I agree that subsidized or near-zero fees can be a strong short-term lever to accelerate adoption and compete with other L2s.

At the same time, competing on value rather than price feels more sustainable over the long run. The longer-term opportunity might be to use StableLane not only to move stablecoins cheaply, but to add an optional layer of legitimacy and trust at execution time.

If stablecoin payments become a dedicated fast-lane for commerce, the same transaction could optionally write a minimal, privacy-preserving proof of authenticity and ownership transfer alongside the payment. This would be particularly valuable for real-world commerce, secondary markets, warranties, and anti-counterfeit use cases.

Importantly, this does not conflict with decentralization or privacy. Supporting privacy-by-default while offering optional tools to verify authenticity and ownership can help address piracy and fraud without imposing KYC or centralized control.

Curious whether others see StableLane evolving beyond price competition into a foundation for legitimacy-aware, on-chain commerce on Arbitrum.

I agree that subsidized or near-zero fees can be a strong short-term lever to accelerate adoption and compete with other L2s.

At the same time, competing on value rather than price feels more sustainable over the long run. The longer-term opportunity might be to use StableLane not only to move stablecoins cheaply, but to add an optional layer of legitimacy and trust at execution time.

If stablecoin payments become a dedicated fast-lane for commerce, the same transaction could optionally write a minimal, privacy-preserving proof of authenticity and ownership transfer alongside the payment. This would be particularly valuable for real-world commerce, secondary markets, warranties, and anti-counterfeit use cases.

Importantly, this does not conflict with decentralization or privacy. Supporting privacy-by-default while offering optional tools to verify authenticity and ownership can help address piracy and fraud without imposing KYC or centralized control.

Curious whether others see StableLane evolving beyond price competition into a foundation for legitimacy-aware, on-chain commerce on Arbitrum.

Thank you for the time and effort you’ve put into this proposal.

Offchain Labs is actively evaluating a couple of approaches to increase throughput for payment-oriented transaction patterns, including using payments-specific execution paths. This work is still in the research phase and is separate from any of our previous public proposals.

Once we have a formal specification that we feel confident addresses both scalability and security considerations, we will share it with the community and look forward to engaging in further public discussion about the details.

We appreciate you sharing this idea and helping to start a constructive conversation with the community.

Thank you for the time and effort you’ve put into this proposal.

Offchain Labs is actively evaluating a couple of approaches to increase throughput for payment-oriented transaction patterns, including using payments-specific execution paths. This work is still in the research phase and is separate from any of our previous public proposals.

Once we have a formal specification that we feel confident addresses both scalability and security considerations, we will share it with the community and look forward to engaging in further public discussion about the details.

We appreciate you sharing this idea and helping to start a constructive conversation with the community.

Thanks for the proposal! Some thoughts:

• I imagine one of the big feature requests for this will be the ability to pay the fees using the payment-stables (instead of native ETH) since this would bring the UX to parity with competing chains. I think the most feasible way to achieve this would be to launch with some Meta-Tx/Relayer infra in place (the alternative would be to allow fees to be paid “natively” in a stable-currency, but adding in an additional fee-currency to Arbitrum One seems to me to raise a lot of weird and troubling technical questions).
• I’m not sure “fixed gas price” is necessary here, as opposed to simply having a very high (i.e., much higher than the main-lane Arb One) gas limit. This is functionally a “fixed gas price” (the minimum) for the common case, it just means you still get an economical congestion mechanism as when the limit is reached.
• I think it’s also worth considering the alternative of launching a Stable-coin Payment L3 on Arbitrum One as a DAO-governed chain, as this seems to achieve many of the same goals (cheap stable-payments in the Arb ecosystem, offload payment traffic from Arb One, attract projects/liquidity to Arb One) without the technical complexity — i.e, it’s technically feasible today (note that this also allows for native stable payments (at least in one stable)).

(Nitpick / maybe it’s just me, but: I think “similar to Timeboost” isn’t quite the right way to frame this. Reading the title, I was expecting something less ambitious — Timeboost is really just about how tx ordering is handled on a granular, sub-1-second level. “Dedicated Blockspace” or something like that captures it better IMO.)

I agree that this is a good idea and it's a good direction.

But why not 0 gas costs, or as close to 0 as possible? I think we should be even more aggressive. Arbitrum needs to compete with Coinbase, Base, and USDC who practically offer gas free USDC transactions. so I think we should aim to have free stablecoin transactions on Arbitrum, by subsidizing them with the gas from all other transactions, especially now that we doubled the minimum L2 gas fee https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-raise-the-gas-target-min-l2-base-fee-implement-improvements-to-the-pricing-algorithm/30182?u=paulofonseca

i think this would reduce sequencer revenue by a bit, but all other advantages, especially in attracting new liquidity and apps, would be huge.

Thanks for the proposal! Some thoughts:

• I imagine one of the big feature requests for this will be the ability to pay the fees using the payment-stables (instead of native ETH) since this would bring the UX to parity with competing chains. I think the most feasible way to achieve this would be to launch with some Meta-Tx/Relayer infra in place (the alternative would be to allow fees to be paid “natively” in a stable-currency, but adding in an additional fee-currency to Arbitrum One seems to me to raise a lot of weird and troubling technical questions).
• I’m not sure “fixed gas price” is necessary here, as opposed to simply having a very high (i.e., much higher than the main-lane Arb One) gas limit. This is functionally a “fixed gas price” (the minimum) for the common case, it just means you still get an economical congestion mechanism as when the limit is reached.
• I think it’s also worth considering the alternative of launching a Stable-coin Payment L3 on Arbitrum One as a DAO-governed chain, as this seems to achieve many of the same goals (cheap stable-payments in the Arb ecosystem, offload payment traffic from Arb One, attract projects/liquidity to Arb One) without the technical complexity — i.e, it’s technically feasible today (note that this also allows for native stable payments (at least in one stable)).

(Nitpick / maybe it’s just me, but: I think “similar to Timeboost” isn’t quite the right way to frame this. Reading the title, I was expecting something less ambitious — Timeboost is really just about how tx ordering is handled on a granular, sub-1-second level. “Dedicated Blockspace” or something like that captures it better IMO.)

I agree that this is a good idea and it's a good direction.

But why not 0 gas costs, or as close to 0 as possible? I think we should be even more aggressive. Arbitrum needs to compete with Coinbase, Base, and USDC who practically offer gas free USDC transactions. so I think we should aim to have free stablecoin transactions on Arbitrum, by subsidizing them with the gas from all other transactions, especially now that we doubled the minimum L2 gas fee https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/aip-raise-the-gas-target-min-l2-base-fee-implement-improvements-to-the-pricing-algorithm/30182?u=paulofonseca

i think this would reduce sequencer revenue by a bit, but all other advantages, especially in attracting new liquidity and apps, would be huge.