fee – Earlybirds Invest https://earlybirdsinvest.com Latest Crypto News Fri, 12 Sep 2025 20:48:18 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.7 https://i0.wp.com/earlybirdsinvest.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/cropped-New-Project-2024-12-17T235703.455.png?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 fee – Earlybirds Invest https://earlybirdsinvest.com 32 32 240146708 How does Op_return’s Uncapping affect long-term fee market quality and security budgets? https://earlybirdsinvest.com/how-does-op_returns-uncapping-affect-long-term-fee-market-quality-and-security-budgets/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/how-does-op_returns-uncapping-affect-long-term-fee-market-quality-and-security-budgets/#respond Fri, 12 Sep 2025 20:48:17 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/how-does-op_returns-uncapping-affect-long-term-fee-market-quality-and-security-budgets/

Is the increase in OP_Return demand bias an estimate of Mempool-based fees for normal payments (e.g., different elasticity/arrival patterns and currency TXS)?

No, op_return transactions are not specifically treated (positive or negative) in terms of fees. All transactions are treated equally, and the only distinctive factor is how willing you to pay for the fee. Whether a transaction has an OP_RETURN, an inscription, or a payment, all transactions compete for the same resource, that is, space within the block. Rate estimates should take into account all demands of block space equally.

Can a maintained op_return request crowds to pay less monetary, reducing their viability in the chain, even if the total fees rise?

Certainly, we have seen similar behavior happen before in the inscription. It’s all about supply and demand. As the supply of block space is limited, when demand increases, the price of that block space will also rise, whether it be payments, op_returns, inscriptions, etc. Ultimately, it comes down to someone who is willing to pay a higher price. Maybe the person paying is willing to pay more than create Op_returns. Probably the opposite.

However, it should be noted that payment transactions are often small and there are many coin selection strategies that can be optimized to create small transactions. Given that, even if Feerate is higher, a transaction that is simply a payment could potentially pay less absolute fees than a transaction that includes OP_Return.

Is there an analysis or simulation that shows that the higher OP_Return usage does not reduce the reliability of the settlement or lead to volatile fee dynamics than it would damage adoption?

Past actions on the network show that even when there is significant demand for block space, where adoption is still increasing, it is still increasing. See if more people are using Bitcoin as something like an inscription is happening. In general, adoptions tended to rise regardless of what was happening in the chain.

We also know that it is difficult to predict how much we will pay to enter a block from previous instances of a high transaction volume. This is probably true whether that volume is from op_returns, inscription, payment, or something else. This could affect the “reliability of the settlement” if what it means is to guess how long it will take for the transaction to be mined.

However, there is no reason to assume that increasing the OP_RETURN limit will increase the amount of transactions. The main way of data insertion on blockchain over the past few years is through inscriptions. The method of inserting data is inexpensive and allows for more data than OP_RETURN. Increasing the OP_RETURN limit does not change it, so anyone trying to insert a lot of data will rarely switch to OP_RETURN. There are very small users whose bigger OP_returns are interesting, but they don’t have a high (or actually a significant amount of) transaction volume.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/how-does-op_returns-uncapping-affect-long-term-fee-market-quality-and-security-budgets/feed/ 0 58117 Uncle Rate and Transaction Fee Analysis https://earlybirdsinvest.com/uncle-rate-and-transaction-fee-analysis/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/uncle-rate-and-transaction-fee-analysis/#respond Thu, 11 Sep 2025 12:44:49 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/uncle-rate-and-transaction-fee-analysis/

One of the important indicators of how much load the Ethereum blockchain can safely handle is how the uncle rate responds to the gas usage of a transaction. In all blockchains of the Satoshian proof-of-work variety, any block that is published has the risk of howbecoming a “stale”, ie. not being part of the main chain, because another miner published a competing block before the recently published block reached them, leading to a situation where there is a “race” between two blocks and so one of the two will necessarily be left behind.

