IIP-15: Sharing of Gas-fee with DApps (SGD)

Just to summarise

  • We are in favour of 30% to Dapps, it will help to create incentives to dapp developers
  • We are not in favour of having approval, if dapp is useless no one will use it, if they do use it then they find it useful and are willing to pay gas fees which supplies rewardspool, the implementation should be decentralised and permissionless, by default all dapps should get 30% of the fee if this proposal is approved

The other point we mentioned is the rewardspool, currently as we outlined there is about 140 million $IOTX paid a year to stakers/delegates, as it stands today there is 300 million $IOTX in rewardspool giving about 2 years of runway Token Address | IoTeXScan

The obvious question is are there additional $IOTX held by foundation to replenish it, if so how much and for long long will it last, the 30% shared to a dapp will cut into replenishing rewardspool, equally by sharing it will hopefully create more dapps and more onchain usage as there is positive feedback loop for teams to encourage usage.

As we have mentioned in a previous proposal about burning fees, we do not think this is a good idea. It works in Ethereum because Ethereum has inflationary supply (no max) , so if you burn more then you need to it doesn’t matter as you can always mint more, if we burn to much $IOTX (probably more of a problem in 10+ years) there will not be enough free and network will become to expensive to use.


After reading through IIP-15, I don’t believe there would be substantial monetary benefit to builders at the end of the day. I think the overall intention is good, wanting to generate working capital for projects when they need it the most early on, but I don’t see sharing of gas fees amounting to anything substantial when all is said & done, especially if it’s tied to transactions directly related to each project’s dApp (won’t have many users early on when they need the funds the most, therefore won’t have many transactions to share gas fees with…).

For rough math 50% share in current transaction fees = 0.5 * 0.08 $IOTX = 0.04 $IOTX

At 10,000 transactions with the dApp: 10,000 * 0.04 $IOTX = 400 $IOTX = $8.80 USD

Depending on the type of dApp, it may take 12 months or more to get the first 10,000 transactions…

I propose that IoTeX instead re-initiate Foundation Rewards for Staking, which could then help fund early projects in a more impactful way than sharing of gas fees. One of the most beautiful things about IoTeX is the extremely low gas fees, so trying to skim off of that won’t get anyone very far, in my opinion.

-Will (iotexan)

1 Like

I don’t have enough information about the effect of splitting part of the gas with developers, or even burning part of it as I proposed above, on long-term tokenomics. It is highly complex to balance everything to achieve a healthy ecosystem with low fees. I think that in the IOTeX team there will be thinking heads that take everything into account. Ultimately I will trust what they prescribe.
About what you propose (@Will ), some nuances:

  • Rewarding APPS builders with part of the fees has the effect of promoting designs that by their nature may be in high demand. An application with a minimal “social network effect” component could have a high reward if it goes viral. It doesn’t take much to imagine situations that combine IOT with social network for this to happen, so the gains could be high. And the interest for IOTEX too.
  • Resetting the foundation rewards would effectively increase the incentive for iotex, but more for staking by increasing its reward. I imagine that the foundation will have wisely withdrawn this incentive so as not to squander the funds during the crypto-winter, and to maximize its impact when a new crypto-spring begins. I don’t see that now it had a decisive impact on the development of APPS, not even on attracting new investment and users.

I do think this is a good step in the right direction, Many projects have needed to find ways to essentially build out marketing teams to incentivize or outright buy ecosystem participation. This seems like a more natural approach and less “corporate/centralized” We all want IOTX to be a great ecosystem to build in, Decentralized incentive structure is quite a big deal! I will be voting yes once the proposal goes live.

1 Like

If the vote were held today, how would you vote on this proposal?

  • In favor
  • Against

0 voters

1 Like

Voting begins today at 6:00pm UTC. Here’s where you can make your voice heard.

IoTeX announced a $100 million USD sustainable ecosystem fund about a year ago to incentivize builders to develop on IoTeX.

This gas share proposal will generate chump change for these dapps in comparison to the incentives IoTeX can provide with this $100 million USD fund.

So the desire from IoTeX team for this proposal to be implemented is very confusing to me.

1 Like

Insightful & brilliant. Many factors to consider on how to approach innovation. Shutting out many Developers can have a negative impact vs permitting any & all Developers without any safeguards as to their operations (ponzi schemes, rug pulls, etc) would also be detrimental. JoeGoodman points out interesting concepts to consider.

Like Sam Walton said, “Listen to even your smallest people, they are idea generators.

1 Like

So when all was said and done, (is that ever the case?) how did the vote go?

IIP-15 has passed!

Yes 155M IOTX 98.45%
No 2.4M IOTX 1.55%
Wallets Voted 224

Thanks all, for this truly well-considered discussion. Let’s keep an eye on it once it rolls out. If after it’s been up and running for while we think it can be improved, we can create another proposal to enact those improvements.

That was one of the most interesting debate in our community.
So soon you can check the iip result implemented in r3al life.