StarkEx Appchains excel at providing predictable, low fees for high-throughput applications because they operate as dedicated, single-application validity rollups. For example, dYdX v3, a StarkEx-powered perpetuals exchange, consistently processed trades for under $0.01, leveraging its isolated state for maximum efficiency. This model allows for deep fee optimization and predictable gas economics, as the application does not compete for block space with unrelated protocols.
LABS
Comparisons
StarkNet vs StarkEx Appchains: Fees
A technical breakdown of transaction cost models, fee drivers, and optimization trade-offs between the shared StarkNet L2 and dedicated StarkEx Appchains for enterprise decision-makers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The StarkWare Fee Dilemma
Choosing between StarkNet and StarkEx appchains fundamentally comes down to a trade-off between cost predictability and ecosystem composability.
StarkNet takes a different approach by being a general-purpose, decentralized L2 network. This results in a trade-off: while fees are generally low, they are variable and subject to network demand from thousands of contracts like JediSwap, zkLend, and Nostra. The shared state enables powerful composability but introduces fee volatility, as seen during periods of high NFT minting or DeFi activity where L1 settlement costs are amortized across all users.
The key trade-off: If your priority is absolute cost control and minimal, predictable transaction fees for a single, high-volume application, choose a StarkEx Appchain. If you prioritize native composability, permissionless deployment, and integration within a broader DeFi and gaming ecosystem, choose StarkNet, accepting its market-driven fee model.
tldr-summary
StarkNet vs StarkEx Appchains: Fees
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of fee structures and cost drivers for permissionless L2 versus custom app-specific chains.
01
StarkNet: Predictable Per-Transaction Cost
Shared L2 fee model: Fees are determined by the network's state growth and congestion, similar to Ethereum L1. This provides a predictable, per-transaction cost structure for dApps like zkLend or Nostra. Ideal for protocols needing a public, composable environment where users directly pay for their interactions.
02
StarkEx: Fixed Operational Overhead
Appchain subscription fee: Projects like dYdX and ImmutableX pay a fixed, negotiated cost to StarkWare for sequencing and proving. This allows them to abstract gas fees from end-users, enabling feeless trading or minting experiences. Cost is based on throughput volume, not per tx.
03
StarkNet: Subject to L1 Data & Proving Costs
Variable L1 settlement cost: Final fee is a sum of L1 data availability (calldata) costs and STARK proof verification. During Ethereum congestion, this can spike. Strategies like Volition (choosing data availability) and future EIP-4844 blobs will reduce this variable component significantly.
04
StarkEx: Optimized for Specific Throughput
Tailored cost efficiency: Appchains are hyper-optimized for a single application's pattern (e.g., NFT minting, perpetual swaps). This allows for maximum throughput per proof, driving the cost-per-transaction extremely low for the operator, but requires committing to a specific scale and business model.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
StarkNet vs StarkEx Appchains: Fee Model & Cost Driver Comparison
Direct comparison of transaction costs, fee drivers, and economic models for StarkWare's L2 solutions.
| Fee Driver / Metric | StarkNet (L2 Network) | StarkEx Appchain (Sovereign Chain) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Cost Driver | L1 Gas (Ethereum) + L2 STRK Fee | L1 Gas (Ethereum) + Custom Fee Token |
Avg. Simple Transfer Cost | $0.05 - $0.15 | $0.01 - $0.05 |
Fee Model for Apps | Network-wide, user-paid | App-specific, operator-controlled |
Fee Revenue Recipient | Sequencer & Prover (Protocol) | App Owner / Operator |
Gas Token Flexibility | STRK (mandatory for fees) | Any ERC-20 (configurable) |
Cross-App Fee Sharing | ||
Fee Subsidy Models | Account Abstraction (AA) only | Built-in (sponsor, voucher, hybrid) |
pros-cons-a
Fee Architecture Comparison
StarkNet vs StarkEx Appchains: Fees
A data-driven breakdown of cost structures for general-purpose L2 versus custom app-specific chains.
01
StarkNet: Predictable, Shared Fee Market
Pro: Transparent, on-chain fee model. Users pay a single, predictable L1 data fee + prover fee denominated in ETH. This is ideal for dApps requiring user-facing cost estimates like DeFi or gaming.
Con: Subject to network congestion. As a shared L2, fees can spike during high demand, similar to Ethereum. This creates variable costs for high-frequency applications.
02
StarkEx: Fixed & Customizable Overhead
Pro: Fixed operational cost structure. Appchains (dYdX, Sorare) pay a flat fee for L1 data and proof submission, independent of transaction volume. This enables sub-cent, predictable fees for end-users, critical for high-TPS exchanges.
Con: High baseline cost for the operator. The app owner bears the fixed L1 commitment cost, requiring significant volume to amortize. This is a barrier for low-TVM applications.
