Venezuelan media from both sides report that the pilot plan for a higher-octane “Súper Premium” gasoline, sold at selected service stations, is recording extremely low sales nationwide. They agree that the fuel is priced at a dollarized rate, that it can currently only be paid for in foreign currency or digital dollar-equivalent methods, and that station operators are seeing it represent around 2% of total gasoline sales or, conversely, a 98% drop versus previous premium volumes. Both acknowledge Fenegas president Óscar Prosperi as the key spokesman, citing his statements that the pilot plan is not meeting expectations and that the decline followed measures adopted by the national executive.

Across the spectrum, outlets concur that the problem is not the existence of the product itself but the way it has been introduced into Venezuela’s heavily regulated and subsidized fuel market. Reports agree that the dual pricing and payment regime—subsidized gasoline in bolivars for some users and dollar-priced “Súper Premium” at certain stations—creates confusion and deters demand. They also highlight Prosperi’s proposal to adjust the subsidy framework, moving towards direct transfers to consumers through the Patria system and unifying or simplifying payment options so that users can pay for all fuels, including “Súper Premium,” in bolivars as well as in foreign currency.

Areas of disagreement

Responsibility and blame. Opposition-aligned coverage typically frames the collapse in “Súper Premium” sales as a symptom of long-term mismanagement by the Maduro government and the structural failure of state-controlled oil and currency policies, emphasizing how repeated policy experiments have eroded public trust. Government-aligned outlets, while admitting that sales are minimal, present the problem more as a technical or operational glitch in the pilot’s design, focusing on payment-channel limitations rather than systemic governance failures. The latter tend to highlight that the executive is receiving feedback from sector representatives like Fenegas to fine-tune the mechanism, whereas opposition media stress a pattern of improvisation and lack of planning.

Economic interpretation. Opposition sources often argue that the inability of consumers to pay in dollars simply reflects widespread impoverishment and the collapse of real wages under prolonged economic crisis, framing low demand as evidence that any de facto dollarization of basic goods is socially unsustainable. Government-aligned coverage leans toward explaining the weak sales in terms of transactional friction and policy details, such as the absence of bolivar payment options or insufficient communication about who should buy the product, suggesting that demand could recover if those specifics are fixed. In doing so, official-leaning narratives downplay broader macroeconomic distortions and currency duality as primary causes.

Characterization of the policy direction. Opposition-aligned media generally portray the “Súper Premium” initiative as a gateway to full fuel liberalization and subsidy dismantling, warning that the pilot indicates a government drift toward market pricing that will hurt ordinary drivers. Government-aligned outlets, by contrast, tend to depict the scheme as a limited, experimental tier within a still-subsidized system, emphasizing that the state continues to protect vulnerable groups through controlled prices and targeted assistance. While the opposition frames the debate as one over creeping privatization and social risk, pro-government coverage frames it as a balancing act between fiscal realities and social protection.

Role of proposed reforms. Opposition reporting often treats Prosperi’s suggestions—such as direct subsidies via the Patria system and unified payment mechanisms—as either insufficient or potentially politicized, arguing that tying benefits to Patria could deepen clientelism and discretion. Government-aligned media are more likely to present these proposals as constructive solutions aligned with the executive’s broader push for more targeted subsidies and digital governance, portraying Patria-based transfers as a modern, efficient tool rather than a political filter. Thus, where opposition narratives question the neutrality and effectiveness of such reforms, official-leaning narratives spotlight them as proof that the government is listening to stakeholders and adjusting the model.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to interpret the collapse in “Súper Premium” sales as further proof of systemic economic mismanagement and creeping liberalization that harms consumers, while government-aligned coverage tends to treat it as a correctable implementation problem within an otherwise legitimate policy framework focused on fine-tuning subsidies and payment systems.