Session Keys excel at creating a seamless, stateful user experience by allowing users to pre-authorize a set of actions for a limited time. This is achieved through cryptographic signatures that delegate temporary authority to a dApp, enabling features like gasless transactions, batched operations, and one-click interactions. For example, in gaming or high-frequency DeFi protocols, session keys can facilitate uninterrupted gameplay or trading without requiring a wallet pop-up for every single action, dramatically improving UX.
LABS
Comparisons
Session Keys vs. Transaction Relayers
A technical analysis comparing two methods for abstracting user transactions: on-chain session keys for delegated signing and off-chain relayers for sponsored submission. We evaluate trust models, cost structures, and user experience for protocol architects and engineering leads.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Abstraction Layer Battle
A technical breakdown of the two dominant paradigms for abstracting user experience in blockchain applications.
Transaction Relayers (or Paymasters) take a different, stateless approach by having a third-party service sponsor transaction fees on behalf of the user. This results in the trade-off of shifting cost and complexity to the application backend but allows for true gasless onboarding and interactions. Relayers are protocol-agnostic, working with standards like EIP-4337's Paymaster, and are measured by their reliability (uptime >99.9% for services like Biconomy or Stackup) and subsidy models (flat fee, subscription, or sponsored).
The key trade-off: If your priority is user retention and complex, multi-step application flows (e.g., gaming, advanced DeFi strategies), choose Session Keys for their stateful efficiency. If you prioritize maximum user acquisition and removing all friction at the sign-up stage, choose Transaction Relayers for their ability to completely abstract gas costs and wallet complexity for new users.
tldr-summary
Session Keys vs. Transaction Relayers
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural trade-offs for user experience and security in account abstraction.
01
Session Keys: User Experience
Gasless & frictionless interactions: Users pre-approve a set of rules (e.g., max spend, contract, time), enabling seamless multi-step actions like gaming sessions or DeFi swaps without repeated wallet pop-ups. This matters for high-frequency dApps like Hyperliquid (perps) or games like Pixels.
02
Session Keys: Protocol Control
Native to smart accounts: Implemented via ERC-4337 or StarkNet's account contracts, keeping logic on-chain. This matters for protocols building custom UX, like enabling 1-click harvest+compound loops in Aave or Uniswap without external dependencies.
03
Transaction Relayers: Flexibility
Paymaster-agnostic sponsorship: Relayers (e.g., OpenGSN, Biconomy, Stackup) can sponsor gas for any user on any supported chain, abstracting away the need for native account support. This matters for dApps needing rapid deployment across EVM chains without modifying core contract logic.
04
Transaction Relayers: Cost & Scale
Off-chain efficiency: Meta-transaction processing and batching can reduce on-chain gas costs by 15-40% for large user bases. This matters for mass-market applications with cost-sensitive users, where predictable subsidization via services like Candide or Etherspot is critical.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Session Keys vs. Transaction Relayers
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for user operation abstraction.
| Metric / Feature | Session Keys | Transaction Relayers |
|---|---|---|
User Experience (UX) | Gasless, 1-click for multiple actions | Gasless, but may require per-dApp approval |
Cost Model | Pre-paid by user (via session key deposit) | Sponsored by dApp or third-party (paymaster) |
Security Model | User-defined time/scope limits, key revocation | Relayer reputation, paymaster policy rules |
Native Support in AA Wallets | ||
Typical Use Case | Gaming sessions, DeFi yield harvesting | Onboarding, free trial transactions |
Implementation Complexity | High (smart contract sessions) | Medium (ERC-4337 paymaster flows) |
Protocol Examples | ERC-7579, Biconomy, ZeroDev | ERC-4337, Pimlico, Alchemy |
pros-cons-a
INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARISON
Session Keys vs. Transaction Relayers
Key architectural trade-offs for user experience and security. Choose based on your application's tolerance for trust and complexity.
01
Session Keys: Superior UX
Gasless, multi-transaction sessions: Users sign once for a time-bound session, enabling seamless interactions like gaming moves or DeFi batch operations. This eliminates per-action wallet pop-ups, critical for high-frequency dApps like StarHeroes or Parallel. Reduces friction by ~90% for power users.
02
Session Keys: Protocol-Level Security
Native to the chain's consensus: Implemented via smart contracts or pallets (e.g., ERC-4337, Substrate pallet-session-keys). Security is bounded by the underlying blockchain's validity rules, offering deterministic, non-custodial guarantees. Ideal for high-value DeFi protocols like Aave or dYdX.