03
StarkNet: Volition & Data Availability Choice
Pro: Future fee optimization via Volition. The upcoming integration allows dApps to choose between expensive L1 data (Ethereum calldata) and cheaper off-chain data (Data Availability Committees). This will let protocols dynamically optimize for security vs. cost.
Con: Complexity for developers. Managing data availability modes adds architectural overhead compared to StarkEx's predefined setup.
04
StarkEx: Tailored Data Compression
Pro: Maximum efficiency for specific logic. StarkEx chains use purpose-built Cairo programs (e.g., for spot trading or NFTs) with hyper-optimized data compression. This results in the lowest possible L1 data fees per transaction for that specific use case.
Con: Inflexible and isolated. The appchain cannot leverage shared liquidity or composability with other dApps on a shared L2 like StarkNet.
pros-cons-b
FEE STRUCTURE COMPARISON
StarkEx Appchains: Pros and Cons for Fees
A direct comparison of transaction cost models between the shared L2 and dedicated appchain models. StarkNet uses a shared fee market, while StarkEx Appchains offer predictable, isolated pricing.
01
StarkNet: Shared L2 Fee Market
Pros: Fees are paid in ETH and are highly dynamic, driven by L1 gas costs and network demand. This creates a competitive environment where protocols like dYdX V4 and zkLend compete for block space. Good for users who value composability over cost certainty.
Cons: Unpredictable spikes during high L1 congestion. A single popular NFT mint or DeFi event can raise costs for all applications. No direct control over sequencer priority or fee model.
02
StarkEx Appchains: Fixed & Predictable
Pros: Deterministic fee model. Apps like Sorare and Immutable X negotiate a fixed cost per proof with the operator, decoupling user fees from volatile L1 gas. This enables subsidized or zero-gas experiences for end-users, crucial for mainstream gaming and NFT platforms.
Cons: Lacks native composability with other dApps. Fees are optimized for the single application's traffic pattern, not a general-purpose ecosystem. Requires a dedicated business relationship with the appchain operator.
03
StarkNet: Economies of Scale
Pros: Cost分摊 across all network activity. A high-volume protocol like a DEX benefits from the aggregated transaction batching of the entire StarkNet sequencer. The shared prover cost is distributed, potentially lowering the per-transaction cost during normal load periods compared to running a standalone prover.
04
StarkEx Appchains: Tailored Cost Control
Pros: Complete fee structure control. The application owner sets the pricing model (e.g., flat fee, percentage, free). They can absorb L1 settlement costs into their business model, offering a seamless UX. This is the model behind Immutable's gas-free marketplace and Sorare's free card trades.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
StarkEx Appchains for DeFi
Verdict: The default for high-volume, predictable-cost applications. Strengths: Predictable, fixed fees per batch are ideal for exchanges and AMMs where user cost certainty is critical. Higher throughput (9K+ TPS per appchain) supports intense trading activity. Proven infrastructure with dYdX, ImmutableX, and Sorare demonstrates battle-tested reliability for financial applications. Trade-offs: You manage your own sequencer and prover, adding operational overhead. Cross-chain composability is limited to your specific appchain's ecosystem.
StarkNet for DeFi
Verdict: The choice for novel, composable protocols requiring maximum flexibility. Strengths: Native composability across all L2 dApps unlocks innovative DeFi legos. Shared sequencer reduces your team's operational burden. Dynamic fee market can be cheaper during low congestion, beneficial for less frequent transactions. Trade-offs: Variable fees can spike during network congestion, introducing cost uncertainty for users. Throughput is shared across the entire network, potentially lower than a dedicated appchain during peak loads.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between StarkNet and StarkEx Appchains for fee optimization is a strategic decision between shared network effects and dedicated performance.
StarkEx Appchains excel at providing predictable, low, and stable transaction fees because they operate as dedicated, single-application chains. This isolation prevents fee volatility from unrelated network congestion. For example, a high-volume DEX like dYdX (before v4) or Immutable X for NFTs can offer sub-cent fees and batch thousands of transactions into a single L1 proof, achieving massive cost efficiency for their specific user base.
StarkNet takes a different approach by being a permissionless, shared L2 network. This results in variable, market-driven fees that are generally higher than an appchain's but benefit from shared security, native composability with other protocols (like Ekubo, Nostra, and zkLend), and the network effects of a unified ecosystem. Its fee model is optimized for developers who prioritize interoperability over absolute cost minimization.
The key trade-off: If your priority is absolute, predictable cost control and maximal throughput for a single, high-volume application, choose a StarkEx Appchain. If you prioritize native composability, ecosystem liquidity, and avoiding the operational overhead of managing a dedicated chain, choose StarkNet. For projects with >1M transactions/month, the appchain model's economics typically win; for nascent dApps seeking growth through integration, StarkNet's shared layer is the strategic choice.
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