#ETH ETH may use stablecoins to pay Gas, weakening ETH demand?
A post on X recently spread rapidly, claiming that Ethereum's next major upgrade will allow users to pay Gas directly with stablecoins instead of ETH. After seeing the news, many traders immediately formed two extreme views. Some believe ETH's underlying value is collapsing: with Gas no longer tied to ETH, ETH will lose its core demand. Others see it as extremely bullish, believing Ethereum can attract a massive stablecoin user base.
Market data does not lie. The latest DefiLlama data shows that Solana's weekly DEX spot trading volume is $11.49 billion, compared with just $7.62 billion for Ethereum. Solana's spot trading volume has already surpassed that of the Ethereum mainnet. After the meme coin market boom, new retail users, projects, and capital have continued moving to Solana, BNB Chain, and Base.
ETH's market capitalization has stagnated for a long time, while the foundation continues selling ETH at market highs, amplifying selling pressure each time. Everyone must now face one question: competition among public chains has entered a phase of fighting over existing market share. The BNB, Solana, and Base ecosystems continue to grow rapidly, and users are becoming accustomed to low-cost, fast-confirmation, low-barrier on-chain interactions. Ethereum mainnet fees are high, the operational barrier is complex, upgrades take a long time to implement, and the foundation frequently reduces its ETH holdings.
Is Ethereum's launch of stablecoin Gas payments a means of self-rescue, or a forced compromise of its underlying rules? Will ETH gradually lose the value logic of a native token? Is Ethereum truly the underlying infrastructure of the sector, or an aging public chain being left behind by the times? Based on the latest on-chain data and proposal information, this article breaks down all the facts and lists the benefits and risks, without providing any investment advice.
I. Breaking Down the Truth: Paying Gas with Stablecoins Is Not an Underlying Reform, but Merely a Surface-Level Payment-on-Behalf Function
The information circulating online contains serious misunderstandings. Ethereum community member Leo Lanza corrected the misinformation within an hour of the post gaining traction.
The EIP-8141 proposal, also known as Frame Transactions, is planned for inclusion in the 2027 Hegotá upgrade, and its authors include Vitalik.
There is only one core fact: protocol-level settlement will still be forced to use ETH, and the underlying layer will not accept stablecoins such as USDC as Gas. The stablecoin payment users see is a third-party contract advance-payment model enabled by account abstraction. A wallet or service provider first advances ETH to the network, while the user pays the provider in USDC to settle the transaction. Underlying accounting, fee burning, and staking security mechanisms all remain unchanged. Based on this technical fact, the benefits of this upgrade can be summarized as follows, all of which are objective and achievable changes.
1 Lowering the barrier for new users. Many users' wallets contain only stablecoins, and having to buy a small amount of ETH for a single transfer is the biggest obstacle to usage. After the upgrade, users will not need to hold ETH and can complete on-chain operations using only stablecoins, activating a large amount of dormant stablecoin capital.
2 Narrowing the user-experience gap between Ethereum and emerging public chains.
Solana and BNB Chain users only need the native coin to complete all operations, without the barrier of preparing additional assets. This upgrade addresses a long-standing pain point that Ethereum has been criticized for.
3 It will not undermine ETH's underlying value model. Network security relies on ETH staking, and the Gas-burning mechanism remains unchanged. Increased on-chain activity will generate more Gas consumption and indirectly increase demand for ETH.
4 Meeting the needs of institutional users. Institutions hold large amounts of stablecoins and are unwilling to hold additional ETH as a reserve for fees. Stablecoin-funded Gas payments make it easier for institutional capital to conduct business directly on the Ethereum mainnet, expanding Ethereum's institutional customer base. The benefits have clear limits. EIP-8141 is still only a draft, is not scheduled to launch until 2027, and has no substantive short-term implementation. Any short-term market movement is merely sentiment-driven speculation.
II. Cross-Chain Comparison: Emerging Public Chains Are Taking Traffic, and Ethereum Mainnet Is Losing the Retail Market
The latest on-chain transaction data shows that differentiation among public chains has become entrenched.
Solana: Weekly DEX trading volume is higher than that of Ethereum mainnet, with meme trading and high-frequency retail trading almost entirely concentrated on this chain. Transaction confirmations are fast and fees are extremely low, making it suitable for short-term speculation. Daily active addresses continue to rise, and new projects prioritize deployment on Solana. The ecosystem loop is simple: the more on-chain trading there is, the higher SOL consumption and demand become, making the token's value logic clear.
BNB Chain: Relying on exchange traffic, it has enormous daily transaction counts, while small transfers, high-risk token projects, and retail trading volumes remain stable over the long term. It has a large user base and a low learning cost. BNB is tied to exchange revenue and public-chain Gas burning, providing clear value support.
Base: An Ethereum Layer 2 launched by Coinb. L2Beat data shows that Base holds the largest share of Ethereum Layer 2 TVL, and many compliant projects and new stablecoin projects prioritize deployment on Base. Transactions are completed on Layer 2 and rely on Ethereum's underlying security, but the vast majority of transaction traffic is diverted directly and no longer passes through Ethereum mainnet.
Ethereum mainnet: Its TVL remains the industry leader, but the proportion of mainnet transactions continues to decline, with 94% of Ethereum ecosystem transactions having already moved to Layer 2 networks. The mainnet increasingly carries large-value DeFi, RWA, and institutional assets. Retail traffic, meme activity, and new projects no longer prioritize the mainnet.
All emerging public chains follow the same rule: users must use the chain's native token to pay Gas, and the hotter the ecosystem, the stronger the demand for its native token. Ethereum is the only leading public chain planning to allow third parties to pay Gas on behalf of users with stablecoins. This is the root of the market's doubts. Other public chains are strengthening the value capture of their native tokens, while Ethereum is reducing the necessity for users to hold ETH.
