BlockATM and DePay face off: Decentralized payments: Who better understands merchants' needs?

In the decentralized payment space, BlockATM and DePay are both blockchain-based payment solutions, but their understanding of and approaches to addressing merchant needs differ significantly. Which one can more accurately address merchant pain points? This competition may provide the answer.

1. Asset Control: Dedicated Contracts vs. Universal Protocols

BlockATM's "Dedicated Contract" Design

BlockATM allows merchants to deploy dedicated payment and receipt contracts through their wallets. Assets are directly held in these contracts, accessible only to authorized signature addresses. This "one-account, one-contract" model ensures merchants have 100% control over their assets. The contract code is open source and traceable, and cannot be tampered with after deployment, technically eliminating the risk of third-party misappropriation. This "private domain" design is more attractive to medium- and large-scale merchants who prioritize asset security.

DePay's "Universal Protocol" Logic

DePay provides payment services based on public blockchain protocols. Merchants access standardized payment interfaces, and asset transfers rely on the platform's unified smart contract framework. This model simplifies the onboarding process, but merchants have relatively centralized control over their assets, making it more suitable for small and micro businesses to quickly get started.

II. Feature Focus: Enterprise-Level Tools vs. Lightweight Scenarios

BlockATM's "Full-Chain Support"

To meet the complex needs of cross-border merchants, BlockATM provides in-depth functionality:

Multi-Chain Cashier: Simultaneously connects to contracts on multiple networks, including Ethereum and Polygon, and supports payments in multiple currencies, including USDT and ETH;

Batch Payment Engine: Processes up to 1,000 transfers per transaction, with only one network fee, and supports gas fee deductions using stablecoins;

Permission Hierarchy: Separates "withdrawal" and "receiving" permissions, adapting to enterprise multi-role management scenarios.

DePay's "Minimalist Payment"

DePay focuses on lightweight payment scenarios. Its core feature is a "one-click access" crypto payment button that supports real-time settlement of major tokens. It is suitable for individual creators and small merchants to quickly enable crypto payment acceptance, but lacks enterprise-level tools such as batch operations and permission management. 3. Cost Model: Fixed Rate vs. Percentage Commission

BlockATM's "Transparent Pricing"

Uses a fixed fee independent of transaction amount: 200 units per contract deployment, 2 units per transaction (wallet payment) or 0.4% per transaction (scan code payment), and 1 unit per transaction. This offers significant cost advantages for high-value transactions; for example, a $100,000 cross-border payment only costs 2 units.

DePay's "Per-Transaction Commission"

The commission is 0.5%-1% of the transaction amount, combined with blockchain network gas fees. While access is free, large-value transactions are costly. For high-frequency, small-value transactions (such as digital content payments), the fees are relatively manageable.

4. Who Understands Merchants Better? Determine the fit between needs.

BlockATM's advantage lies in its deep understanding of enterprise-grade security and efficiency, making it suitable for cross-border merchants (such as foreign trade companies and blockchain service providers) who need to process bulk encrypted payments and value asset autonomy. DePay's advantage lies in its lightweight design and ease of use, making it more suitable for the simple payment needs of individual merchants and small creators.

Ultimately, understanding decentralized payment technology comes down to whether it accurately matches the merchant's business scale and core needs—does it require a "fortress of independent and controllable assets" or a "plug-and-play payment tool."