2026-01-15 23:36:09

ETHGas's Open Gas Initiative makes on-chain interactions smoother — it's an interesting idea.

The core concept is clear: encourage various protocols and projects to proactively cover users' gas fees. This way, users can directly experience the product without being deterred by high transaction costs. It sounds simple, but actual implementation requires cooperation from participating protocols.

For protocols looking to improve user experience and lower entry barriers, this is an opportunity. Sponsoring gas fees is essentially an investment in user acquisition — more direct than traditional marketing. Once users get started, their stickiness usually increases.

Protocols interested in participating can take action now. With more initiatives like this, the overall user experience of the ecosystem can be elevated.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SadMoneyMeow

· 01-18 17:25

I was just saying when the gas fees will return to normal, this move is quite clever. If protocols dare to really foot the bill, user experience can indeed take off. Honestly, it still depends on who is willing to pay, a game of capital. As long as the gas problem isn't solved, newcomers will never be able to come in. The sponsorship fee sounds good, but I'm worried it will eventually become a honey trap before cutting the leeks. This logic is just making the protocol the scapegoat, quite interesting. Only when it’s truly implemented does it count; don’t let it be another PPT project. If gas can be saved, who would still play on L1? It should have been played this way a long time ago.

View OriginalReply0

EyeOfTheTokenStorm

· 01-18 07:17

Based on historical data, this subsidy model often performs well in the early stages, but in the long run, it tends to create dependency... When the protocol treasury runs out of funds, user retention rates will plummet dramatically, which is an inevitable pattern of macro cycles.

View OriginalReply0

gas_guzzler

· 01-18 05:35

Haha, with gas fees this high, who can bear it? Finally, someone thought of paying for the users.

View OriginalReply0

NftBankruptcyClub

· 01-17 00:54

Hmm, not bad. Finally, someone is seriously considering users' concerns. Gas fees are indeed a nightmare for most newcomers. Protocols need to be willing to spend money if they truly want to improve; just talking nicely isn't enough.

View OriginalReply0

FlyingLeek

· 01-16 00:06

To be honest, gas fees are indeed a pain point. The idea of project teams covering the costs is quite good. It sounds easy to say but hard to do. How many protocols are truly willing to spend money? If this can be rolled out successfully, it could definitely attract a lot of newcomers to give it a try.

View OriginalReply0

DaoTherapy

· 01-16 00:06

Yes, gas fees have indeed discouraged many newcomers. This approach is quite pragmatic. Basically, the project team pays the costs themselves to increase user stickiness, which seems worthwhile.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-a606bf0c

· 01-16 00:06

Honestly, I quite agree with this idea. Gas fees are really a major deterrent for newcomers. The feeling of being scared away time and time again is really uncomfortable, but now at least I can start playing directly. The key is to see how many projects are truly willing to foot the bill. It seems most will still do the math.

View OriginalReply0

SandwichDetector

· 01-15 23:59

Wow, gas fees can be sponsored? Now new users really have no reason to say they're broke haha --- Honestly, it depends on whether the protocols are willing to spend this money, after all, the benefits come from the users --- The core idea is still to reduce customer acquisition costs, similar to zero-cost entry, but at least someone is paying --- If major protocols follow suit, the ecosystem experience can really improve. The question is, are there that many sponsors? --- Finally, someone thought of giving new users a free pass, much better than those harvesting projects --- Sounds great, but it depends on how many reliable projects will actually participate. Don’t end up just a passing trend

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-cff9c776

· 01-15 23:50

In simple terms, it's about using gas subsidies to attract new users. It sounds very appealing, but ultimately it depends on whether the protocols are willing to put real money on the line. Gas fees are essentially an entry barrier. Now that someone is helping to pay for them, the supply and demand curve instantly changes. This logic is sound. The question is, how many protocols are actually willing to foot the bill for this? Most still just want to free ride on this wave of traffic. If it can be successfully implemented, it perfectly exemplifies the Web3 decentralization spirit—using economic incentives to replace traditional intermediaries, with that authentic vibe. But don't expect gas fees to disappear; that's impossible. At best, it just shifts the cost from users to project teams. Schrödinger's bull market, indeed.

View OriginalReply0