Foreign media commentators believe that "fee-free transfers" of stablecoins do not mean the disappearance of costs, but rather that the costs are shifted from the user to other entities. Recently, Stable, Plasma, Sui, BNB Chain, and some Tron wallets have launched gas-free or proxy payment solutions, pushing stablecoin payments towards an experience closer to traditional transfers.

The cost has not disappeared

The article points out that on-chain transactions still consume the computing power, bandwidth, and staking resources of validators. Users not paying gas simply means that someone else bears the cost. Besides the source of subsidies, another equally important issue is how the network allocates block space during periods of congestion.

In free mode, blockchains typically set non-price limits, such as waiving fees only for simple stablecoin transfers, not covering contract calls, setting account frequency limits, or distributing daily subsidies through wallets. Sui's approach is more direct: when the network is congested, paid transactions are prioritized, and free transactions are put on hold later.

Five ways of undertaking

The article categorizes existing models into five types, and actual projects may use a combination of these models.

• Token issuance: Using native tokens to compensate validators
• Foundation subsidies: direct payments using treasury or financing funds.
• On-chain cross-subsidization: Costs covered by other paid services.

In addition, two other common practices exist: the stablecoin issuer or payment service bears the cost, treating free transfers as customer acquisition costs; or merchants, wallets, and applications pay the on-chain fees. The article argues that these models each have weaknesses, facing issues such as inflationary pressures, the end of subsidies, or insufficient scale of paid services.

Sponsorship models are more realistic

The article specifically mentions that a more realistic path for stablecoin networks at present is for sponsors with external revenue to cover the costs. Taking USDT as an example, Tether's large-scale reserve assets generate returns, so some fee-free transfers can be seen as marketing and user acquisition costs, rather than simple subsidies.

Following this logic, whether free transfers can exist in the long term depends not only on the technical design but also on whether sponsors continue to regard this service as a strategic investment. Once business objectives change, the free quota, scope of application, and priority may all be adjusted.

Peak-hour experience is even more crucial

The article argues that judging the stability of a blockchain's fee-free scheme cannot solely rely on whether users incur zero costs. Two other factors must be considered: first, who ultimately compensates validators; and second, whether free transactions are significantly downgraded during peak periods.

For merchants and payment scenarios, the appeal of a free trial diminishes if the network extends confirmation times during periods of high transaction volume. Therefore, the competition in stablecoin payments will go beyond simply offering gas-free options; it will also involve assessing the sustainability of subsidy sources and the clarity of congestion handling mechanisms.