ERC402 encounters an interesting dilemma during actual deployment—we might call it the "Impossible Triangle."

Imagine a scenario: users only need to sign, and the transaction cost is paid and on-chain by a third party (let's call it the Facilitator). It sounds great, but here’s the problem.

To ensure minimal trust, the signature must explicitly include key information such as the buyer, seller, and transaction amount, so that the Facilitator cannot secretly divert funds. However, this approach compromises compatibility. There are three goals—compatibility, gas-free, and minimal trust—and very few token standards can satisfy all three at once.

The core contradiction lies here: you either sacrifice flexibility for security or sacrifice security for a better user experience. There’s no perfect middle ground. For projects aiming to build gas abstraction layers or account abstraction, this is a hurdle that’s hard to bypass.