composability with DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Aave.
02
Fixed Fee Models (e.g., Immutable X, Ronin)
Predictable user cost: A flat, known fee per transaction (e.g., $0.10 per NFT mint). This is essential for mass-market gaming where players need cost certainty for actions like trading skins or crafting items.
03
Gas-Based Fees (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum)
Network security subsidy: High gas fees during congestion directly fund validator/staker rewards, securing the base layer. This matters for high-value asset custody where settlement security is paramount.
04
Fixed Fee Models (e.g., Immutable X, Ronin)
Zero-cost user onboarding: Protocols often absorb fees for users via subsidies or rollup sequencing profits. This enables free-to-play mechanics and removes a major UX barrier for non-crypto-native gamers.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Gas-Based vs Fixed Fee Models for Gaming Asset Transfers
Direct comparison of transaction cost and predictability for in-game asset transfers.
| Metric | Gas-Based Model (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum) | Fixed Fee Model (e.g., Immutable zkEVM, Ronin) |
|---|---|---|
Predictable Transaction Cost | ||
Avg. Transfer Cost (USD) | $0.50 - $15.00 | $0.001 - $0.01 |
Cost Volatility | High (varies with network demand) | None (set by protocol) |
User Abstraction Complexity | High (requires wallet gas management) | Low (often sponsor-paid or flat fee) |
Suitable for Microtransactions (<$1) | ||
Primary Use Case | General DeFi, High-Value NFTs | High-Frequency Gaming, Mass Adoption |
pros-cons-a
GAS-BASED FEES VS. FIXED FEES
Gas-Based Fee Model: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for gaming asset transfers at a glance. The choice impacts user experience, developer costs, and network security.
01
Gas-Based Fees: Pro - Dynamic Network Pricing
Market-driven cost: Fees adjust based on network demand (e.g., Ethereum base fee). This ensures transactions are processed even during high-traffic events like an NFT mint. For a game with unpredictable user spikes, this guarantees transaction inclusion.
02
Gas-Based Fees: Con - Unpredictable User Costs
Volatile expense: Players face fluctuating fees, which can spike from $0.50 to $50+ during congestion. This creates a poor UX for micro-transactions of in-game items and makes user acquisition costs unpredictable for studios.
03
Fixed Fee Model: Pro - Predictable & Simple UX
Stable, known cost: Users pay a flat fee per transaction (e.g., Immutable X's 2% marketplace fee). This is critical for mass-market gaming where players expect cost certainty for every item trade, enhancing adoption.
04
Fixed Fee Model: Con - Potential for Inefficiency
Misaligned incentives: A flat fee doesn't reflect underlying network state. During low congestion, users overpay; during high congestion, validators may be underpaid, risking slower settlement times unless subsidized by the platform (e.g., StarkNet's fee model).
pros-cons-b
Gas-Based Fees vs. Fixed Fees for Gaming
Fixed Fee Model: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for high-volume gaming asset transfers at a glance.
01
Gas-Based Model: Predictable Costs
Specific advantage: Transaction fees are set by the network (e.g., Solana's ~$0.00025, Immutable zkEVM's $0.001). This matters for budgeting and user experience, as players know the exact cost of minting an NFT or trading an asset upfront, eliminating surprise costs during network congestion.
02
Gas-Based Model: Network Priority
Specific advantage: Dynamic fees allow users to pay more for faster execution during peak times. This matters for time-sensitive in-game actions like finalizing a high-stakes trade or claiming a limited-edition item, ensuring critical transactions are not stuck in the mempool.
03
Gas-Based Model: Congestion Risk
Specific disadvantage: Fees can spike unpredictably (e.g., Ethereum L1 gas > $50, Arbitrum during a meme coin frenzy). This matters for mass adoption in free-to-play games, where microtransactions become economically unviable, directly impacting player retention and revenue.
04
Gas-Based Model: UX Complexity
Specific disadvantage: Requires users to understand and manage native gas tokens (ETH, MATIC, SOL). This matters for onboarding non-crypto-native gamers, adding friction with extra steps for wallet funding and approval flows compared to a seamless credit card-like experience.