03
Transaction Relayers: Extreme Flexibility
Chain-agnostic and non-invasive: Relayers (e.g., Gelato Network, Biconomy, OpenZeppelin Defender) can sponsor gas on any EVM chain and execute arbitrary logic via meta-transactions. This allows rapid prototyping and integration without modifying core contracts, perfect for early-stage projects or cross-chain applications.
04
Transaction Relayers: Operational Simplicity
Offloads key management & fee logic: The relayer service handles gas fee payment, nonce management, and transaction broadcasting. This reduces smart contract complexity and devops overhead. Use cases include NFT mints for non-crypto-native audiences or simple subscription payments, as seen with Unlock Protocol.
05
Session Keys: Implementation Complexity
High development & audit burden: Requires custom smart contract logic for session validation, revocation, and key rotation. Introduces new attack vectors (e.g., session hijacking). Audit costs can exceed $50K+. Not suitable for teams without deep protocol expertise.
06
Transaction Relayers: Trust & Centralization
Introduces a trusted third party: The relayer can censor, delay, or front-run transactions. Users must trust its availability and integrity. For protocols valuing maximal decentralization (e.g., Lido, MakerDAO), this is often an unacceptable trade-off, creating a central point of failure.
pros-cons-b
SESSION KEYS VS. TRANSACTION RELAYERS
Transaction Relayers: Pros and Cons
Key architectural trade-offs for user experience and security in account abstraction.
01
Session Keys: User Experience
Seamless, gasless interactions: Users sign a single permission, enabling multiple transactions (e.g., in a game or DEX session) without repeated confirmations or holding gas tokens. This matters for high-frequency dApps like gaming (e.g., Starknet's Dojo) or DeFi aggregators where UX is critical.
0
User TX Confirms per Session
03
Transaction Relayers: Developer Flexibility
Protocol-agnostic sponsorship: Relayers (e.g., Biconomy, Stackup, Pimlico) can pay gas for users on any EVM chain, abstracting gas logic into middleware. This matters for multi-chain dApps or teams needing to quickly implement gas sponsorship without deep protocol changes.
10+
Supported EVM Chains
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
Session Keys for Mass Adoption
Verdict: The clear winner for frictionless UX.
Strengths: Eliminates wallet pop-ups for pre-authorized actions, enabling seamless experiences for social apps, gaming, and subscription services. Users sign once for a session (e.g., 24 hours), enabling unlimited gasless transactions within defined rules. This is critical for onboarding non-crypto natives. Protocols like Starknet (with @argent/sessions) and zkSync are pioneering this pattern.
Transaction Relayers for Mass Adoption
Verdict: A pragmatic, immediate solution. Strengths: Allows any user to transact without holding the native token for gas fees, as a third-party (relayer) pays and is reimbursed. This is implemented via EIP-2771 (MetaTransactions) and services like Biconomy and Gelato. It's easier to implement than session keys but requires ongoing subsidy management and introduces a trusted relayer dependency.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between session keys and transaction relayers is a strategic decision between user experience and architectural simplicity.
Session Keys excel at delivering a seamless, gasless user experience for high-frequency, low-value interactions. By pre-authorizing a set of actions within a defined session, they eliminate the need for repeated wallet pop-ups and transaction signing. For example, in gaming or social dApps like Biconomy's Hyphen or OpenSea's Seaport, this can reduce user friction and increase engagement metrics by over 40%, as seen in protocols like Starknet's Dojo where session keys enable uninterrupted gameplay.
Transaction Relayers take a different approach by abstracting gas fees and transaction submission to a third-party service. This results in a simpler integration path for developers, as seen with Gelato Network and OpenZeppelin Defender, but introduces a dependency on the relayer's uptime and economic model. The trade-off is a potential centralization point and variable operational costs, whereas session keys keep logic on-chain but require more complex smart contract development and key management.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing user retention and session-based engagement (e.g., gaming, social feeds, DeFi yield harvesting), choose Session Keys. They are the definitive choice for protocols like dYdX (v3) or Argent X wallet. If you prioritize rapid prototyping, broad compatibility, and fee abstraction for one-off transactions (e.g., NFT mints, cross-chain bridges), choose Transaction Relayers. Services like Etherspot's Skandha or Stackup's Bundler provide immediate gasless capabilities without custom session logic.
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