# ERC-7677: Paymaster Gas Sponsorship

Source: https://www.eipsfordesigners.com/standards/ERC-7677
Agent brief: https://www.eipsfordesigners.com/standards/ERC-7677/agent.md
Machine-readable JSON: https://www.eipsfordesigners.com/api/standards/ERC-7677
Last reviewed: 2026-05-25
Last updated: 2026-05-25

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Status | Draft |
| Chain | both |
| Category | Transaction Friction |
| Journey stages | Executing Transactions, Gas & Fees |
| Detailed guide | Yes |
| Official specification | https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/erc-7677 |
| Discussion search | https://ethereum-magicians.org/search?q=ERC-7677 |

## UX Impact

Defines the standard interface for paymasters that let dApps cover gas fees — users experience 'no gas needed' onboarding. Design implications: detect empty wallets and offer gas sponsorship automatically, show clear indication when a transaction is sponsored vs user-paid, design paymaster selection if multiple are available, handle paymaster failures gracefully with fallback to user-paid. Design decisions: whether to show the sponsorship source (dApp, protocol), how to communicate the gas sponsorship model to users, fallback UX when paymaster rejects a transaction. Critical priority for gas UX — 'Detect empty wallets, offer gas sponsorship — new users transact immediately.' Modern replacement for ERC-2771 meta-transaction patterns.

## Summary

Defines the standard interface for paymasters that let dApps cover gas fees — users experience 'no gas needed' onboarding.

## For Designers

- You can detect zero-balance wallets and offer sponsored gas automatically.
- Your fee row can clearly distinguish sponsored vs user-paid transactions.
- You can design fallback paths when paymaster quotes fail.

## Applicability

### When to Use

- Onboarding users who lack native token for gas.
- You operate ERC-4337 smart accounts with paymaster support.
- Gas sponsorship is a core growth lever for your product.

### When to Avoid

- Users always hold enough native token and prefer self-pay.
- No paymaster infrastructure exists on your target chain.
- Regulatory constraints forbid third-party fee payment.

## Problems It Solves

### Inconsistent behavior across apps

Impact: high

Old way: Each team reinvents copy and edge cases

New way: Shared standard gives predictable UX patterns

### Users surprised by on-chain rules

Impact: high

Old way: Generic transfer UI fails at submit time

New way: Standard-aware UI sets expectations upfront

### Support burden from opaque errors

Impact: medium

Old way: Raw revert reasons in toasts

New way: Mapped states explain what to do next

## Anti-Patterns

### Hiding standard-imposed restrictions until submit

Severity: critical

Users feel tricked when actions fail at the last step

Instead: Show eligibility and badges before the primary CTA

### Protocol jargon in user-facing copy

Severity: high

Non-technical users cannot consent informedly

Instead: Use outcome language with optional technical disclosure

### No fallback when wallet lacks support

Severity: high

Dead-end flows increase churn

Instead: Explain limitation and offer alternate path or network

## Design Decisions

### How much protocol detail do users see?

Recommendation: Lead with outcomes; tuck identifiers behind review.

Rationale: Users decide on consequences, not function selectors.

### What happens when support is missing?

Recommendation: Block with explanation and fallback path.

Rationale: Silent failure feels like a broken product.

### How do you label restricted assets?

Recommendation: Use persistent badges for non-transferable, locked, or expiring states.

Rationale: Hidden restrictions cause rage-quits at transfer time.

## States to Design

### Ready

Trigger: Prerequisites met.

User need: Understand what happens next.

Design response: Enable primary action with plain-language preview.

### Awaiting signature

Trigger: Wallet prompt open.

User need: Know what they are approving.

Design response: Mirror human-readable summary in app and wallet.

### Pending

Trigger: Transaction submitted.

User need: Confidence it is progressing.

Design response: Show status strip with explorer link.

### Succeeded

Trigger: On-chain confirmation.

User need: See updated ownership or balance.

Design response: Celebrate outcome and show new state clearly.

### Failed or reverted

Trigger: Validation or execution failed.

User need: Fix or retry without guessing.

Design response: Name the failed constraint and offer a concrete next step.

## Vocabulary

- Use "Your balance / Your item" instead of "Token ID / Token contract": Ownership language matches mental models.

- Use "Cannot transfer yet" instead of "Transfer reverted": Explain restriction without EVM vocabulary.

- Use "Confirm in wallet" instead of "Sign transaction": Matches wallet UX users already know.

## What to Prototype First

### Primary happy path

Prove the core user promise before edge cases.

Covers: Success state, Clear outcome copy

- Primary CTA
- Confirmation feedback
- Next step

### Blocked or unsupported state

Users discover limits when wallets or chains lack support.

Covers: Unsupported wallet, Wrong network

- Plain-language reason
- Fallback action

### Failure recovery

Trust breaks when errors look like bugs.

Covers: User rejection, Transaction revert

- Retry path
- Support context

### Advanced disclosure

Power users need technical detail without cluttering the default path.

Covers: Contract address, Token ID, Raw status

- Expandable section
- Copy buttons
- Explorer link

## Mental Model

### User operation

The smart account builds an action the user wants. Gas cost would normally require native token in the wallet.

### Paymaster quote

A paymaster contract quotes whether it will sponsor the fee or accept payment in another token.

### Sponsorship decision

Your fee row shows Sponsored, pay-with-token, or user-paid gas. Each path needs distinct copy and fallback.

### EntryPoint validation

The bundler submits the op only if account and paymaster rules pass. Quote failures belong in product UI before sign.

### User-visible outcome

Success should confirm who paid and whether sponsorship continues on the next action.

## Seen in the Wild

- Biconomy: Paymaster infrastructure powers gasless onboarding patterns. (https://www.biconomy.io/)

- Pimlico: Bundler and paymaster services set expectations for sponsorship UX. (https://pimlico.io/)

- Coinbase Smart Wallet: Sponsored transactions for new users on supported networks. (https://www.coinbase.com/wallet/smart-wallet)

## On Monad

### Confirmation speed

Ethereum: Multi-step flows can feel slow between signatures

Monad: Sub-second finality tightens feedback loops

Design implication: Prefer inline status over long pending modals on Monad.

### Transaction cost

Ethereum: Gas can discourage exploratory actions

Monad: Lower fees enable lighter-weight interactions

Design implication: Safe to offer preview retries and social actions more freely.

## UX Patterns

### Sponsored Fee Row

Clear label when gas is covered by the app.

Components: FeeRow, SponsoredBadge

User flow:

- User initiates action
- Paymaster quotes
- UI shows Sponsored
- User confirms without gas token

Mockup registry key: `erc-4337/gas-abstraction` (React UI on the live standard page).

### Paymaster Fallback

Graceful switch when sponsorship unavailable.

Components: FallbackSelector, ReasonBanner

User flow:

- Paymaster rejects
- UI explains why
- Offers user-paid or alternate token
- User continues or cancels

Mockup registry key: `erc-4337/gas-abstraction` (React UI on the live standard page).

## Related Standards

- ERC-4337: Paymasters attach to UserOperations

- ERC-2771: Legacy meta-transaction pattern being replaced

## Technical Notes

ERC-7677 defines paymaster interface for gas sponsorship in account abstraction flows.