Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ruhum
@ruhum
There’s no point in distributing sequencer fees to end users. They are already willing to pay the fees to use the app. Rewarding them for their txs will just cause the chain to receive a lot of spam. It’s the apps that are not happy with the current design. So just share sequencer fees with them. https://x.com/0xcygaar/status/1847643502924222677?s=46
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
I have a hard time understanding the motivations for this idea of governance. I feel like I do not even understand the problem that people try to solve there. The reason why apps make no money is because they suck. That is the market telling us that this app should maybe not exist. If you want an app to get more money, then make better apps. Why should any chain subsidize apps and why should we create a lot of additional complexities, responsibilities and tokens again? And to do what exactly? Less is more and the free market is already sufficient to tell us what's what. But maybe I am retarded and somebody can explain to me what all of this is about. I am genuinely curious.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
ruhum
@ruhum
The idea is that apps are responsible for bringing users. Some apps also now take on the gas costs for the end user through AA. So the app brings the user and pays the fees. So what do they gain from being on your chain? They can just run their own one. To prevent such fragmentation you incentivize the app to stay on your chain by paying them a portion of the sequencer fees.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
Thank you for putting it so logically. Taking just that at face value it may appear to make sense that apps have to be incentized to stay. It just looks to me like there are a couple of flawed assumptions being made that effectively lead to flawed conclusions.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