Stale block

One important fact is that the more transactions a block contains (or the more gas a block uses), the longer it will take to propagate through the network. In the Bitcoin network, one seminal study on this was Decker and Wattenhofer (2013), which found that the average propagation time of a block was about 2 seconds plus another 0.08 seconds per kilobyte in the block (ie. a 1 MB block would take ~82 seconds). A more recent Bitcoin Unlimited study showed that this has since reduced to ~0.008 seconds per kilobyte due to transaction propagation technology improvements. We can also see that if a block takes longer to propagate, the chance that it will become a stale is higher; at a block time of 600 seconds, a propagation time increase of 1 second should correspond to an increased 1/600 chance of being left behind.

In Ethereum, we can make a similar analysis, except that thanks to Ethereum’s “uncle” mechanic we have very solid data to analyze from. Stale blocks in Ethereum can be re-included into the chain as “uncles”, where they receive up to 75% of their original block reward. This mechanic was originally introduced to reduce centralization pressures, by reducing the advantage that well-connected miners have over poorly connected miners, but it also has several side benefits, one of which is that stale blocks are tracked for all time in a very easily searchable database – the blockchain itself. We can take a data dump of blocks 1 to 2283415 (before the Sep 2016 attacks) as a source of data for analysis.

Here is a script to generate some source data: http://github.com/ethereum/research/tree/master/uncle_regressions/block_datadump_generator.py

Here is the source data: http://github.com/ethereum/research/tree/master/uncle_regressions/block_datadump.csv

The columns, in order, represent block number, number of uncles in the block, the total uncle reward, the total gas consumed by uncles, the number of transactions in the block, the gas consumed by the block, the length of the block in bytes, and the length of the block in bytes excluding zero bytes.

We can then use this script to analyze it: http://github.com/ethereum/research/tree/master/uncle_regressions/base_regression.py

The results are as follows. In general, the uncle rate is consistently around 0.06 to 0.08, and the average gas consumed per block is around 100000 to 300000. Because we have the gas consumed of both blocks and uncles, we run a linear regression to estimate of how much 1 unit of gas adds to the probability that a given block will be an uncle. The coefficients turn out to be as follows:

Block 0 to 200k: 3.81984698029e-08
Block 200k to 400k: 5.35265798406e-08
Block 400k to 600k: 2.33638832951e-08
Block 600k to 800k: 2.12445242166e-08
Block 800k to 1000k: 2.7023102773e-08
Block 1000k to 1200k: 2.86409050022e-08
Block 1200k to 1400k: 3.2448993833e-08
Block 1400k to 1600k: 3.12258208662e-08
Block 1600k to 1800k: 3.18276549008e-08
Block 1800k to 2000k: 2.41107348445e-08
Block 2000k to 2200k: 1.99205804032e-08
Block 2200k to 2285k: 1.86635688756e-08

Hence, each 1 million gas worth of transactions that gets included in a block now adds ~1.86% to the probability that that block will become an uncle, though during Frontier this was closer to 3-5%. The “base” (ie. uncle rate of a 0-gas block) is consistently ~6.7%. For now, we will leave this result as it is and not make further conclusions; there is one further complication that I will discuss later at least with regard to the effect that this finding has on gas limit policy.

Gas pricing

Another issue that touches uncle rates and transaction propagation is gas pricing. In Bitcoin development discussions, a common argument is that block size limits are unnecessary because miners already have a natural incentive to limit their block sizes, which is that every kilobyte they add increases the stale rate and hence threatens their block reward. Given the 8 sec per megabyte impedance found by the Bitcoin Unlimited study, and the fact that each second of impedance corresponds to a 1/600 chance of losing a 12.5 BTC block reward, this suggests an equilibrium transaction fee of 0.000167 BTC per kilobyte assuming no block size limits.

In Bitcoin’s environment, there are reasons to be long-term skeptical about the economics of such a no-limit incentive model, as there will eventually be no block reward, and when the only thing that miners have to lose from including too many transactions is fees from their other transactions, then there is an economic argument that the equilibrium stale rate will be as high as 50%. However, there are modifications that can be made to the protocol to limit this coefficient.