05
Fixed Fee Model: Absolute Cost Certainty
Specific advantage: Fees are contract-defined and immutable (e.g., a flat $0.10 per NFT transfer). This matters for game publishers and economies requiring precise, auditable per-transaction revenue models and for players who need guaranteed, non-inflationary costs.
06
Fixed Fee Model: Simplified Abstraction
Specific advantage: Fees can be paid in stablecoins or absorbed by the game studio, abstracting away blockchain complexity. This matters for creating a Web2-like user experience, enabling seamless onboarding where players never see a gas fee, similar to platforms like Fortnite or Roblox.
07
Fixed Fee Model: Inflexibility Under Load
Specific disadvantage: Fixed fees cannot incentivize validators during network congestion, potentially leading to slower processing times. This matters for real-time multiplayer games or live events where transaction finality is critical and delays can break the game state.
08
Fixed Fee Model: Economic Model Risk
Specific disadvantage: The fee setter (e.g., game studio) bears the risk if underlying network gas costs exceed the fixed fee. This matters for sustainability, as seen in early L2 gaming projects that subsidized fees, creating an unsustainable cost center at scale.
GAS-BASED FEES VS FIXED FEE MODELS
Cost Analysis: Microtransaction Viability
Direct comparison of cost structures for in-game asset transfers and microtransactions.
| Metric | Gas-Based Model (e.g., Ethereum) | Fixed Fee Model (e.g., Solana, Ronin) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Micro-Tx Cost (Transfer) | $1.50 - $15.00 | $0.00025 - $0.001 |
Cost Predictability | ||
Fee Model | Auction (First-Price) | Static (Prioritization Fee) |
Max TPS (Sustained) | ~30 | 5,000+ |
Smart Contract Execution Cost | High & Variable | Low & Fixed |
Suitable for Sub-$1 Transactions | ||
Primary Use Case Example | High-Value NFT Mints | In-Game Item Swaps |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Which Model for Your Use Case?
Gas-Based Fees for High-Volume Gaming
Verdict: Problematic. Gas-based models like those on Ethereum or Arbitrum create unpredictable and often prohibitive costs for micro-transactions, directly harming player experience. Key Issue: Network congestion from DeFi or NFT mints can spike gas prices, making in-game asset transfers (e.g., trading a sword) economically unviable. This model fails for games requiring thousands of low-value transactions per second (TPS). Real-World Impact: A game like Star Atlas or Illuvium would struggle with user onboarding if every minor action incurred a variable, potentially high fee.
Fixed Fee Models for High-Volume Gaming
Verdict: Essential. Platforms like Immutable X, Ronin, or Polygon zkEVM with fixed or zero gas fees are the clear choice. Key Advantage: Predictable, near-zero cost per transaction enables true mass adoption. Players can trade, craft, and interact without financial friction. Performance: These chains are optimized for scale, often achieving 9,000+ TPS (Ronin) with instant trade confirmation, which is critical for real-time gameplay economies.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between gas-based and fixed-fee models is a strategic decision that hinges on your game's economic design and user base.
Gas-Based Fee Models (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum) excel at aligning network usage with cost, ensuring security and decentralization during congestion. For example, during an NFT minting event on Ethereum, fees can spike to over $50, but this mechanism prevents spam and prioritizes high-value transactions. This model is ideal for games where asset rarity and security are paramount, and users are accustomed to volatile, high-stakes environments.
Fixed Fee Models (e.g., Immutable zkEVM, Ronin) take a different approach by decoupling transaction cost from network congestion. This results in predictable, often sub-cent costs for users, as seen with Immutable's stable ~$0.001 fee. The trade-off is that this predictability is typically enabled by a more centralized sequencer or a subsidized economic model, which may involve protocol-level revenue sharing or token burns to sustain the network.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, decentralization, and composability with the broader DeFi ecosystem (e.g., a trading-focused game like DeFi Kingdoms), choose a gas-based model like Ethereum L2s. If you prioritize user experience, cost predictability, and mass-market adoption for a free-to-play title with high transaction volume (e.g., a mobile game like Illuvium), choose a fixed-fee chain like Immutable.
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