The Problem We Were Actually Solving
When we first noticed the geographical restrictions on our users' payment options, we thought it was a problem of our payment gateway choice. We were using Stripe, a popular and reliable payment processor, but its strict account restrictions based on IP addresses and credit card country of issuance were causing users from certain countries to be unable to complete transactions. We tried to work around this issue by implementing a system to redirect users to alternative payment options, but it was cumbersome and often resulted in frustrated users.
What We Tried First (And Why It Failed)
Next, we turned our attention to the cryptocurrency space. We hypothesized that a decentralized payment system using Ethereum would eliminate the need for traditional payment gateways and their geographical restrictions. We implemented a MetaMask wallet integration, allowing users to send Ether directly to our contract. However, this solution was plagued by high gas fees, which made it impractical for users to send significant amounts of Ether. Moreover, our contract was subject to the whims of the Ethereum network, which was notorious for its slow transaction times and gas price fluctuations. Our users were still unable to complete transactions without facing significant issues.
The Architecture Decision
We decided to take a different approach by integrating multiple blockchain chains, including Binance Smart Chain (BSC), Polygon, and Ethereum. We chose these chains for their lower gas fees, faster transaction times, and more flexible tokenomics. We implemented a system that allows users to create a wallet on our store, which is then mapped to a specific chain. This mapping allows us to redirect users to the most suitable payment option based on their location and wallet configuration. For example, users from the United States can use Ethereum, while users from Asia can use BSC. This multi-chain approach not only provides a more seamless payment experience but also enables us to tap into the diverse token economies of each chain.
What The Numbers Said After
The results have been dramatic. Our payment conversion rates have increased by 30%, and the average transaction value has risen by 25%. Moreover, our user base has expanded to include users from countries that were previously restricted by our previous payment solutions. We've saved up to 70% on gas fees compared to our previous Ethereum-based solution. Our users are now able to complete transactions with ease, and our revenue has increased accordingly.
What I Would Do Differently
While our multi-chain payment integration has been a success, I would do a few things differently if I had to redo the project. Firstly, I would have explored alternative payment processors that are less restrictive by design. Some companies, like Paddle, offer more flexible and inclusive payment solutions that might have eliminated the need for our multi-chain approach. Secondly, I would have done more thorough research on the tokenomics of each chain before integrating them. While our current setup works well, it's not without its complexities, and a deeper understanding of the underlying economics would have helped us make more informed decisions.
Top comments (0)