How I Tamed Gas, Approvals, and MEV—Practical Tricks for Multi-Chain Wallet Users

Whoa! Gas fees are the thing that haunts every DeFi user. Seriously? Yep—especially when you’re switching chains and chasing yield across rollups and sidechains. My instinct said “just batch it,” but I learned that batching alone is only half the battle. Initially I thought the obvious tricks—use L2s, watch the gas oracle—were enough, but then I watched a bundle get sandwiched and lost time and ETH. Hmm… somethin’ felt off about relying on single strategies.

Okay, so check this out—there are three problems that show up on repeat: high gas costs, sloppy token approvals, and MEV extraction. Short-term fixes feel good. Long-term wins require systems thinking. On one hand you can optimize each tx. On the other hand you have network-level adversaries (and sometimes your own wallet choices) that undo the gains.

Here’s the practical truth: gas optimization, approval hygiene, and MEV protection are deeply interconnected. You can’t fully optimize gas if approvals force extra transactions. And you can’t avoid MEV if you’re always broadcasting to the public mempool. So start thinking of transactions as stories—every approve, every swap, every relay call is a sequence that can be compressed, privatized, or both.

First—gas optimization. Short wins first. Use L2s and bridged liquidity when possible. Use multicall or batching to collapse many contract interactions into one transaction. Use calldata compression and avoid redundant state writes when you’re designing a custom contract. Medium tip: for ERC-20 flows, prefer permit signatures (EIP-2612) to save an approve call; that removes one on-chain tx and saves gas. Long thought: when your dapp or wallet supports meta-transactions or sponsor (paymaster) models, you can offload gas to relayers selectively, which means gas becomes a UX concern rather than a constant friction point across chains.

But wait—there’s a nuance. Approve then swap patterns are everywhere. Many front-end flows do an approve (or rely on infinite approvals), then a swap, then a transfer, and so on. Each of those is separate on-chain work. If you architect a trusted contract flow—for example, a router that the user approves once, then uses internal accounting to reduce repeated approvals—you save a ton. I’m biased, but using contract wallets or scoped approvals reduces repeated gas hits and surface area for approval-based hacks.

Token approval management deserves its own heartbeat. One lesson that bugs me: infinite approvals are convenient, but they’re bait. Keep allowances minimal. If possible, use expiring allowances. Where permits are supported, use them—it’s one transaction saved and one attack vector reduced. Also, revoke old approvals periodically. Yeah, I know—wallet UIs make revocation awkward. (oh, and by the way…) some wallets now show approvals clearly, and even let you batch revokes; that matters.

MEV protection: don’t be the low-hanging fruit

MEV is a different animal. It’s not just greedy miners. It’s bots sniffing the mempool for profitable order flow. The obvious defensive move is to avoid the public mempool. Use private RPCs or relays that support private submission. Flashbots Protect and private relays can often stop sandwich and backrun attacks, because the tx never lands where the bots can see it. My experience: sending high-value swaps via a private relay cut back attempts dramatically.

Initially I thought paying a slightly higher priority fee would always buy safety. Actually, wait—let me rephrase that—sometimes raising the tip increases visibility and invites front-runners who read fee signals. On one hand a higher tip secures inclusion; though actually if the mempool is public, it also flags your tx as lucrative. So private submission is often better than higher tips alone.

Advanced tactic: bundle transactions with private relays. If you need to both approve and swap, bundle them so bots can’t interpose between the approval and the swap. Also consider time-locked or conditional logic in transactions so that attackers can’t replay partial sequences. On-chain privacy techniques (like using relays or even some zk approaches) are evolving, and they’re worth integrating into your wallet flows.

Now for some actionable checks you can run right now. One: audit your wallet approvals—revoke the ones you don’t use. Two: switch to a provider or wallet that supports private transactions for sensitive swaps, especially if you’re trading tokens with low liquidity. Three: where possible, use permits to remove the approve step entirely. Four: when estimating gas, look at base fee trends (EIP-1559) rather than just current suggested maxFeePerGas; if base fees are rising, your tx may cost more than the oracle says.

Also, consider the UX of nonce and tx replacement. Nonce management matters on L1s and on some L2s; replacing a stuck tx incorrectly can leave you vulnerable. My rule: if I must replace, I make sure it’s via the same private relay or signed bundle pathway. That way the replacement doesn’t re-enter the public mempool where bots can pounce.

Wallet selection is where the rubber meets the road. A multi-chain wallet should do more than show balances. It should help you manage approvals, bundle ops, and route sensitive txs privately when needed. I’ve been using a few tools and one of them, rabby, integrates approval visibility and transaction controls in ways that actually save me gas and risk in daily use. I’m not shilling; I’m describing the workflow that saved me a few pricey mistakes.

On-chain design choices: developers—if you read this—please reduce the number of writes and approvals you force on users. Offer permit alternatives. Provide one-step flows via trusted routers. Support panic revokes and emergency pausing for approvals in contracts used by aggregators. Users will thank you, and frankly, your UX will convert better if people aren’t drained by recurring gas fees for flows that could be handled off-chain.

Some caveats and limitations. I’m not 100% sure every private relay is uniformly safe—trust assumptions vary. And not every token supports permits or safe approve patterns. There are trade-offs between convenience and absolute minimization of on-chain calls. Also, regulatory and chain-level differences can change the best approach across networks (what works on Arbitrum may behave slightly differently on Optimism or BSC), so test across the exact chains your users use.

Quick checklist to keep nearby when you trade or build:

• Prefer L2s or rollups for routine activity.
• Use multicall/batching to compress steps.
• Prefer permits to on-chain approves where available.
• Revoke unused or infinite approvals regularly.
• Submit high-value txs via private relays or bundles.
• Be cautious with gas tips—sometimes lower visibility beats higher priority.
• Use contract wallets or scoped approvals for repeated interactions.

One small story: I once left an infinite approval on a DEX aggregator UI because I was lazy. Long story short—a bot drained a dust token position later via a bridge exploit. It was not catastrophic, but it was avoidable. That moment changed how I manage approvals and taught me that gas saved today can cost trust tomorrow. Lesson learned—very very important.

Final thought—if you’re juggling multiple chains and care about security and cost, you need both better wallets and smarter habits. Small behavioral changes compound. Use tools that make revokes easy, bundle when possible, and route sensitive transactions privately. Try different flows on testnets first. And hey—if you want a wallet that surfaces approvals and gives you control, check out rabby. I’ll keep digging into trade-offs and new defenses, because somethin’ tells me this space will keep surprising us.