In Ethereum’s current environment, block rewards are 5 ETH and will stay that way until the algorithm is changed. Accepting 1 million gas means a 1.86% chance of the block becoming an uncle. Fortunately, Ethereum’s uncle mechanism has a happy side effect here: the average uncle reward is recently around 3.2 ETH, so 1 million gas only means a 1.86% chance of putting 1.8 ETH at risk, ie. an expected loss of 0.033 ETH and not 0.093 as would be the case without an uncle mechanism. Hence, the current gas prices of ~21 shannon are actually quite close to the “economically rational” gas price of 33 shannon (this is before the DoS attacks and the optimizations arising therefrom; now it is likely even lower).

The simplest way to push the equilibrium gasprice down further is to improve uncle inclusion mechanics and try to get uncles included in blocks as quickly as possible (perhaps by separately propagating every block as a “potential uncle header”); at the limit, if every uncle is included as quickly as possible, the equilibrium gas price would go down to about 11 shannon.

Is Data Underpriced?

A second linear regression analysis can be done with source code here: http://github.com/ethereum/research/tree/master/uncle_regressions/tx_and_bytes_regression.py

The purpose here is to see if, after accounting for the above computed coefficients for gas, there is a correlation with the number of transactions or with the size of a block in bytes left over. Unfortunately, we do not have block size or transaction count figures for uncles, so we have to resort to a more indirect trick that looks at blocks and uncles in groups of 50. The gas coefficients that this analysis finds are higher than the previous analysis: around 0.04 uncle rate per million gas. One possible explanation is that if a single block has a high propagation time, and it leads to an uncle, there is a 50% chance that that uncle is the high-propagation-time block, but there is also a 50% chance that the uncle will be the other block that it competes against. This theory matches well with the 0.04 per million “social uncle rate” and the ~0.02 per million “private uncle rate” finding; hence we will take it as the most likely explanation.

The regression finds that, after accounting for this social uncle rate, one byte accounts for an additional ~0.000002 uncle rate. Bytes in a transaction take up 68 gas, of which 61 gas accounts for its contribution to bandwidth (the remaining 7 is for bloating the history database). If we want the bandwidth coefficient and the computation coefficient in the gas table to both reflect propagation time, then this implies that if we wanted to really optimize gas costs, we would need to increase the gas cost per byte by 50 (ie. to 138). This would also entail raising the base gas cost of a transaction by 5500 (note: such a rebalance would not mean that everything gets more expensive; the gas limit would be raised by ~10% so that the average-case transaction throughput would remain unchanged). On the other hand, the risk of worst-case denial-of-service attacks is worse for execution than for data, and so execution requires larger safety factors. Hence, there is arguably not sufficiently strong evidence to do any re-pricings here at least for the time being.

One possible long-term protocol change would be to introduce separate gas pricing mechanisms for in-EVM execution and transaction data; the argument here is that the two are much easier to separate as transaction data can be computed separately from everything else, and so the optimal strategy may be to somehow allow the market to balance them; however, precise mechanisms for doing such a thing still need to be developed.

Gas Limit Policy

For an individual miner determining their gas price, the “private uncle rate” of 0.02 per million gas is the relevant statistic. From the point of view of the whole system, the “social uncle rate” of 0.04 per million gas is what matters. If we did not care about safety factors and were ok with an uncle rate of 0.5 uncles per block (meaning, a “51% attack” would only need 40% hashpower to succeed, actually not as bad as it sounds) then at least this analysis suggests that the gas limit could theoretically be raised to ~11 million (20 tx/sec given an average 39k gas per tx as is the case under current usage, or 37 tx/sec worth of simple sends). With the latest optimizations, this could be pushed even higher. However, since we do care about safety factors and prefer to have a lower uncle rate to alleviate centralization risks, 5.5 million is likely an optimal level for the gas limit, though in the medium term a “dynamic gas limit” formula that targets a particular block processing time would be a better approach, as it would be able to quickly and automatically adjust in response to attacks and risks.

