GLT Protocol: Retaining Web2 Users on Arbitrum via Stablecoin Gas Payment and Automated Off-Peak Scheduling

General
,
1

Summary

Forcing a Web2 user to set up a centralized exchange account, complete identity verification, buy volatile ETH, and bridge it to an L2 just to pay a $0.05 network fee is a bad product experience. It kills retail onboarding. We routinely see a 60% drop-off rate when users hit the funding phase. They want to transact with their stablecoins, not manage fractional gas balances.

The GasLess Token (GLT) Protocol solves this natively on Arbitrum using standard ERC-4337 infrastructure. Our custom Paymaster acts as an on-chain translation layer. When a user triggers a transaction, the Paymaster intercepts the execution loop, checks the user’s wallet for USDC, USDT, or GLT, collects the precise equivalent fee, and handles the ETH settlement with the Bundler in the background. The end-user never needs to hold native ETH.

To accelerate adoption, users who settle fees in our utility token (GLT) receive an automated 10% gas rebate. This cashback is completely self-sustaining. It uses a nominal 0.01% protocol fee-spread combined with Arbitrum’s native developer sequencer rewards. We do not use inflationary token emissions or founder subsidies to fund this.

We are also introducing an optimization feature: Dynamic Gas-Route Scheduling. Network congestion causes unpredictable gas spikes. If a user is executing a non-urgent transaction—like a governance vote or claiming long-term staking rewards—they can toggle a “Schedule at Low-Gas” parameter. The GLT Paymaster holds the UserOperation in an on-chain queue and automatically pushes it to the Arbitrum sequencer the moment network base fees hit target off-peak lows. This single mechanism cuts network costs for everyday users by up to 70%.

We are building practical infrastructure to turn Arbitrum into the most accessible layer for consumer applications.

2 Likes
2

Appreciate the focus on UX and fully agree that asking a new user to KYC, buy volatile ETH and bridge just to pay a few cents in gas is a huge drop‑off driver.

At the same time, I’m a bit worried about the long‑term effect of completely abstracting ETH away from the user journey. ETH is not just a “gas token”, it is a core part of the security and economic backbone of the ecosystem.

A few questions from that angle:

  • In your proposed UX, does the user ever explicitly see or learn about ETH’s role in securing the chain, or is it fully invisible behind the Paymaster and stablecoin flow?

  • Do you plan any optional paths where more advanced users can “graduate” to paying in ETH, or receive education around why ETH matters beyond just gas payments?

  • If a growing share of activity on Arbitrum happens via stablecoin‑only gas flows, how do you think about the long‑term alignment between protocol value accrual (ETH, ARB) and user behaviour that is increasingly denominated in stablecoins?

Personally, I like the direction on reducing friction, but I’d be more comfortable if there is a clear plan to keep ETH’s role visible and understandable to users, instead of turning it into a completely hidden settlement asset.

@GaslessTokenGLT

3

@GaslessTokenGLT
Your opinion seems to favor usability over purity, that’s fair but the trade off is trust, web2 users don’t think about scheduling or gas, if the protocol fails to deliver on its promise quietly, they won’t complain they’ll just leave.

Advantage: it lowers the biggest barrier for web2 users, which is the mental friction of gas fees and timing, stablecoin payment feels familiar off peak scheduling removes the anxiety of overpaying during congestion, That’s smart onboarding.

disadvantage: centralization risk in the scheduling layer, if the protocol decides when transactions go through, users lose some autonomy, also relying on a token for the rebate creates an incentive to hold GLT, which could lead to speculative behavior rather than genuine usage, the rebate becomes a marketing tool, not a utility.

Keeping eth visible but not burdensome is the sweet spot. users should know what they’re using without having to care about how it works, show the gas in usd equivalent, let them pay in atablecoins, but let them see the eth equivalent too, transparency builds trust without adding friction.

The danger is making eth invisible, that’s how users end up surprised later, a simple toggle or footnote that says ( this transaction uses x eth valued at y usd)

4

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, @MconnectDAO! As the founder of GLT, I completely agree with your perspective. Balancing a friction-free Web2-like UX with deep ecosystem alignment and user education is one of our core design pillars. We definitely don’t want to treat ETH as just a hidden settlement asset.

Here is how we are tackling this from a product, philosophical, and ecosystem alignment level:

1. Making ETH’s Role Explicit (Not Invisible):
While we abstract away the complexity of buying and holding ETH for a newcomer, we don’t hide its security role. In our wallet/SDK interface, the confirmation and receipt screens will explicitly show a breakdown—something like: “Network Fee: $0.05 USDC (Settled in ETH via GLT Paymaster).” This keeps the economic reality of the ecosystem visible to the user from day one.

2. The “Graduation” Path & Education:
We view stablecoins as the gateway, not the final destination. We are designing an ‘Advanced Mode’ toggle in our settings where users can switch to paying gas in native ETH once they are comfortable with Web3. Additionally, inside the gas selection UI, we will include educational tooltips explaining why ETH is vital for securing the network.

3. Long-Term Value Accrual (ETH & ARB):
It’s important to note that GLT doesn’t reduce ETH demand—it automates and aggregates it. Every single stablecoin transaction processed by our Paymaster is ultimately converted and settled on-chain using native ETH. By lowering the onboarding barrier, we bring in the 60% of retail users currently dropping off, which significantly increases overall ETH gas consumption on Arbitrum.

Next Steps & Funding Alignment:
We are currently finalizing our MVP and preparing a formal grant/funding proposal for the Arbitrum DAO. Our financial model is designed to be completely self-sustaining via the 0.01% fee-spread and sequencer rewards, meaning we won’t need perpetual ecosystem subsidies. However, initial funding will directly accelerate our smart contract audits and integration support for Arbitrum-native dApps.

1 Like
5

The “Advanced Mode” toggle sounds promising.

At what point in the user journey do you expect most users to see this option (e.g. after N transactions, time-based, or fully manual)?

Will you share any on‑chain or anonymized stats with the DAO on how many users actually migrate to native ETH gas over time…?

Are there any constraints where certain flows (e.g. power users, DeFi-native flows) default to ETH to keep incentives clearly aligned with ETH/ARB value accrual…?