Increase fees to expand combustion to prevent death spirals?

I think it’s time to look into this topic to prevent the death spiral from happening, don’t you think?

Is it feasible for us to discuss this in the face of ongoing FUD? In response to the market rebounding while ICP has been falling?

I am not a technical expert and I don’t know how to operate it. I hope I can know the feasibility of this method and solve the death spiral!

1 Like

I like the idea of burning more ICP. Price action right now is painful. I think a $.01 fee is fine, heck even $.05 would be fine. Think about how much people pay on other networks. Nobody is going to notice a nickel.

If we want to do it in terms of cycles, that is fine, too.

Finally, I say we cut the number of cycles obtained per ICP by at least a factor of 10.

These numbers can ALWAYS be revisited. Why not experiment? What are we afraid of? Even after adopting changes such as these, developing in and using ICP would still be very cheap.

Hell, make transaction fee .01 ICP, nobody will notice and suddenly we’re burning 100x icp on transactions.

ICP having cheap transactions has not brought users or developers. Raise that fee


As a large holder of 8 year staked ICP. I think it would make sense to increase the transaction fee, even if only as a temporary measure, to increase investor and developer confidence as a byproduct (May seem counter intuitive but hear me out).

It doesn’t really go a long way to say that the IC ecosystem has ridiculously low transaction fees compared to ETH if the general consensus is fear to adopt the platform and developer neglect because of a black hole effect.

Increasing project revenue and deflation rate would help bolster market confidence.
I think this next 4 years is a make or break time for the project in terms of general confidence sentiment and increasing adoption. Personally I believe wholeheartedly in the long-term prospects but I can’t help but foster a bit of uneasiness around the crypto community in general viewing the project as a scam. (Unfair as it may be, at some point capitulation needs to happen one way or the other).

It doesn’t help us as a community to bemoan the fact that the SBF and FTX debacle harmed the origin of the project with price manipulation. What is helpful is taking an active approach to rectifying the damage that has been done instead of taking a “wait and see, we stand behind the technology” approach. Regardless of it holding any water or not, the scam narrative is harmful to the project and developer adoption.

We have seen numerous projects with excellent technology go by the wayside because of lack of adoption and confidence among the crypto community. As ugly as it may be, it is a truth of our current environment and to secure the foundation for long term success I believe we need, it may pay dividends to cater to market sentiment enabling a quicker adoption and raise in confidence of the project. If only until the time that we can escape the confines of the overall toxic “crypto” community and be seen as a real force of change in the general landscape of IT architecture worldwide.