BLIP - Using $BLAST as Gas Fees in the Blast Ecosystem

BLIP - Research and Discussion
1

Executive Summary

This proposal aims to transition from using ETH to $BLAST as the primary gas fee token within the Blast ecosystem. Similar to models used by Arbitrum and other strong Layer 2 solutions, this change will add significant utility to the $BLAST token, increase its demand, and enhance the overall value of the Blast ecosystem.

Motivation

Currently, gas fees within the Blast ecosystem are paid in ETH. While this approach leverages the established utility of ETH, it does not contribute to the intrinsic value or utility of $BLAST. By using $BLAST for transaction fees, we create a direct use case for the token, driving demand and increasing its value. This proposal aims to enhance user engagement, boost the ecosystem’s economy, and provide a competitive edge in the crypto market.

Proposal Details

Current State

Gas fees within the Blast ecosystem are currently paid in ETH. This model, while effective, does not leverage the potential utility of the $BLAST token.

Proposed Change

Transition to using $BLAST as the primary gas fee token within the Blast ecosystem. This will involve updating the network’s transaction processing protocol to accept $BLAST for gas fees instead of ETH.

Benefits

  • Increased Utility: Providing a direct use case for $BLAST as gas fees will significantly increase the token’s utility.
  • Higher Demand: As more transactions occur within the ecosystem, the demand for $BLAST will rise, positively impacting its market value.
  • Enhanced Ecosystem Value: A higher demand and utility for $BLAST will contribute to the overall growth and robustness of the Blast ecosystem.
  • User Engagement: Encouraging the use of $BLAST for transaction fees will increase user engagement and retention within the ecosystem.

Implementation

Technical Adjustments

  • Protocol Update: Update the Blast network’s protocol to accept $BLAST for gas fees. This will require modifications to the transaction processing system and wallet integrations.
  • Testing and Validation: Conduct thorough testing to ensure the transition does not disrupt existing transactions or user experience.

Timeline

  • Week 1: Develop and test the updated protocol to support $BLAST as gas fees.
  • Week 2: Implement the protocol update on the mainnet and transition all transactions to use $BLAST for gas fees.
  • Week 3 and onwards: Monitor the system for any issues and provide ongoing support and optimizations.

Prior Proposals

This is the initial submission of this BLIP.

True and Complete

By submitting this BLIP, I represent and warrant to the Progress Council and the Blast Foundation that all the information it contains is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.

3 Likes
2

This might be the worst self-biased proposal ever, why would you make onboarding users harder, look at polygon and how much people hate it

3 Likes
3

Let me start by saying that this is a nice idea to improve blast utility, but as @foobar said, this would increase the learning curve to onboard people and make it harder for people think blast as another chain that people can simply bridge eth as main coin from one to another. However, I think that there is an interesting core for that idea, that I dont know if we are able to apply, but it would be nice to have blast as a second coin for gas, in case it is possible. It would reduce the need to trade blast for eth, in case we lack eth to transactions, and it would provide an addicional use for blast and a new reason to hold it.

1 Like
4

What do u think about this, @foobar and @ariesyuangga?

1 Like
5

Good idea…we need to raise interest in blast and not in broadcast! As long as there is ether to pay for gas, people will buy eth but not the blast token.

2 Likes
6

As an example of eth being the main coin is good for us is:

We can bridge here from blast to other chains, but only if we are bridging ETH. It Blast was our main coin, we would not be able to use this bridge and also many others. So it would be harder for people to bridge to Blast, I think. But I super think it is cool, if possible, that Blast be the second coin for gas.

1 Like
7

Absolutely do not do this. There are infinite ways to try and bring value to a token without forced “uTiLiTy.”

Not only does it increase user friction to demand BLAST as the gas token (See MNT/Mantle), but it’s also the one element of the stack swiftly going to zero (due to commoditization).

Agree with everyone else here; hard pass.

Instead, look to have the token earn far shares of the economic value taking place atop the chain which at this point is derived from sequencer fees and MEV rev

2 Likes
8

Personally, I think Blast is still incredibly young- I don’t think we need to worry about expanding utility at this point. It’s already clear that at some point fees will come. I think back to the scene in the social network where Mark refuses to bring ads on the platform because “we don’t know what this is yet.”

Part of being here so early is we get to help shape what Blast can become. Pacman posted a while ago about how we as a community can consider dynamic fees based on something like trailing volume. I personally think things like this is more interesting to explore to enhance the ecosystem value.

3 Likes