Note that the concern about the centralization risks and the need for safety factors do not stack on top of each other. The reason is that during an active denial-of-service attack, the blockchain needs to survive, not be long-term economically centralization-resistant; the argument is that if the attacker’s goal was to economically encourage centralization, then the attacker could just donate money to the biggest pool in order to bribe other miners to join it.

In the future, we can expect virtual machine improvements to decrease uncle rates further, though improvements to networking are eventually going to be required as well. There is a limit to how much scalability is possible on a single chain, with the primary bottleneck being disk reads and writes, so after some point (likely 10-40 million gas) sharding will be the only way to process more transactions. If we just want to decrease equilibrium gas prices, then Casper will help substantially, by making the “slope” of uncle rate to gas consumption near-zero at least up to a certain point.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/uncle-rate-and-transaction-fee-analysis/feed/ 0 57899 TRON Selected by U.S. Commerce Department for GDP Data Publication as Network Adoption Surges After 60% Fee Reduction https://earlybirdsinvest.com/tron-selected-by-u-s-commerce-department-for-gdp-data-publication-as-network-adoption-surges-after-60-fee-reduction/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/tron-selected-by-u-s-commerce-department-for-gdp-data-publication-as-network-adoption-surges-after-60-fee-reduction/#respond Wed, 03 Sep 2025 06:47:58 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/tron-selected-by-u-s-commerce-department-for-gdp-data-publication-as-network-adoption-surges-after-60-fee-reduction/

Disclosure: This is a sponsored post. Readers should conduct further research prior to taking any actions. Learn more ›

September 2, 2025 – Geneva, Switzerland – TRON DAO, the community-governed DAO dedicated to accelerating the decentralization of the internet through blockchain technology and decentralized applications (dApps), announced today that the U.S. Department of Commerce has selected the TRON blockchain as one of the primary networks for posting official economic data, beginning with the second quarter gross domestic product (GDP) release.

For the first time, a federal agency has published official GDP data to public blockchains, demonstrating how decentralized technology can safeguard transparency and provide global access to critical economic indicators. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported a Q2 2025 GDP growth rate of 3.3 percent on an annualized basis, with the data hash recorded immutably on TRON with the transaction hash: 3f05633fb894aa6d6610c980975cca732a051edbbf5d8667799782cf2ae04040.

TRON’s Role in Securing U.S. Economic Data

The Department of Commerce recorded the SHA256 hash of the official GDP release on TRON, acknowledging the network’s proven ability to deliver scale, speed, efficiency, and global accessibility. Processing over $22 billion in daily settlement and more than 8.8 million daily transactions, TRON has emerged as a trusted layer of infrastructure not only for financial markets but also for the secure publication of government data worldwide.

“Publishing GDP data on chain is a powerful statement about the role TRON now plays as public infrastructure, not only for payments but for safeguarding some of the world’s most important information,” said Justin Sun, Founder of TRON. “This initiative shows how blockchain can advance transparency and trust in ways that strengthen both traditional institutions and decentralized systems. It is only the beginning of how public blockchains like TRON will redefine global access to data and finance.”

Publishing the GDP data hash on TRON highlights the role of decentralized networks in preserving data integrity, strengthening accountability, and ensuring open access for citizens, researchers, and policymakers worldwide. It also reflects the United States government’s commitment to leadership in blockchain innovation and to advancing America’s position as the global hub for digital trust and transparency.

In August 2025, TRON’s community governance approved a 60 percent reduction in energy fees, sharply lowering transaction costs and immediately driving adoption. Within days, TRON surpassed 2.5 million daily active users, overtaking both BNB Chain and Solana in activity, according to DeFiLlama data. The move was designed to preserve accessibility, particularly for stablecoin transfers, where TRON leads globally with more than $79 billion in USDT circulating on the network. 

