Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reduce the base fee on Polkadot System Chains #398

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jul 25, 2024

Conversation

vgantchev
Copy link
Contributor

@vgantchev vgantchev commented Jul 23, 2024

This PR reduces the base fee on all Polkadot system chains by half. As a result, the base fee will be roughly 1/20 of the base fee on the Polkadot relay chain.

This will make all transactions on (non-congested) system chains cheaper and stimulate usage.

Among others, the change will push the transaction fees for transfers on Asset Hub below $0.01 which is an important psychological threshold.

An initiative by ecosystem agents.

@Tomen
Copy link

Tomen commented Jul 23, 2024

Thank you @vgantchev for making this PR happen!

@bkchr
Copy link
Contributor

bkchr commented Jul 23, 2024

Generally I think we can do this. However, do we have any kind of calculation on the economics what a block/tx should cost? @joepetrowski any idea?

@joepetrowski
Copy link
Contributor

Generally I think we can do this. However, do we have any kind of calculation on the economics what a block/tx should cost? @joepetrowski any idea?

Nothing quantitative, the rationale for 10x lower at first was that it's better for the network if someone uses a parachain for a feature instead of the Relay Chain, so it should be cheaper to nudge people there. IMO having a low base fee is fine as the fee-adjustment mechanism will bring fees up to previous levels if there are a lot of transactions. It's just a lot more adaptable autonomously than storage deposits are. So, I'm OK with this change.

@bkchr
Copy link
Contributor

bkchr commented Jul 24, 2024

@vgantchev could you then please fix all the tests? Then we can go ahead with this pr.

@bkontur
Copy link
Contributor

bkontur commented Jul 24, 2024

@vgantchev could you then please fix all the tests? Then we can go ahead with this pr.

a fix for bridge-hub-kusama integration tests is coming here: #397

@vgantchev
Copy link
Contributor Author

vgantchev commented Jul 24, 2024

Reducing the base fee caused this integration test to fail.

It's a bit cryptic but it looks like the reason is ED, lowering it also by half fixes the test.

Are you fine with lowering also the ED, or do you have another suggestion?

@acatangiu
Copy link
Contributor

Are you fine with lowering also the ED, or do you have another suggestion?

No, lowering ED has DoS implications outside the scope of this PR. That test should work without needing to change ED. Will take a look.

@acatangiu
Copy link
Contributor

@vgantchev can't push to your fork, opened PR instead: vgantchev#1

@bkchr
Copy link
Contributor

bkchr commented Jul 25, 2024

/merge

@fellowship-merge-bot fellowship-merge-bot bot merged commit 7c69345 into polkadot-fellows:main Jul 25, 2024
44 checks passed
@fellowship-merge-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Enabled auto-merge in Pull Request

Available commands
  • /merge: Enables auto-merge for Pull Request
  • /merge cancel: Cancels auto-merge for Pull Request
  • /merge help: Shows this menu

For more information see the documentation

@vgantchev vgantchev deleted the lower_fees branch July 25, 2024 09:58
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ The format is based on [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/).
### Changed

- Bounties: Remove payout delay ([polkadot-fellows/runtimes#386](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/pull/386))
- Polkadot System Chains: Reduce the base transaction fee by half
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should please follow the standard convention of how we mention them here. Will fix it in my MR now.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point. Another thing we should add to the CI check.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants