Morning ApePrince, thanks for the replies.
Like you I of course agree that this forum should be for open and free discussion, however I do also think it should be as robust as possible.
With regards to the 25% fee discount I’m not sure the relevance of the video, but I didn’t know the amount of excess that was collected so the following is very useful info:
It currently charges 1.24 times the sum of the gas required to submit a transaction and 2,100 gas. This generates surpluses that will be used to fund the growth of the ecosystem.
If this is the case then for every $100 needed to be spent on L1, Optimism currently collects $124. If the fees to pay with OP were discounted by 25% then were everyone to pay in OP only $93 would be collected per $100 required. How would this discrepancy be paid for?
I assume you’re not suggesting making up the difference with Optimism’s reserves?
So far, these fees paid by users have brought in $24.5 million in revenue for Optimism.
Using these figures the biggest possible discount you could apply without going into debt would be about 19.3%, but doing so would mean that Optimism was no longer building up it’s reserves. I suppose whether you think that is worthwhile is a separate question.
Another relevant point here is that I don’t think you are correct that:
I’m advocating a possibility that can lift the $Op token price
The price of a token relates to the relative buying and selling pressures. If we were to use OP as the token of Optimism, the OP would need to be sold straight away in order to buy the ether needed for L1. This would create a sell pressure that I don’t think you’re factoring in. Using our ongoing example…
If we need $100 to spend on Ethereum Mainnet and we collect $100 of OP (utilizing the 19.3% discount) then users have bought $100 worth of OP and Optimism has then sold it. There is no net effect on the buying/selling pressure. In fact, as many of us have just been airdropped a bunch of OP I would argue that the net effect would be negative as not every user has to buy the token. If some of the OP spent on gas comes from users who didn’t have to buy it, while all of what is collected needs to be sold for ether then the price of OP would be pushed lower, not higher.
Finally, with regards to EVM equivalence, I think from your response that we are on the same page. You’ve expanded on my point about how important a feature this is to making Optimism stand out, so do I take it that you agree this is not worth sacrificing? I can’t imagine a possible way that gas on Optimism could be payed for with anything other than ether without losing this key advantage, and this is fundamentally the most important reason in my eyes why we should not make changes to the gas mechanism.
Also, the community can talk on behalf of the topic and I don’t have to answer each and every question too.
Completely agree with this sentiment BTW, I hope no one reading this takes it as a conversation just between the two of us, everyone who wants to should always be welcome to jump into any discussion on here. I’m sure there’s plenty of factors both of us are missing here!
Again I reiterate that this is not a competition about knowledge
Of course, but equally you shouldn’t be afraid to explain stuff that no everyone may be familiar with. Surely part of the purpose of these discussions is to help people learn how Optimism works and why people have different views and opinions on it’s structure. I posted a collection of links yesterday that might help people get to grips with rollups generally and Optimism in particular:
If you’ve got more resources that would be useful there please do chick them in that thread!