Through its continued commitment to affordability and accessibility, TRON is establishing the foundation for enduring growth and securing its position as a vital infrastructure for the future of the global digital economy.

About TRON DAO

TRON DAO is a community-governed DAO dedicated to accelerating the decentralization of the internet via blockchain technology and dApps.

Founded in September 2017 by H.E. Justin Sun, the TRON blockchain has experienced significant growth since its MainNet launch in May 2018. Until recently, TRON hosted the largest circulating supply of USD Tether (USDT) stablecoin, which currently exceeds $79 billion. As of September 2025, the TRON blockchain has recorded over 329 million in total user accounts, more than 11 billion in total transactions, and over $28 billion in total value locked (TVL), based on TRONSCAN. Recognized as the global settlement layer for stablecoin transactions and everyday purchases with proven success, TRON is “Moving Trillions, Empowering Billions.”

TRONNetwork | TRONDAO | X | YouTube | Telegram | Discord | Reddit | GitHub | Medium | Forum

Media Contact
Yeweon Park
[email protected]

Mentioned in this article
]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/tron-selected-by-u-s-commerce-department-for-gdp-data-publication-as-network-adoption-surges-after-60-fee-reduction/feed/ 0 56510 Galaxy’s Alex Thorn calls Ethereum L2s ‘ETH extractive’ amid fee retention concerns https://earlybirdsinvest.com/galaxys-alex-thorn-calls-ethereum-l2s-eth-extractive-amid-fee-retention-concerns/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/galaxys-alex-thorn-calls-ethereum-l2s-eth-extractive-amid-fee-retention-concerns/#respond Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:40:14 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/galaxys-alex-thorn-calls-ethereum-l2s-eth-extractive-amid-fee-retention-concerns/

Galaxy head of research Alex Thorn criticized the business model of many Ethereum (ETH) layer-2 (L2) blockchains as “ETH extractive.”

In an Aug. 6 social media post, Thorn argued that L2 networks retain most of the fee revenue while contributing relatively little back to the Ethereum L1. 

Thorn added that most L2s are controlled by single companies or foundations, which means “very little value accrues to ETH holders,” and “most L2s don’t even stake back the ETH they collect in fees.” 

Post EIP-4844

Pointing to post-EIP-4844 dynamics, Thorn noted that aggregate L2 blob confirmation costs and L1 gas spend have hovered around $10,000 per day, while L2s earn from $100,000 to $400,000 daily in user fees.

As a result, L2 earnings leave “a nice margin even including running the chain.” Blobs are dedicated spaces offering data storage used by layer-2 blockchains built on top of Ethereum.

He also contrasted payments from Base to the Optimism Collective, since Base uses the OP Stack, versus payments from L2s to Ethereum. Over the last 180 days, Base paid $4.4 million to OP, while all L2s combined paid $3.05 million to Ethereum L1 for blobs and gas.

Thorn further claimed Coinbase made $14.9 million in Base fee revenue in Q2, with $443,000 in L1 data costs and $2.16 million paid to OP, saying “OP is literally making 4.8x more off Base than Ethereum is.” 

The critique culminated in a broader alignment question, to which Thorn responded:

“…They aren’t really ‘eth aligned…’ they look pretty ‘Eth extractive’ to me.”

Long-running debate

Base graduated to Stage 1 in April on data aggregator L2Beat, an intermediate decentralization tier envisioned by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. 

Stage 1 indicates improved fault-proofs and governance safeguards, while Stage 2 is defined by an L2 having no group of actors that can post a state root other than the output of the code, even unanimously.

The L2 powered by Coinbase was among other chains that recently updated their security measures to prevent ways to block messages to the mainnet other than compromising at least 75% of the network’s security council. 

Thorn’s argument revives a long-running debate over how much economic value L2s should return to Ethereum versus to their operators or upstream collectives. 

The post-4844 cost structure lowered L2 data costs by introducing blobs, but the balance between user fees retained by L2s and L1 spend and staking remains contested.

