Artificially “raise gas fee” to generate income? Arbitrum Odyssey on GMX questioned

According to statistics from the L2Fees website, the transaction GAS fee on Arbitrum has soared for a short time today, and is currently $6.65, surpassing the Ethereum mainnet ($3.8).

This seems to be a bit against the common sense that “L2 is cheaper than L1”, so that some users joked: “I have never known what L2 means. I went to L2 to interact today. It turns out that L2 means that GAS is twice that of L1.”

Artificially "increasing the GAS fee" to generate income?  Arbitrum Odyssey on GMX questioned

But the reality is that most applications on Arbitrum have no significant increase in GAS fees. Taking Uniswap as an example, the Ethereum mainnet fee is 0.005 ETH, and the GAS fee on Arbitrum is half of that—0.0025 ETH ($2.75); in addition, arbiscan data shows that the vast majority of Arbitrum’s on-chain transaction transaction fees range from 0.002 ETH to 0.003 ETH (under $3), and not more than $6.

The soaring transaction GAS fees on Arbitrum today are mainly related to two factors: First, the Odyssey event stimulated the rise of transaction volume on Arbitrum, mainly focusing on cross-chain transfers and very few applications; second, the GMX platform artificially increased GAS The fee increases the overall GAS average value on the chain.

In order to attract users to participate in ecological co-construction, Arbitrum launched an event called “Odyssey” last Wednesday (June 22), where users can receive NFTs after completing tasks. Stimulated by the anticipation of the airdrop, user participation is very enthusiastic, and the cross-chain bridge activity data in the first week is outstanding: more than 43,000 ETHs were transferred to Arbitrum, more than 150,000 new addresses were created, and the number of daily transactions exceeded 280,000.

Early this morning, the second week of “Odyssey” began, and users’ enthusiasm for participation continued, resulting in a spike in on-chain transaction fees. Of course, user transaction volume is still concentrated on two projects in the second phase: Yield Protocol, a fixed-rate lending protocol, and GMX, a decentralized trading platform. On-chain data shows that the current GAS transaction fee for Yield Protocol is 0.005 ETH, while the GMX transaction GAS fee once soared to more than 0.01 ETH ($11), and even reached 0.015 ETH ($18).

Artificially "increasing the GAS fee" to generate income?  Arbitrum Odyssey on GMX questioned

(GAS transaction fee on GMX platform)

It is also a popular project of “Odyssey”. Why is the GAS transaction fee on the GMX platform far higher than that of the Yield Protocol, and also more than 4 times the average level of the Arbitrum network? The main reason is that the GMX platform artificially increases the GAS transaction fee.

At noon today, Twitter user @CryptoCico took the lead in posting that the GMX platform manually increased the “minimum execution fee” (setMinExecutionFee) this morning, and these fees were charged separately when switching contracts (implying that GMX benefits from GAS fees) : The execution fee was 0.0006 ETH yesterday afternoon, and was changed to 0.005 ETH this morning, which caused the GAS fee to soar; after being “spit out” by users, the official lowered the execution fee to 0.002 ETH.

Artificially "increasing the GAS fee" to generate income?  Arbitrum Odyssey on GMX questioned

(GMX modifies “Minimum Execution Fee”)

As soon as the news came out, many participating users of “Odyssey” condemned the GMX platform for profiting from the “Odyssey” event, and even demanded to disqualify the GMX event. “The GMX team deliberately raised the minimum execution fee in their contracts before the Odyssey started. The Arbitrum team should consider removing those scumbags from the Odyssey roster because they are exploiting users.”

Soon, GMX issued an announcement explaining that the official did not profit from the handling fee. The reason for the increase in the execution fee is that the process of opening and closing positions on GMX involves two parts of transactions : users send requests to open/close positions and The keeper executes the request, the cost of both transactions varies based on the prevailing Arbitrum fees, and the price has spiked in the past few hours due to the massive increase in on-chain activity caused by the Odyssey. In addition, the handling fee is only used to execute the transaction and GMX does not earn any revenue from such fees, if it has a difference at the time of collection, GMX will make up the difference and list the example that the transaction user pays less than the actual cost transaction costs.

However, such explanations are somewhat unconvincing. Temporarily artificially modifying smart contracts does not conform to the spirit of decentralization. At that time, although the Arbitrum network fee increased, it was still within the affordable range. Instead, it was GMX that adjusted the entire network fee. soaring.

“GMX only cites an example that is beneficial to itself, why not mention those users who really paid high gas fees?” Some users questioned.

Finally, looking at the ecology, Arbitrum, as one of the emerging expansion solutions, is gradually showing its long-term value. At present, there are few ecological applications and it is worthy of attention. Users who are interested in Arbitrum’s “Odyssey” event can also choose to interact with off-peak hours to save costs.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-06-29 10:33
Next 2022-06-29 10:36

Related articles