Note that even at $0.005 Celo would be 10x cheaper than Polygon and Avax, and about 40x cheaper than BSC.
EIP1559 already takes care of the argument that itâs too cheap to fill entire block.
Sure someone can go and fill a few blocks for cheap, but to sustain that for longer periods wonât work.
Full nodes and validators have to be sized to handle sustained full blocks anyways, so I donât think the gas minimal has any relation to the resource commitment that operators have. (e.g. you need good enough CPU and storage to handle peak congestion regardless, so your machines are sized to that even if the network is mostly idle).
As for raising the gas minimal to 0.1 cent per ERC20 transfer, I donât think ERC20 transfer is a good gauge of onchain activity. Nobody actually just does transfers onchain, itâs always interacting with smart contracts like Uniswap or other protocols, and protocols carry higher gas consumption than vanilla transfer.
I think that increasing it by 250x to get to half a cent for a ERC20 transfer just shows how cheap they are right now.
I personally donât think it makes Celo less attractive, as effectively the different wonât make a difference to most users.
1 Like
I think it would actually be quite difficult to make gas pricing depending on the tx content, because not all transactions are transfers. And if we want to avoid people spamming the network, then we could actually make the problem worse: instead of sending one $100 transfer, people is now incentivized to make two transfers of $50. And it gets worse for bigger transfers.
1 Like
- Yes, but those tx need to be something valuable, the storage is going to be in the blockchain for as long as it exists.
- Echoing Matt, this is not a paycheck increase to validators per this doc: Celo Gas Pricing | Celo Documentation
Thanks a lot to those who have made the points about micropayments on Celo.
I do think though, that allowing transfers of cents off chain is actually counter productive giving the current limitations on gas limit by a block. If we fill blocks with 10 cent transaction, that means that if the network has a total capacity of 1000 tx per block, that means that transfer capacity of a block gets reduced to just $100, which I donât think is an outcome anybody would want.
Maybe thereâs a way to process smaller payments without the gas hit, like using channels similar to LN and just settle them on chain? Or having users accumulate balances and then settle when they are willing to pay the gas?
And also keep in mind, as Tim said, I consider rallying a product on negligible gas prices is not the right way to go, as a spike in network demand for blockspace could come right now.
Dear all, thanks a lot for your inputs and the discussion. We have incorporated this into an updated proposal, which is posted here. Looking forward to hearing your feedback!
when is introducing a burning mechanism instead ?
hey @kalatsong, we have already started to work on an implementation proposal - itâs not super complicated from the eng side, however, as changes in the core contracts need to be audited, the timeline is still a bit unclear⌠talking couple of months till final proposal ready
1 Like
Fully agrre with this opinion.
And worried about the same concern.
I am kinda confused by this proposal and itâs goals.
Assuming long term goal is for Celo usage to increase to levels where blocks are decently full on a regular basis, no matter what the tx costs are, full nodes and validators will have to handle those loads anyways.
Keeping TX costs very low keeps volume high today even if larger percentage of these txes arenât super necessary. This makes network more ready to actually handle larger real tx loads in the future.
Imo, if you increase TX costs artificially right now , you will reduce TX load but that seems counter productive because now you can no longer test the network actively with larger loads that we hope we get to in the future .
And once/if network usage actually increases, tx price will be determined by market anyways.
Imo, I donât see any positives that this change can bring and can see quite a lot of downsides. Tbh none of the arguments for its support make any real sense to me
From my perspective, layer 1s are in the business of selling âblock spaceâ and we (CELO holders) canât give away our âproductâ for free and sustainably cover expenses, like validator fees, in the long-term. If throughput continues to increase through scaling efforts, transaction fees could remain infinitesimally small. If we make transaction fees small but manageable (fraction of a penny), we can increase ârevenueâ used to buy back CELO through EIP-1559 burns to cover costs while keeping the blockchain usable/attractive for applications built on Celo (in addition to potential DDoS risk reduction benefits).
2 Likes
makes sense, implementing a base fee could help with attacks and unnecessary spamming of the network.
1 Like