The current Layer 1 market is booming, with various public chains competing fiercely on TPS—everyone wants higher numbers. But here’s the problem: this kind of "land grab" competition is somewhat off track. The real bottleneck preventing large-scale Web3 applications boils down to two words: experience and cost.



Think about it—if payment applications are to scale massively, they must be seamless for ordinary users. But now? Gas fees are unstable, and block confirmations can take ages. With this kind of experience, users are forced to ponder for a long time just to buy a coffee on-chain—this is definitely not acceptable.

A new idea is starting to emerge: instead of getting caught up in an arms race of throughput, why not fundamentally address the real pain points of users? In the payment and DeFi infrastructure tracks, some projects are indeed trying a different approach. Combining zero Gas fees with instant finality sounds like a "dimensionality reduction" attack on traditional public chain models.

Why is this approach so attractive? The core reason lies in the essence of payments—users simply don’t care how complex your backend is; they only care about two things: can it confirm quickly, and is the fee acceptable?

First, regarding zero Gas fees. Imagine the logic of Web2 payments: when users use Visa or Alipay, they don’t feel the transaction fee at all—because merchants or platforms have already bundled and handled it. New public chains are also trying to replicate this experience, allowing users to complete transactions without holding native tokens. It’s like bringing the proven Web2 payment logic onto the blockchain.

Next, consider instant finality. What does a long block confirmation time mean? It means waiting. The most disliked thing in payment scenarios is waiting. If confirmation times can be reduced to seconds, the experience changes completely.

This approach not only patches up existing public chain architectures but also fundamentally redefines the underlying mechanism of value transfer. Instead of obsessing over TPS numbers, it starts from actual application needs and back-engineers the technology design—this is a pragmatic direction.

In the upcoming bull market, those who can truly solve user pain points will have the chance to stand out. The payment and DeFi infrastructure tracks are definitely worth paying attention to.
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.
  • Reward
  • 10
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
LiquidationWatchervip
· 22h ago
Got it, another round of mindless competition of "My TPS is bigger than yours." The real issue isn't even here. Honestly, zero Gas fees are a bit idealistic. The beauty of decentralization always falls short in reality. I believe that second-level confirmation is indeed satisfying. But who will bear the cost? That's a real problem. Changing the architecture to solve user pain points? I doubt it; fundamentally, users still don't trust the chain and this set of things. Payments track is indeed hot, but how many projects can actually run through it… Let's see how many there are. Sounds good, but how do these "new ideas" prove to be more stable than existing solutions? Basically, it's doing the same thing from a different perspective. Can it truly change the landscape?
View OriginalReply0
FunGibleTomvip
· 23h ago
That's right, TPS numbers in gaming are really meaningless. Users don't care how high your throughput is; they just want fast and cheap, that's all.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationHuntervip
· 23h ago
To be honest, the TPS arms race should have stopped a long time ago. It's indeed ridiculous to compare numbers every day now. The on-chain coffee analogy is brilliant; Gas fees cause a surge of users, but they simply can't handle it. Zero Gas is indeed attractive, but the question is, who will pay the bill? Can the platform really bear it in the long run? Second-level confirmation sounds great, but what about security? This part wasn't explained clearly. The payment track is indeed easy to break out of the circle, but it's also easy to fall into traps. It depends on the project's real data.
View OriginalReply0
SerumDegenvip
· 01-20 03:59
ngl the TPS arms race is just copium at this point... users don't care about your throughput metrics lmao, they care about not getting rekt by gas spikes. zero fee + instant finality is literally just web2 payment UX copied over to chain. finally someone said it.
Reply0
GasGrillMastervip
· 01-20 03:58
That's right, TPS numbers are meaningless in the game of numbers; we should focus on the user experience itself. --- Regarding zero gas fees, I have to say, there aren't many truly useful solutions out there. Don't be fooled. --- The coffee example was brilliant; nowadays, no one really wants to go through that hassle. --- Instant finality sounds good, but it depends on who can actually achieve it, not just on promises on paper. --- Instead of competing over throughput, I prefer to compete over cost; I believe this shift is promising. --- The infrastructure for payments definitely needs serious work, but not just a bunch of empty talk. --- The idea of working backwards from application needs to technology should have been considered long ago. --- The projects that survive the next cycle will definitely be those that solve real pain points.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropChaservip
· 01-20 03:57
That's right, TPS internal competition is really pointless; we should think more about user experience. Forget it, it's another story of zero gas fees. I've heard this explanation at least ten times. Honestly, instant confirmation in payment scenarios is really attractive, but the technical implementation isn't that simple. Moving Web2 payment logic onto the blockchain? Dream on, or are there really people who can do it? Let's wait until the bull market comes to see who survives. It's too early to say anything now. This idea indeed breaks the traditional thinking of public blockchains, I respect that. Zero gas fees sound great, but I'm worried it might just be another new trick to scam users.
View OriginalReply0
ser_we_are_earlyvip
· 01-20 03:52
Makes sense, TPS competition is really pointless. The key is to make it easy for beginners to use—just confirm the gas fee instantly, and that's all that matters; everything else is superficial.
View OriginalReply0
DegenApeSurfervip
· 01-20 03:44
That’s really impressive. The TPS arms race is really just a pointless scramble; users simply don’t buy into it.
View OriginalReply0
FromMinerToFarmervip
· 01-20 03:44
That's right, constantly competing over TPS doesn't mean much, and users can't really notice the difference. The key is to be user-friendly and affordable—that's the true way to succeed.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeGazervip
· 01-20 03:31
That's right, even if TPS is high, user experience still sucks. I just can't understand why everyone is so obsessed with the numbers. Wait, can zero Gas fee really be achieved? It still feels like someone has to pay the bill. This line of thinking is indeed clear-headed. Finally, someone dares to tell the truth.
View OriginalReply0
View More
  • Hot Gate Fun

    View More
  • MC:$3.43KHolders:1
    0.00%
  • MC:$3.43KHolders:1
    0.00%
  • MC:$3.43KHolders:1
    0.00%
  • MC:$3.42KHolders:1
    0.00%
  • MC:$3.42KHolders:1
    0.00%
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)