
The ongoing debate surrounding Ethereum's fee structure, particularly the 'blob fees,' has sparked a range of opinions among community members. Some advocate against raising these fees, arguing that it would be a short-sighted solution to a deeper issue of demand. Proponents of maintaining the current fee levels believe that allowing Layer 2 (L2) solutions to develop further is essential for Ethereum's evolution. They emphasize that Ethereum's current issuance is lower than that of Bitcoin, suggesting a potential for future growth. Conversely, others argue that the current relationship between Ethereum's Layer 1 (L1) and L2s is imbalanced, with L2s benefiting from Ethereum's security without adequately contributing back to the network. Concerns have also been raised regarding the narrative surrounding Ethereum, particularly following the launch of Ethereum ETFs, which have reportedly seen $500 million in outflows. This situation has led to discussions about the long-term implications for Ethereum's value and its overall market position.
Three concerns regarding $ETH; short and mid term: • lack of narrative that makes sense to tradfi • $500MM in outflows since launch of $ETH ETF’s. • @Grayscale crippling $ETH https://t.co/E3V0uh2Fib
.@dankrad suggests we're <18mo away from 100-200x'ing the size of the blob market and you guys are arguing about hiking the fee because it's not burning enough ETH. It'll never burn substantial ETH in the short-medium future because supply with outstrip L2 demand https://t.co/iVO9AMosvc
Since we're casting votes: Unequivocally team "don't raise blob fees." It's a short-sighted fix to a long-term problem (lack of demand). It's equivalent to L2s making their native token the gas token so that they can paper on uTiLiTy when the problem is completely orthogonal… https://t.co/JI06tHyE0G
