Why ETH and SOL Need Users Despite Trillions in Volume

Ethereum and Solana stand as the two giants of smart contract blockchains—trillions of dollars flow through their networks daily. Stablecoins and decentralized applications are booming, yet long-term demand for their native tokens, ETH and SOL, could decline. Why? Because an increasing number of solutions like paymasters or fee sponsorship are taking transaction costs off users’ hands. Sounds great at first, right? But the real issue remains: fees still have to be paid in ETH or SOL.
The illusion of “invisible” fees
The blockchain world has spent years shielding users from high transaction costs. Ethereum, in particular, has rolled out gas fee sponsorship and paymaster mechanisms—third-party dApps or wallets covering the costs for users. At a glance, it’s a win-win: users pay nothing directly, yet the blockchain still collects fees.
But here’s the catch: fees still must be settled in the chain’s native token. Any entity absorbing user costs needs either its own ETH or SOL—or must acquire them elsewhere. Demand for the tokens doesn’t vanish; it merely shifts—away from end users and toward companies or protocols.
The paradox of blockchain economics
This raises a crucial question: if users interact with ETH and SOL less and less directly, how do the tokens stay relevant? The answer lies in the chains’ core architecture. Ethereum and Solana don’t just need their native tokens as fee currencies; they also rely on them as security mechanisms.
On Ethereum, validators secure the network by staking ETH—a linchpin of network safety. On Solana, SOL is essential for transaction validation and network security. But what happens when direct user engagement with these tokens falls? They risk l



osing economic significance—even if they remain technically indispensable. That wouldn’t just hit prices; it could undermine the long-term stability of the networks themselves.
Stablecoins as drivers—but not a silver bullet
Much of the transaction volume on Ethereum and Solana comes from stablecoins like USDT, USDC, or DAI. These tokens let users tap blockchain benefits without ETH or SOL’s price swings. Yet the same problem surfaces: fees still must be paid in the native tokens.
Take USDC on Ethereum: even when a user sends USDC, ETH still covers the gas. Users interact only indirectly with the native tokens; demand shifts to third-party intermediaries covering those costs.
The future: can demand hold?
The blockchain sector faces a paradox: rapid network growth, yet potentially shrinking direct demand for ETH and SOL. Hope now rests on fresh innovations that could restore the tokens’ relevance.
One path: targeted subsidies or programs encouraging users to pay fees in ETH or SOL. Another: Layer-2 solutions reducing reliance on mainnet tokens. Yet even these approaches skirt the core issue: without stable user demand, ETH and SOL could lose economic weight over time.
Bottom line: the tokens remain indispensable—but invisible
Ethereum and Solana will keep processing trillions in transactions. Yet if third parties keep covering fees, direct demand for ETH and SOL may fall. Still, they remain vital for network security and blockchain operations.
The fate of these tokens hinges not on whether users hold or spend them directly, but on whether their economic importance can be preserved. As long as fees must be paid in ETH or SOL, some demand will persist—even if it becomes less visible.