Decoupling Gas Mechanics for increased sChain Flexibility

Governance
1

TLDR;

I’m proposing we further research and explore the decoupling of gas mechanics as a configurable option within SKALE Chains. Decoupling of gas mechanics of a SKALE Chain from the broader network economic model should enable developers to have more flexible options when exploring the creation of their own app or hub chain. This proposal aims to help SKALE remain competitive within the growing appchain landscape.

Background

The zero gas fee model that SKALE has pioneered over the last five (5) plus years is incredible. With more and more developers recognizing that no gas means sustainable development, simplified user experience, and increased capacity to grow; there is no doubt that zero gas fees is an innovation the SKALE Network should be proud of.

With that in mind, I think it’s also important that we look to the broader market of potential chain buyers to understand why this proposal is so impactful. Everyone from a small business to a government and from Fortune 500 companies to DAOs could purchase and operate their own SKALE Chain.

However, after discussion with a number of different projects and companies as well as exploration of the broader Web3 space; it’s clear that despite the UX drawbacks, launching with a native gas token is very attractive for many potential chain owners.

I have directly talked with multiple potential sChain buyers in the last 14 days who have expressed interest in their own SKALE Chain; but specifically are looking for their own gas/ecosystem token. The second reason that I believe this makes a lot of sense is because of the default deployment flows that come with a zero gas fee model.

For context, the four (4) SKALE Hubs today are each operated by different teams. These teams work to help projects build on the SKALE Chain and then go-live. Part of the team’s job is to manage the deployment process and help teams attain access when they are ready to go-live.

While great for increasing the quality of projects, this does limit organic growth and disincentives builders who may want to go and experiment. The problem is that a zero gas fee chain cannot be fully permissionless from a contract deployment perspective, otherwise, it could easily be filled with spam and cause harm. The solution to disabling the semi-permissioned nature of a SKALE Chain is to introduce a valuable gas token which means it would cost money to attack the chain. This is the exact model that Ethereum and thousands of other chains have employed.

Proposal

I would like to propose the following high-level functionality be explored and discussed:

  • The ability for a SKALE Chain to have a valuable gas token. This does not remove the gasless option but instead enhances the network with a product decision by new chain owners.
  • The ability to customize the initialization of the gas token ownership & structure within the genesis block
  • The ability to disable Proof of Work (Gasless Transactions) for a SKALE Chain

This would not impact the following:

  • Existing SKALE Chains would remain gasless.
  • Interchain Messaging (Bridging) Design
  • Network economics

Design

Genesis Block Configuration

How SKALE Chains work now: Upon sChain creation, the nodes randomly selected to run the chain are given large allocations of sFUEL, along with the Etherbase contract, and the sChain Owner.

Proposed Changes: Enable sChain owners who want to utilize a gas token to define the genesis allocation of tokens

Gasless Transaction Immutable Toggle

How SKALE Chains work now: SKALE Chains by default have gasless transactions enabled. This uses a unique mechanism called Proof of Work which is native to SKALE and allows gas to be mined through a unique magic number algorithm.

Proposed Changes: Validate that sChain owners can disable this upon chain creation

Burn Mechanics

How SKALE Chains work now: When transactions are executed and blocks are posted on a SKALE Chain, the gas is currently recycled into the Etherbase smart contract

Proposed Changes: While I believe this would require deeper EVM changes and therefore probably a network upgrade, it would be nice to explore automated burn mechanics (i.e take tokens out of circulation). The good news is that if Etherbase is set to balance of 0 on a SKALE Chain then the sChain owner can revoke their ownership of the contract on chain creation and it would effectively lock the tokens

Gas Price Strategy

How SKALE Chains work now: The gas price i.e the minimum gas price is set at the EVM level for SKALE Network currently

Proposed Changes: Enables sChain owners who want to utilize a gas token to define their EVM gas price and change it over time. Short term, this allows chains to choose more or less gas to be consumed for a transaction. Long term, this allows chains to modify their gas price (maybe through a predeployed smart contract) which would in turn ensure that the chain remains viable regardless of the value of the gas token.

Chain Pricing

SKALE has one of the only sustainable models for operating in blockchain thanks to SKALE Chain Fees which requires owners to pay for their chain directly in SKL tokens as opposed to taking payment through gas fees.

This proposal would push for by default sChains that choose to use a gas token to pay into the SKALE Network in the normal fashion with the amount being determined by their chain size. This is a win-win for SKALE since it would directly increase the Total Value Secured (TVS) of the broader SKALE Network while also allowing sChain owners who have their on gas token to retain 100% of their own revenue earned and separately include their sChain as an operating expense.

