Introduction:
In a recent roundtable discussion at StarkWare, experts delved into the intricacies of designing the fee mechanism for StarkNet. The conversation centered around four key questions, each addressing a crucial aspect of the protocol's fee structure.
1. Protocol Level Resources:
The discussion initiated by questioning whether StarkNet should adopt Ethereum's gas-based approach for resource units or explore alternatives considering underlying resources like bandwidth, storage, and execution.
2. Converting Operations to Resources:
The need to convert StarkNet operations into resources was addressed, focusing on Cairo, the programming language of StarkNet, and its division into lib funks. Each lib funk requires pricing in resource units, necessitating a clear mapping of operations to these units.
3. Structure of User Bids:
When users initiate StarkNet transactions, understanding the structure of bids becomes crucial. Should users provide a maximum budget or opt for a pay-per-unit model? The discussion underscored the importance of users' comprehension of bid structures and whether they can omit certain resources.
4. Charging Mechanism for Bids:
Determining how users are charged for their bids emerged as a pivotal consideration. Drawing parallels with Bitcoin and Ethereum 1559, the discussion explored charging mechanismsâwhether users pay what they bid or adhere to a fixed block price per unit gas.
Detailed Discussion:
The participants emphasized the distinction between marginal costs and fixed costs in transactions. Efficiently spreading fixed costs over a larger number of transactions improves overall efficiency, with a proposed reverse pricing strategy to avoid wasting resources on proofs for relatively empty blocks.
The tradeoff between latency and efficiency was explored, acknowledging the challenge of finding the right balance to shield users from the complexities of optimization processes. The goal is to provide users with the optimal tradeoff between security and cost without requiring them to actively engage in these considerations.
Highlighting the importance of L2 consensus and its eventual verification on L1, the discussion acknowledged the challenges posed by the speculation market. Balancing demand and efficiency is critical to ensure the protocol's stability and user experience.
The discussion also delved into the role of external entities, proposing a futures market to manage the risk associated with gas fees. The inclusion of a piggy bank funded by the futures market aims to relieve provers and L1 posters from covering expenses, ensuring a fair and risk-mitigated process.
Conclusion:
The roundtable concluded with a focus on the necessity of a well-defined algorithm within the protocol to manage risk and prevent manipulation. Whether a generic futures market or a closely tied market to the protocol is preferred remains a consideration. Ultimately, the goal is to establish a fee mechanism that is simple, relatively inexpensive, and promotes user awareness while ensuring the stability and efficiency of the StarkNet protocol.
$BTC $ETH $TIA #starknet #BinanceCommunity #BinanceSquareTalks