Mentioned in this article
]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/galaxys-alex-thorn-calls-ethereum-l2s-eth-extractive-amid-fee-retention-concerns/feed/ 0 51869 Coming soon: 64 new spot pairs will take part in the manufacturer’s fee incentive structure. https://earlybirdsinvest.com/coming-soon-64-new-spot-pairs-will-take-part-in-the-manufacturers-fee-incentive-structure/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/coming-soon-64-new-spot-pairs-will-take-part-in-the-manufacturers-fee-incentive-structure/#respond Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:40:05 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/coming-soon-64-new-spot-pairs-will-take-part-in-the-manufacturers-fee-incentive-structure/

On August 1, 2025, we will add 64 new eligible spot trading pairs to the Kraken Pro manufacturer fee incentive structure. It launched in late June to encourage deeper liquidity and improve market efficiency. We are pleased to announce today that we are expanding the amount of eligible pairs.

Additionally, new pairs listed on Kraken Pro after August 1, 2025 will be subject to a new manufacturer fee schedule with the aim of jumping liquidity in the newly listed pairs and tightening the spread.

New pairs added

Quick summary: What is the incentive structure for manufacturer fees?

This promotion introduces lower manufacturer fees across all manufacturer fee tiers due to the selected number of low liquidity pairs. Users in the $10 million + 30d volume pricing tier are also eligible to win manufacturer fees.

New fees apply Only manufacturer transactions Above Target spot pair. If eligible, you will receive an instant rebate upon trade execution based on a 30-day Kraken Spot Trading volume. Taker’s trade fees remain unchanged.

Click here for a complete list of currently eligible pairs.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/coming-soon-64-new-spot-pairs-will-take-part-in-the-manufacturers-fee-incentive-structure/feed/ 0 50099 Ethereum attracts record ETF inflows and 39% fee drop in Q2, supporting stronger outlook for Q3 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/ethereum-attracts-record-etf-inflows-and-39-fee-drop-in-q2-supporting-stronger-outlook-for-q3/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/ethereum-attracts-record-etf-inflows-and-39-fee-drop-in-q2-supporting-stronger-outlook-for-q3/#respond Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:51:49 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/ethereum-attracts-record-etf-inflows-and-39-fee-drop-in-q2-supporting-stronger-outlook-for-q3/

Ethereum (ETH) registered significant improvements in the second quarter, including increased inflows of exchange-traded funds (ETFs), layer-2 activity, and liquidity, which enhance the prospects for the third quarter.

According to the “Charting Crypto Q3 2025” report by Coinbase and Glassnode, US-traded spot Ethereum ETFs captured $1.7 billion in net inflows last quarter, overturning the prior period’s outflows.

Institutional flows flip positive

Furthermore, layer‑2 throughput climbed 7%, while average user fees dropped 39%. This was followed by an 8% increase in liquid supply, while long‑dormant balances shrank 6%.

As a result of the improvements seen last quarter, the share of ETH held at a profit increased from under 40% to nearly 90%. Additionally, the total value locked on Ethereum reached $ 63.2 billion.

The improvements are also registered in the derivatives market, where daily perpetual futures turnover averaged $51.4 billion, up 56% quarter‑over‑quarter.

Aggregate inflows erased a first‑quarter $200 million leak and restored momentum for managers positioning ETH as the market’s second large‑cap crypto. 

Futures open interest totaled $14.5 billion on June 30 despite a 6.9% quarterly pullback, highlighting deeper liquidity across regulated venues. 

Meanwhile, options open interest stood at $ 5.3 billion, with derivatives desks also logging an 11% uptick in term‑futures volume, signaling growing hedging appetite.

Network activity and economics

Developers and users benefited from a 39% decline in base layer fees as rollups absorbed more transactions, sharpening the economics of on‑chain application deployment. 

At the same time, Ethereum’s inflation rate remained modest, at approximately 0.75% annualized. This cushioned long-term supply pressure. 

Staked ETH continued to climb, and the report plotted both total staked value and the associated annual yield among its core fundamentals tables.

