Mantle vs arbitrum orbit: how do their custom gas token configurations differ?

08 November 2026

Mantle and Arbitrum Orbit both allow custom gas tokens, but they implement this feature in fundamentally different ways that affect deployment, cost, and user experience. Mantle uses a modified version of the OP Stack with its own native token (MNT) as the default gas token, while Arbitrum Orbit lets developers choose from a wider range of ERC-20 tokens, including ETH, stablecoins, or even a project’s own token. The right choice depends on whether you prioritize Ethereum alignment, token flexibility, or predictable gas costs for your specific use case.

How custom gas tokens work on each platform

Arbitrum Orbit’s Approach

Arbitrum Orbit is a framework for launching custom L2 or L3 chains that inherit Arbitrum’s Nitro stack. Its gas token configuration is straightforward:

• You select any ERC-20 token to serve as the chain’s native gas token during deployment.
• The token must be bridged to the Orbit chain via Arbitrum’s native bridge contract.
• All transaction fees are paid in that token, collected by validators or the chain’s operator.
• The token can be a stablecoin (e.g., USDC) to keep gas costs stable, or a project’s own token to align incentives.

Because Orbit chains settle to Arbitrum One (or another parent chain), the gas token must have an existing liquidity pool or bridge path to the parent chain for settlement. This adds a dependency: if the token’s bridge is compromised or the token loses liquidity, the chain’s operations can be affected.

Mantle’s Approach

Mantle is a live L2 that uses its own token, MNT, as the default gas token. However, Mantle’s architecture is built on the OP Stack (like Optimism), and its custom gas token configuration is less flexible than Orbit’s:

• Mantle does not support arbitrary ERC-20 gas tokens out of the box. The chain’s gas token is fixed as MNT.
• Instead, Mantle allows developers to deploy “gasless” transactions or use fee abstraction contracts that let users pay gas in other tokens (e.g., USDT) via a relayer. This is not a native gas token swap - it’s a workaround that adds a middleman and potential centralization risk.
• For projects wanting a fully custom gas token, Mantle would require deploying a separate Orbit-style chain using the OP Stack with modifications - which is exactly what Mantle itself did by forking the OP Stack to use MNT.

Key Differences at a Glance

When to use each configuration

Choose arbitrum orbit if:

• You want gas fees in a stable currency (USDC, DAI) to avoid MNT price volatility.
• You need a fully custom token that aligns with your project’s economy (e.g., a gaming token).
• You are building a dedicated L3 for a specific dApp or ecosystem and want full control.
• You have the resources to manage a token bridge and its associated security risks.

Choose Mantle If:

• You want to deploy on an existing L2 with a large MNT community and liquidity.
• Your users are already familiar with MNT and you don’t need a custom gas token.
• You are okay with fee abstraction rather than native gas token support.
• You prefer Ethereum-level settlement security over the flexibility of Orbit.

Practical Considerations

For developers: Arbitrum Orbit’s custom gas token is a first-class feature. You configure it once during chain deployment, and the Nitro stack handles fee collection natively. Mantle’s fee abstraction requires deploying a relayer contract, monitoring its health, and handling potential front-running or censorship of fee payments.

For users: On an Orbit chain with a stablecoin gas token, transaction costs remain predictable over time. On Mantle, gas fees in MNT can swing with market conditions - though Mantle’s gas price mechanism includes a buffer to smooth volatility, it does not eliminate it.

For security: Arbitrum Orbit’s dependency on a token bridge introduces a second layer of trust: if the bridge for your chosen gas token is exploited, the chain’s ability to pay validators can break. Mantle’s fee abstraction relies on a relayer, which is typically centralized - if the relayer goes offline, users cannot submit transactions in non-MNT tokens.

Summary

Arbitrum Orbit offers genuine custom gas token support, making it the better choice for projects that need full control over their chain’s economics. Mantle’s approach is more limited: it is a single-token L2 with fee abstraction workarounds, suitable for projects that want to leverage the existing Mantle ecosystem without customizing the gas token itself. If your priority is stable or unique gas costs, Orbit wins. If you want a mature, Ethereum-settled L2 with a large community, Mantle is the simpler path.

Back to layer 2s