The Network That Cost Twelve Times More

A client paid an invoice on a different network from usual and the fee was twelve times higher. Same asset, same amount, entirely different cost. I use a regulated stablecoin payment processor as my reference now, because it publishes rather than quotes on request.

What happened

We normally receive on a network where a transfer costs about a dollar regardless of amount.

This client’s wallet defaulted to a different network where the fee depends on how busy it is, and that day it was busy.

The fee came out of their side, so it cost them rather than us, and they noticed.

Why the difference exists

The same stablecoin exists on several networks as separate tokens that happen to share a name.

Each network prices transactions differently. Some charge a small fixed amount. Some charge based on demand, which can vary by a factor of twenty within a day.

The practical consequence

We now name one network on invoices and only accept a second by arrangement.

This is not about saving the client a few dollars, though that helps. It is that every additional network is another set of addresses to watch and another line in the reconciliation. The company version of this is different, and a business crypto wallet with approval controls is what it points at.

Accepting more networks than we can properly monitor is how a payment gets lost.

The invoice change

Before: the asset name and an address.

Now: the asset, the amount, the network written out in full, the address, and a line saying funds sent on any other network cannot be recovered.

That last line reads as stating the obvious. It has prevented a repeat of a mistake that cost us nine days and a recovery fee the first time.

What our provider does that helps

The payment request it generates is network-specific. The client cannot select a different network from within the flow.

Our previous provider showed an address and an asset name and left the choice to the client’s wallet. Every wrong-network incident we had was with that one.

When comparing providers, this design difference mattered more to our support load than anything on the pricing page.

The question worth asking a provider

Not which assets do you support. Which assets on which networks, and does your payment request specify the network to the customer. Check it yourself rather than taking my word. the list of countries covered is on a public register.

The second half is where the difference is.