[SIP-3]: Performance SKALE Chains

TLDR;

This proposal (which aims to be SIP-3) is for a new type of SKALE Chain: the Performance SKALE Chain which would consume less resources compared to a Hub Chain and therefore cost less within the SKALE Network. I also propose some unique economic properties that I believe will help these chains be better suited to thrive within the world of decentralized networks.

Background

Over a year ago, the SKALE DAO passed SIP-1, establishing the foundation for Chain Pricing. This critical first step laid the groundwork for transitioning the network’s economics from inflation-based validator rewards to a model driven primarily by chain fees. That model allows validators and in the near future delegators to be compensated sustainably, while enabling dApps to run without charging end-users gas fees—a core differentiator that positions SKALE to continue to bring the world onchain. More recently, the SKALE DAO passed SIP-2, doubling the active price of the SKALE Hub Chain from $3,600 USD per month paid in SKL to $7,200 USD per month paid in SKL.

With more blockchains being created all the time, and more and more projects, teams, and enterprises interested in their on SKALE Chains; it feels like like the appropriate time to introduce a new SKALE Improvement Proposal (currently proposed to be SIP-3 with no other active proposals from the community).

Proposal

The proposed configuration for a Performance SKALE Chain would be to consume 1/32 of a SKALE Supernode compared to a SKALE Hub which consumes ⅛ of a SKALE Supernode. Offering a smaller and more cost-effective option for dApp developers who want their own dedicated blockchain at a more attainable price point for a singular application or business; these chains will still benefit from SKALE’s shared security model and decentralized validator set, but with lower resource consumption and pricing to match their target buyer.

The original design of the network called for three types of SKALE Chains, labeled as follows:

  • Small Chain which consumed 1/128th of a Supernode
  • Medium Chain which consumed 1/8th of a Supernode
  • Large Chain which consumed 1/1 of a Supernode

As part of this proposal, with all SKALE Chain types growing more powerful with all of the major network upgrades; the community proposes the following naming structure for the two active chain types in the network pending this proposal:

  • The Performance Chain which would consume 1/32nd of a Supernode
  • Hub Chain which would consume 1/8th of a Supernode

I also propose to change the naming conventions of the existing chain sizes: The small, medium, and large verbiage would be dropped entirely from documentation and usage in order to better communicate the roles of the different chains within the ecosystem.

The last portion of this proposal is exploring the economic design of a Performance SKALE Chain. The SKALE Hub Chains: Calypso, Europa, Nebula, and Titan have proven to be the cornerstones of the SKALE Network and even with recent SIP-2 remain heavily discounted from their long-term target price as the network continues to grow. Per SKALE Improvement Proposal #1, which brought SKALE Chain Pricing into Phase 2, there is a flat fee on SKALE Hubs that can be incrementally increased on the way toward the long-term dynamic pricing curve.

After discussion with a number of developers, potential SKALE Chain owners, as well as the SKALE Team; we would like to propose a static pricing model for performance chains. Performance chains would have the following:

Design

  • A starting price of $7,200 USD per month paid in SKL.
  • There would be no dynamic curve or longer term price target. This price point is the target price for this chain which is not discounted like the hub chains. Performance Chains and Hub Chains would be priced independently from each other and the SIP-1 price curve would only be utilized for hub chains.
  • Performance chains could be increased by up to 8% in price yearly through subsequent governance votes to ensure that chains remain competitive in pricing with macro changes such as inflation. This proposed soft limit is added to ensure that real businesses can build sustainable applications and operating models on SKALE without being priced out from large fluctuations.
  • In order to remain competitive with other blockchain networks who don’t have public pricing from our research, Performance Chain pricing could also be reduced at any time by any amount.

