Whoa!
I got pulled into gas optimization research last month. My instinct said there had to be easier ways to save on fees without sacrificing security. Initially I thought the usual checklist—switch to an L2, set a lower tip, batch transactions—was enough, but then I found a few surprises. Actually, wait—let me rephrase that: some tactics that look cheap can backfire, and others that feel complex end up being the cheapest and safest long-term. Here’s the thing.
Something felt off about the way many wallets treat approvals. Seriously?
Wallets often prompt for an unlimited allowance by default, which is convenient but risky. On one hand it reduces UX friction for swaps and DEX interactions; on the other, it opens a large attack surface if a dApp is compromised. On top of that, networks and gas behavior vary by chain, so one-size-fits-all defaults are lazy and dangerous for multi‑chain users. I’m biased, but a wallet should surface both cost and permission implications before you click accept.
Okay, so check this out—
There are three practical levers that matter most: transaction construction (how you build the tx), execution path (where and when it’s submitted), and permission strategy (how token approvals are issued and managed). Medium-level adjustments in each area add up to big savings. And not all chains behave the same, so test on the chain you’re actually using. (oh, and by the way… keep a small test balance; you’ll thank me later.)
Gas optimization tactics that actually work
Really?
Yes. Start by batching related calls into one transaction with multicall when possible. Multicall reduces repeated base gas overhead by combining several contract interactions into a single call, which is especially helpful on EVM-compatible chains. If a protocol supports permit-based approvals (EIP‑2612) or the newer Permit2 patterns, use them: they let you approve and swap in one signed message without an on‑chain approval tx. That saves the full cost of a separate approval, which is usually the most expensive part of many flows.
Whoa!
Simulate before you send. Use RPC simulation (or services like Tenderly or a local node) to catch revert reasons and estimate gas accurately. My instinct said I could eyeball gas, but that was wrong; even experienced users get burned by different gas estimates across providers. Also, favor reliable RPC endpoints and set up failovers so your wallet doesn’t rush a tx through a cheap but unreliable node that returns stale fee estimates.
On fee strategy, think in layers.
For L1 chains use EIP‑1559 parameters: set maxFeePerGas and maxPriorityFeePerGas deliberately rather than relying on a single “gas price” slider. For L2s and sidechains, learn their specifics (some use legacy pricing). Use gas trackers for the chain you’re on, but temper them with simulation results. If you’re moving funds across chains, batching on the source chain before bridging can cut repeated bridge costs—just watch nonce/order issues carefully.
Hmm…
Flashbots and transaction bundling can be a solid option for traders who want to avoid MEV or need precise ordering, but that’s advanced and not universally available. For most DeFi users, the simplest wins: multicall + permit where available + good fee estimation. One exception is when you’re interacting with novel contracts that don’t support multicall safely; in that case, smaller, atomic transactions are better for auditability and easier error recovery.
Approval management: reduce risk, save gas
Here’s the thing.
Unlimited allowances are convenient but dangerous. Revoke or limit allowances after a trade. Some wallets and dApps (and yes, rabby) provide a clear approvals UI to set spend caps and revoke old allowances, which cuts the risk of a rogue contract draining your tokens. Use one-time approvals when supported by the protocol; one-time approvals cost a bit more per operation in complex flows sometimes, but they remove long-term exposure.
I’ll be honest—
Permit-based flows (EIP‑2612) are my favorite for cost and UX. They let users sign an off‑chain approval that the contract consumes during the swap. No separate approval tx, no extra gas. Not all tokens implement permits, and Permit2-style standards are gaining traction to unify UX, but adoption varies by chain and token. If you build or pick tools, prefer protocols that implement permit support or offer safe proxy approaches that minimize approval txes.
Something else bugs me.
People forget that revoking an unlimited allowance still costs gas; it’s not free. Plan revocations during low-fee windows if you can wait. Also, don’t blindly follow a “revoke everything” checklist while moving through multiple chains—revoking and then re-approving across chains can be very expensive. Think strategically about what you really need to revoke versus what you can retire by moving tokens or changing custody.
Multi‑chain wallet features that reduce both gas and risk
Okay, so check this out—
A good multi‑chain wallet should: 1) show allowances per token and per contract, 2) let you set custom fee parameters per chain, 3) support RPC failover and reputable endpoints, and 4) offer transaction simulation and nonce management. These features prevent accidental overpayment and accidental approvals. I’m biased, but the UX matters as much as the raw features; if users can’t find the revoke button, it might as well not exist.
Really?
Yes. Look for wallets that integrate approval scanning and provide clear warnings for unlimited allowances. Also, wallets that let you perform meta-transactions or sponsor gas (via relayers) can move costs off the end-user in a controlled way. Smart accounts / account abstraction (ERC‑4337) are another path: they enable batched, sponsored, or sponsored-with-guardrails txes that improve UX and often cut perceived gas for users while preserving security through programmable policies.
My experience has been this: I switched workflows and saved surprisingly much—
But it’s not magic. You trade off convenience, compatibility, and risk. Some tokens don’t support permits; some dApps require unlimited approvals for legacy reasons; certain L2s have quirks that necessitate separate txes. On one hand batching and permits cut costs; on the other, they require broader ecosystem support and careful UX. So pick tactics that align with your regular activity and the security posture you can live with.
FAQ
Q: Can I avoid approval transactions entirely?
A: Sometimes. If the token supports permit (EIP‑2612) or a modern Permit2 flow, you can often approve off‑chain and have the swap consume that approval in the same atomic operation. For tokens that lack permits you’ll still need an on‑chain approval, though you can minimize its cost by batching or choosing times of low network congestion.
Q: What about gas tokens and refunds?
A: Those strategies were popular before EIP‑3529 and changes to fee mechanics. Today, gas‑token approaches are generally obsolete on many chains; don’t rely on them. Focus instead on batching, permit flows, and layer choices for savings.
Q: Which wallet features should I prioritize?
A: Prioritize clear approval management, per‑chain fee controls, RPC failover, transaction simulation, and support for permit-like flows. If you want a wallet that focuses on permission visibility and advanced controls, check out rabby—they made approval UX a core feature, and that kind of transparency makes a real difference day-to-day.