How are we okay with on-chain service fees?

Note: I’m not talking about blockchain fees but about unjustified fees that some contracts themselves take just to profit their creator or a group of people.

A few weeks ago I was looking for a multi-send service for the BSC, I found a bunch of them and typed the details and at the end of the process, surprise: it takes a fee?! Why would a multi-send contract take a fee?

It’s clear that it’s necessary to pay the blockchain fees, as the blockchain is really the only one that runs the service and (the miners really) has a manteinance cost. But there’s absolutely no maintenance cost for the contract deployer nor anyone else. The only cost for the deployer is a “one-time payment” to deploy the bytecode which is really low.

I’m going to put another example: PancakeSwap. It takes a 0.3% FEE on EVERY TRADE on EVERY LIQUIDITY PAIR. That seems outrageous too me: they don’t even have any developing costs (they are just a fork from Uniswap!). Yes they use some of the fees to run staking pools which incentive liquidity, but they also dump the fees collected on smaller projects to buy more of their (shit)coin CAKE and try to pump it trying to give it a sense of utility which it doesn’t really have.


It saddens me to see how many of the projects are like PancakeSwap: they are seeking a quick buck, they are not in for the tech and they don’t represent the true spirit of crypto. I hope that the future brings non-profit alternatives.


I would love to hear alternatives and developer groups that really are in for the tech and aren’t just looking for a quick buck. I’m definitely going to try to do my part by making a multi-send which takes absolutely no fees.

View Source

13 thoughts on “How are we okay with on-chain service fees?”

  1. There are no alternatives. You don’t seem to understand how protocols work. How exactly do you think people are incentivized to provide liquidity in pools on DEXes? How do you think any token attached to any money market, dex, liquidity service etc maintains any value at all? Fees need to exist as money incentivizes honest actors, that’s the whole point

  2. How can you say that they don’t even have developing costs? Who do you think maintains the platform, builds and implements new features?

  3. What other incentive do developers have to publish their DeFi projects and to improve on them. Seems to me like someone’s just wining about paying fees.

  4. Here’s the thing – most of the code out there is open source and public. Why don’t *you* make a service that charges 0 fees? Hint: it’s not going to be worth your time, plus you’ll actually lose money from having to hire devs to maintain your code (even if it’s a fork), hiring support people to help those with issues, and so on.

  5. At this point Pancakeswap is a lot more than just a fork on Uni. It has features Uniswap doesn’t. There are costs involved.

    You’re new to defi. Every LP is collecting fees on every swap done. This isn’t some Pancake swap only thing. That’s how they encourage people to participate. Only saints would be an LP if there was literally no benefit to themselves for doing such.

    I also don’t get how charging for a service somehow doesn’t represent the true spirit of crypto. Explain.

  6. I didn’t mention Uniswap because aparently it has fees disabled right now (at least in V2). Still I have read that out of the 0.3% a 0.25% of the fees that Uniswap collects go to incentive liquidity providers and the rest to development. That’s pretty good.

    But I still don’t like the way they manage the funds. At least on V2 they have full control of the fees in a Externally Owned Account.

    I think the best approach would be to allow staking in each Liquidity Pair contract itself by code, without Uniswap deciding/managing where the funds go to. This seems the fairest way: **the fees generated by a Liquidity Pair should go to incentive the liquidity providers of that specific Liquidity Pair**, as they are the most affected by price movements,

  7. Don’t think they’ll be an alternative to this.
    Protocols can only work to reduce the fees and stuffs.
    Like SPOOL that employs the buffer system to be able to efficiently reduce the fees on yield farming

  8. There is a lot of utility you are missing by being against any exchange fees, but for sure pancakeswap is not about being fair and sustainable but about mining their pockets.

    A project I know called Padswap is run by devs who have already made their riches in crypto and are in it for the legacy in creating a fair and sustainable system that rewards everyone evenly. Community owns 100% of LP and 90% of the supply.

    Padswap charges 0.3% with 0.25% going to the LP holders, as they are the bread and butter of dex’s, without an incentive to provide liquidity you won’t get any. The remaining 0.05% goes to a vault acting as an etf of the padswap ecosystem, that can be redeemed at any time via burning the reward token $pad.

    As you can see [here]( pad is backed 30% in less than a year via the transaction fee + farm fees, their launchpad just went live which also goes towards the backing. There are more features(auctions, nfts, deflationary stablecoin) being developed that increase the rate the vault accumulates backing. Because anyone can claim the backing at any time it is decentralised compared to time or ohm.

    Without the exchange having these fees it would not be able to have a sustainable method of yield farming.

  9. We are never ok especially for transaction fees on ETH network. But we have to find other projects that have some mechanisms in place the manage the gas fee just like the buffer mechanism put in place by spool finance to manage ETH fees … Hopefully expecting a Blockchain that will focus specifically on reducing ETH gas ..


Leave a Comment