This is very different from an L2 for example where rollup costs are dynamically changing on the fly at all time and are constantly eating into revenue, forcing most to run unprofitable.

Conclusion

This proposal aims to help the SKALE Network take another step forward toward being the most dominant Appchain and Layer 1 ecosystem in blockchain. Already consistently in the Top 5 in terms of compute used; this will allow more potential new blockchains to choose SKALE as their core tech stack as opposed to many of the network’s competitors who do have the gas token option. While this is a definite shift in the underlying product, I do believe this is a fantastic opportunity for the SKALE Ecosystem to explore how it attracts even more developers and businesses interested in running their own blockchains.

Please share your questions, comments, concerns and thoughts as we work together to explore this.

Thank you,
TheGreatAxios

2 Likes
2

This is an interesting topic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think it raises some important questions.

Skale’s zero gas fee model is not just a design choice; it is a defining part of the network’s identity. For many of us, it is what made Skale feel truly different. Allowing individual chains to introduce their own gas mechanics, even as an optional feature, could weaken that clarity, especially for users and projects who value consistency across the ecosystem.

From a governance perspective, this could also add complexity. If chains start adopting their own economic logic, it becomes more difficult for the community to maintain a unified framework. Who decides which models support the network’s long-term goals? And how do we ensure innovation does not come at the cost of cohesion?

That said, I really appreciate the out-of-the-box thinking here. Flexibility and experimentation are important, and I am open to being convinced if more feedback and discussion help clarify the vision.

I would especially like to hear thoughts from the original architects of the zero gas approach — @jackoholleran and @kladkogex — on how they see this kind of change fitting into Skale’s future.

1 Like
3

Hey @ChayaRottenchik —

Thank you for your feedback; it’s incredibly valuable. I fully agree that while zero gas fees have been huge in defining the network’s identity, I don’t believe this necessarily needs to change that.

As a developer, I believe that zero gas fees will continue to enable true innovation and seamless experiences by default for dApps that lean into it on SKALE Chains (and Hubs), as well as for projects like Exorde, which utilize SKALE for incredibly high throughput or heavy transactions they couldn’t perform elsewhere.

That said, more and more applications across many networks are now using Account Abstraction and Gas Abstractionto emulate SKALE. However, this often comes with a hidden cost: developers still have to foot the bill for the gas. This makes SKALE a better option in most cases for developers who want to hide gas fees from users. Even with improved Gas Abstraction services, SKALE’s zero gas fee moat continues to grow as more and more usage accumulates.

While I still personally believe that zero gas fees are best for most applications, if there are potential chain buyers/creators who want a gas token, I think it makes sense to explore and discuss this idea publicly.

On the governance/economics side, to clarify: I’m not proposing that those who want to create an sChain with a gas token have unique economics separate from everyone else. I propose that ALL SKALE Chains adhere to the existing chain pricing model, which continues to be expanded on with SIP-3. If someone wants an appchain with their own gas token and doesn’t want to pay into the network, then I believe they simply wouldn’t be a good fit for SKALE (and I’m personally okay with that).

Why? Because SKALE has the most sustainable economics of any Proof-of-Stake or multichain network out there—purely due to the fact that validators are making more from this model than from inflation. This means that even if someone launched a chain with token XYZ as their gas token, that token would be irrelevant to their “revenue capture” within SKALE. They would still owe $X per month in USD, paid in SKL, just like all other SKALE Chains, based on their chain size.

Some additional notes for confirmation and context:

  1. This doesn’t propose changing any network economics. It’s purely an exploration into how we can make SKALE attractive to a larger pool of chain creators/buyers.
  2. This would not impact any existing SKALE Chains. Zero gas fees would remain the default and recommended approach for new sChains.
  3. The creation of valuable gas tokens would directly increase the amount of value being secured by SKALE.
  4. SKALE Chains are, by default, semi-permissioned. The permission layer used to create the appchain (i.e., only allowing those on an allowlist to deploy) can be disabled. However, creating a more “public” chain like this would be difficult without a gas token, since sFUEL management and metering are critical to protecting a SKALE Chain.

Overall, I’m very grateful for your feedback and fully understand your reservations and questions. I posted this on a Friday, so it might take a few days to gain traction, but as mentioned at the top, I’m sharing this because I want to research further with the community and different projects to determine if this really makes sense.

Thank you!

1 Like
4

Hey folks

I think ultimately chain owners are customers of the network and if they are asking for something we need to consider this carefully.

Ultimately we develop opensource software and if some people want to use it in a particular way probably the best way is to let them do it :slight_smile:

Psychologically I think people kind of value native tokens more than non-native, so I understand why they want to do it …

1 Like