[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":19},["ShallowReactive",2],{"blog-content-en-pay-evm-gas-from-one-bsc-balance":3},{"slug":4,"title":5,"excerpt":6,"description":7,"bodyHtml":8,"faqItems":9},"pay-evm-gas-from-one-bsc-balance","One BSC Balance, Six EVM Networks: Paying Gas Without the Native Token","A wallet holding only ATS on BNB Chain can transact on Arbitrum, Base or Polygon without a single unit of native currency there. No bridge, no wrapping, no \"buy ETH first\" detour. Here is the settlement mechanism behind it, and why every fee lands back on BSC.","How an ERC-4337 paymaster lets a wallet with zero native balance transact on Arbitrum, Base and Polygon while the fee is debited from one ATS balance on BSC.","\u003Ch2>Gas has always been a per-network problem\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>Every blockchain prices computation and block space in its own native coin, and it will not take anything else. Ethereum wants ETH. Polygon wants POL. Arbitrum and Base want ETH on their own networks, which is not the same balance as the ETH sitting on Ethereum mainnet. The practical result is familiar to anyone who has used more than one chain: you hold the asset you actually care about, you go to move it, and the wallet stops you because the gas balance on that particular network is empty.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The usual fix is a chore. Buy the native coin on an exchange, withdraw it to the right network, wait for it to land, then finally sign the transaction you wanted to sign twenty minutes ago. Bridging is the other route, and it adds its own bridge risk and its own wait. Either way the friction is not the fee itself. It is the requirement to pre-fund a separate balance on every network before you are allowed to do anything.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>What changes: one balance, several networks\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>The single-fee-token model removes the pre-funding step. A wallet holding nothing but ATS on BNB Chain can sign a transaction on Arbitrum, Base or Polygon with no native currency on those networks at all. The fee is debited from that one ATS balance on BSC. There is no bridge in the flow, no wrapped representation of the token, and no moment where the user has to go acquire something before proceeding.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>From the user side it is one signature in the wallet they already use. The same flow runs in the Chrome extension and the mobile app, because the fee logic sits underneath all three rather than inside one of them.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>The mechanism: an ERC-4337 paymaster\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>The piece doing the work is a paymaster, a component of the ERC-4337 account abstraction standard. A paymaster is a contract that agrees to pay a transaction's native gas on the user's behalf, under whatever condition it chooses to enforce. Here the condition is an ATS balance.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The sequence is short. The user signs. The system prices the transaction's native gas on the target network and charges the equivalent in ATS against the BSC balance. The paymaster then covers the actual gas in the network's own coin, and the transaction executes on the target network like any other. The network is paid in full, in the currency it demanded, by someone other than the user. For the mechanics of that layer, see \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fblog\u002Fwhat-is-a-paymaster\">what a paymaster is\u003C\u002Fa> and the broader idea of \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fblog\u002Fwhat-is-gas-abstraction\">gas abstraction\u003C\u002Fa>.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Why the balance stays on BSC\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>ATS is native to BNB Chain, and that is where the accounting happens. There is no per-network ATS balance to top up and no bridging step in which the user moves ATS somewhere else. Whichever EVM network the transaction executes on, the debit is written against the same balance on BSC.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This is worth stating plainly because it is the part most often misread. The user is not spreading a token across chains. They are holding one balance in one place, and that balance settles activity that happens elsewhere.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>What the model is not\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>It is not a discount. The network still charges its real cost and still gets paid it. What changes is which token the user has to be holding, not what the transaction costs. Anyone promising cheaper blockspace is describing something else.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>It is also not a bridge. Nothing is locked, minted or wrapped, and the user never receives a representation of ATS on another network. The token stays where it started.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>The scope: EVM networks\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>The single-fee-token model applies on the EVM side, across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon and BNB Chain. That boundary is a real one and worth being exact about.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Solana and TON are fully supported chains in the same wallet, with the same swap, send and staking surface. They sit outside this fee model: transactions there pay their own native fees, SOL and Toncoin. A wallet that told you otherwise would be describing a mechanism that does not exist, since the paymaster contract standard this depends on is an EVM one.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Why this puts BNB Chain at the center\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>Most attempts to smooth over multi-chain friction move the user somewhere else. A bridge, by design, takes value off one network and puts it on another, and the network the user leaves loses the balance and the activity.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Settlement in one place inverts that. The user transacts on Arbitrum or Base, but the balance never leaves BNB Chain and the fee volume is written there. The other EVM networks become places the user can reach from a BSC position rather than destinations they migrate to. For an ecosystem, the difference between those two shapes is the difference between leaking users and accumulating them.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>How WATS uses this\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>In WATS, ATS is the single fee token on the supported EVM networks, and the balance that pays for it lives on BSC. The wallet stays non-custodial throughout: the user signs every transaction with their own key, and the paymaster only pays gas, never moves funds. The full fee mechanics, including the burn schedule, are set out on the \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fats-fee\">ATS fee page\u003C\u002Fa> and in \u003Ca href=\"\u002Fblog\u002Fats-fee-model-explained\">the ATS fee model explained\u003C\u002Fa>.\u003C\u002Fp>",[10,13,16],{"q":11,"a":12},"Can I really transact on Arbitrum with no ETH on Arbitrum?","Yes, on the supported EVM networks. The ERC-4337 paymaster pays the native gas for you and charges the equivalent in ATS against your balance on BNB Chain, so an empty native balance on the target network does not block the transaction.",{"q":14,"a":15},"Do I have to bridge ATS to the network I am using?","No. ATS stays on BNB Chain. There is no per-network ATS balance and no bridging step — whichever EVM network you transact on, the fee is debited from that one BSC balance.",{"q":17,"a":18},"Does this make transactions cheaper?","No. It is not a discount. The network charges its real cost and is paid in full in its own native coin. What changes is which token you have to hold in order to transact, not the price of the transaction.",1789075079781]