Lastly, from a technical perspective the core design of chain pricing would follow and inherit much from SIP-1. The technical proposal is defined below:

  • Performance chain pricing will be priced in USD, but paid in the equivalent amount of SKL tokens
  • Similar to hub pricing, Performance Chain fees would go 100% to validators for the foreseeable future. This can be changed with a subsequent governance vote.
  • Any chain fees paid regardless of who the receiver(s) are, would not be available until the second month of activation
  • Performance Chains could be prepaid up to 24 months (2 years) at any given period. This amount could be increased in a separate proposal and vote. This allows chains who prepay to be considered fully paid if a chain fee increase were to occur
  • Chains that fall out of compliance by not paying will be required to pay all the monthly past due months (at the active fee amount) plus the upcoming month inorder to restore compliance.
  • If a chain is not paid for three (3) consecutive months per SIP-1, the same actions would occur with chain deletion.
  • For the actual payments, the Performance Chains would utilize the SKALE Paymaster on the SKALE Europa Hub – which has an official sChain name of elated-tan-skat – pending further discussion and technical exploration with the SKALE Engineering team, a second SKALE Paymaster would be created for Performance Chains

Conclusion

The goal of this proposal is to enable SKALE Chains to be more competitive within the broader “Chain Buyer” market while also increasing the sustainability of companies looking to make SKALE their home long term.

Please share any thoughts, questions, comments, or concerns as we work to explore this together.

Thank you,
TheGreatAxios

2 Likes

Thanks for putting this proposal together, Sawyer.

It seems this proposal grew out of some good discussions with builders and prospective chain buyers, which makes sense given the need for more accessible on-ramps. The new names and tiering structure feel like smart, practical updates that better match what developers are looking for.

A couple of questions have come up for me around how this fits into SKALE’s broader economic model:

  • Could Performance Chains unintentionally pull demand away from existing chain types? I understand they’re priced separately and intended to complement rather than compete, but I’m curious how the team is thinking about developer perception and how each tier is positioned in terms of value.

  • How does this new tier align with BITE Protocol? If BITE becomes a core part of Skale’s future—especially in the DeFi space—will Performance Chains support encrypted execution, or would they require a separate configuration or pricing model?

This all makes a lot of sense from an adoption perspective, and I’m just curious how it connects to the long-term token model and upcoming protocol features like BITE.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

2 Likes

Hey Chaya –

Thanks for the feedback!

Re the naming, I think it makes sense as well. It’s not a huge change, but I think “small” chains turns developers off when in reality they are incredibly powerful still; just not as powerful as the hub chain.

Answering your questions (in my opinion, hope to see others chime in!):

Q: Could Performance Chains unintentionally pull demand away from existing chain types?
A: I don’t think it will have any impact, if anything I actually think it could potentially increase demand through increase SKALE success & visibility. Through discussion with developers and potential chain buyers, it became increasingly clear that the two biggest requests were:

  1. A chain priced lower (since hubs are targeting $500,000-$1,000,000+ per year value long term)
  2. A chain that would be more stable in price. Hubs are discounted currently since they are in growth phase but knowing that they’ll be much more expensive in the future means businesses who know they don’t need that amount of compute are less interested since they would potentially be priced out if their business isn’t large enough to cover the cost.

This solves both directly by having a much cheaper price that also should stay much more stable long term (increments should only occur if macro events have a major impact on validator cost).

Based on this, I actually believe that this will greatly increase the number of potential SKALE Chains being created and purchased (since more projects and businesses can afford the long term price). While of course not guaranteed that it will sell more SKALE Chains, this price point seemed to be attractive to a lot of developers and the removal of the dynamic price curve also seems to satisfy the sustainability concerns.

Q: How does this new tier align with BITE Protocol?
A: As we learn more about what the capabilities of BITE, how it’s used, and what it will look like within SKALE I think it will become clearer, but I don’t have the information to answer this currently.

For now, I believe what’s important is that this new tier of chain ideally will increase the attractiveness of SKALE Network as a place to launch a new blockchain compared to other appchain networks, standalone L1s, and Rollup as a Service (L2s).

Overall – great feedback and questions.

Thank you for your feedback!

1 Like

Thanks, Sawyer appreciate the thoughtful response. I agree that expanding the accessibility of Skale to a broader range of builders is a great move. If it brings in more users while maintaining flexibility, that’s a win!

1 Like