III. The Core Question: Why Has Ethereum Chosen This Path? Is It Unable to Survive?
The answer is that Ethereum is not unable to survive. It has actively chosen a sector positioning completely different from Solana and BNB, but this choice comes with significant costs.
Solana, BNB, and Base aim to capture retail traffic, meme activity, and short-term trading, using native tokens to capture transaction value and pursuing short-term ecosystem heat. Ethereum's positioning is as the underlying infrastructure of the industry. The core metrics for infrastructure are not short-term meme popularity, but security, asset-carrying capacity, and institutional compatibility. Ethereum carries the industry's largest amounts of stablecoins, RWA assets, and large-value DeFi capital, while Layer 2 networks across the industry all depend on Ethereum's underlying security. Its core revenue does not come from small retail Gas fees, but from underlying asset custody and security services. If Ethereum follows emerging public chains into the meme sector, it has no advantage. Its underlying architecture cannot match Solana's low-cost, high-frequency trading.
Competing from a differentiated position is the only choice. Stablecoin Gas payments are intended to lower the barrier to using infrastructure, attract institutions and ordinary users, and expand the scale of underlying assets, rather than compete for short-term crypto speculators. However, Ethereum has unavoidable internal flaws, which are also the fundamental reason market confidence continues to weaken. On-chain records show that from July to October 2025, the foundation sold a cumulative 21,000 ETH over three months. In March 2026, the foundation sold another 5,000 ETH over the counter. The foundation explained that the sales were used to pay operating expenses. But when the market is weak, the foundation's continued reduction of ETH holdings at relatively high prices directly amplifies selling pressure and continuously erodes community consensus. Ethereum's upgrade schedule has been repeatedly delayed over the long term. From the Merge to sharding and scaling, the implementation cycles for many technical plans have continued to lengthen, repeatedly disappointing market expectations. The foundation lacks governance transparency, and ordinary community members have no say in major decisions. These internal issues exert stronger downward pressure on ETH's price than competition from external public chains.
IV. Objective Risk Review: All Participants Need to Pay Attention
This article does not provide any investment advice. Everything below is an objective risk analysis.
The benefit realization cycle is too long.
The EIP-8141 proposal is scheduled to launch in 2027, and the proposal could still be modified, delayed, or even canceled. Any short-term market rise is merely news-driven and lacks fundamental support. After the excitement fades, the market will return to its original trend. The foundation's selling risk will persist over the long term. The foundation's treasury holds a large amount of ETH and requires funds each year to maintain development, so continued selling remains possible in the future. Whenever the market stages a small rebound, the foundation's token sales will create selling pressure.
Layer 2 networks continue to divert value from the mainnet.
Trading volume on Layer 2 networks such as Base continues to expand, with the vast majority of transactions completed on Layer 2 and mainnet Gas revenue showing sluggish growth. The total amount of on-chain assets is growing, but ETH's efficiency in capturing value is declining, creating a situation in which the ecosystem prospers while ETH does not rise.
Competitors continue to capture market share.
The meme ecosystems and retail user bases of Solana and BNB will continue to expand. A new generation of public chains is iterating faster and offering better product experiences, and will continue diverting project teams and retail capital. Ethereum will find it difficult to reclaim the retail trading market.
This upgrade cannot solve the core weaknesses.
Stablecoin-funded Gas payments only address the entry barrier for users; they cannot resolve the core problems of mainnet fee volatility, slow scaling, and weak value capture. They can improve the user experience but cannot reverse the problem of value decoupling.
Systemic regulatory risks in the industry.
Global regulatory policies for crypto assets remain uncertain. All public chains and tokens will be affected by macro liquidity and policy changes, and Ethereum is no exception.
V. Conclusion: Ethereum Has Not Been Abandoned by the Times, but It Must Accept the Reality of Sector Stratification
Considering on-chain data, proposal information, and cross-chain comparisons, the conclusion is clear.
Ethereum is not unable to survive, nor has it been abandoned by the times. However, the public-chain sector has become stratified, and Ethereum is no longer an all-purpose public chain. Solana, BNB, and Base handle retail trading, meme activity, and high-frequency small-value transactions. Ethereum mainnet handles underlying security, large-value assets, institutional finance, RWA, and DeFi infrastructure. The two sides are not engaged in entirely zero-sum competition; their sector positioning is completely separate.
The upgrade enabling stablecoin Gas payments is not an abandonment of ETH's underlying position, but an inclusive improvement to infrastructure that lowers the barrier for institutions and ordinary users. Underlying Gas settlement remains locked to ETH, and ETH staking, burning, and the security foundation will not change.
Ethereum's greatest risk is not external competitors, but internal governance. The foundation's continued token sales, opaque governance, and delayed technical upgrades are steadily undermining market confidence.
The key to Ethereum's future is not a short-term price surge, but two things.
First, whether the foundation adjusts the pace of ETH treasury sales and improves governance transparency.
Second, whether the EIP series of upgrades can be implemented as planned, and whether the value-recapture mechanisms of Layer 2 networks can be optimized. If internal governance issues cannot be improved, ETH's long-term upside will remain constrained even if its underlying infrastructure position remains unchanged. If governance and scaling are implemented successfully, Ethereum can retain its leading position in underlying infrastructure and maintain long-term value.
The public-chain industry has said goodbye to the era of a single leader, and the coexistence of multiple public chains will be the norm in the future. Do not evaluate ETH and other public chains by a single standard. Do not make trading decisions based solely on a single upgrade announcement, as all technical benefits carry uncertainty regarding implementation.
$ETH
