Content
@
https://ethereum.org
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Stephan
@stephancill
time to reopen EIP-6968 as an RIP? https://eip.tools/eip/6968
2 replies
1 recast
7 reactions
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
Wrote on why that's not such a good idea before. Tl;dr is that it's easy to game and lacks context. Social consensus is preferable https://paragraph.xyz/@abundance/why-decentralized-networks-need-a-social-layer
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Stephan
@stephancill
i don't see why sharing the gas fee would be gamed tbh. users already pay a fee to use the contract whether it's garbage or not? sure, some contracts could technically implement less efficient methods on purpose to make it more gas intensive to use but that would also put them at a competitive disadvantage the main issue i see is that the amount of gas consumed by a contract is not necessarily proportional to the value it adds. still a good point of departure imo could be supplemented by retro grants - doesn't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Mike | Abundance 🌟
@abundance
Are devs really putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by writing more gas-intense contracts? They can always write a more efficient version of the contract so they'd be competing with themselves. Also, nothing stops devs from implementing "fee sharing" today - especially on an L2. When you do it at the protocol level tho, with the implicit assumption that higher fees indicate more value, you're creating perverse incentives and adding cost to uses. I don't really see a correlation between gas used and the value of the infra to the network. Some infra is offchain, does that mean it has no value? I'd say that if the options are fee sharing, fee sharing + retro, or just retro, I'd go with just retro. At least it save gas for users.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