On-chain analytics show that holders used the second-quarter price recovery to reposition. Liquid coins, defined as those moved within 90 days, rose 8%, whereas coins untouched for more than a year fell 6%.

This indicated controlled profit‑taking rather than wholesale distribution. ETH’s Net Unrealized Profit/Loss flipped from capitulation to optimism between the first and second quarters, aligning with market‑cycle models that track investor sentiment shifts. 

The pool of coins sitting below cost plummeted from more than 40 million to fewer than 10 million over the same period.

DeFi collateral base and market share

Ethereum’s $63 billion total value locked (TVL) in the DeFi ecosystem is spread across lending, decentralized exchanges, and yield farming protocols. 

Ether also expanded its slice of total crypto market capitalization alongside Bitcoin and Solana as investors rotated toward perceived blue‑chip assets.

Perpetual swap funding rates, tracked alongside Bitcoin and Solana, remained neutral to positive through late June, suggesting balanced speculative positioning rather than froth.

However, the report cautioned that sustained ETF inflows and favorable fee conditions must persist to maintain the second-quarter constructive backdrop. 

Nevertheless, it noted that Ethereum now enters the third quarter with stronger institutional sponsorship, lower transaction costs, and a healthier on-chain profit profile.

Mentioned in this article
]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/ethereum-attracts-record-etf-inflows-and-39-fee-drop-in-q2-supporting-stronger-outlook-for-q3/feed/ 0 48481 How do I calculate the transaction fee for a CALL to CALLEPSEPSBT()? https://earlybirdsinvest.com/how-do-i-calculate-the-transaction-fee-for-a-call-to-callepsepsbt/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/how-do-i-calculate-the-transaction-fee-for-a-call-to-callepsepsbt/#respond Sat, 14 Jun 2025 00:30:49 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/how-do-i-calculate-the-transaction-fee-for-a-call-to-callepsepsbt/ When my user calls my app, he is passed as an input parameter. Call it to create a PSBT createpsbt(). Full control over input and output decisions. For example, I don’t call walletcreatefundedpsbt()Because I don’t want to choose input on my behalf to bitcoind. I have a chicken and egg problem in that I need to call createpsbt() To determine the size of TX in bytes, you must specify the fee amount before the call createpsbt(). The best solution I can think of is to perform a dummy call createpsbt() Use the dummy fee value to measure the size of the TX and make the actual call createpsbt() After calculating the fee amount correctly. Is there a better way?

edit: I want to use all utxos. You need two outputs. One receives a fixed amount and the other receives a change in the fee. I have tried many spells, I can’t make it work. Here is my latest attempt:

raw_psbt = rpc.walletcreatefundedpsbt(
    # all UTXOs, as returned by listunspent():
    inputs,
    # one recipient: ( { addr : amount } )
    outputs,
    0,  # locktime
    {
        "replaceable" : True,
        # I would like for the change less the fee to go here:
        "changeAddress" : xxx,
        "includeWatching" : True,
        "feeRate" : 0.005,
    }
)

This fails Signing transaction failed (-4). Are you thinking about what I’m doing?

Edit #2: Cannot be used walletcreatefundedpsbt() As suggested below, in my environment, in order to create a PSBT, its input must be “solvable” in that function. Details of this link:

Error in walletcreatefundedpsbt & Unweldable utxos

So my original question remains unresolved at this point.

Edit #3: So I asked in Slack. The problem is that Bitcoin core does not have a way to calculate the TX size before TX is signed, since UTXOS cannot be expressed in 1) in a descriptor language, rather than 2) in a descriptor language. Apparently, you will need to do the calculations manually, as explained in the attached screenshot.Slack Chat

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/how-do-i-calculate-the-transaction-fee-for-a-call-to-callepsepsbt/feed/ 0 41887 Fee discounts for EURR and USDR trading are now available! https://earlybirdsinvest.com/fee-discounts-for-eurr-and-usdr-trading-are-now-available/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/fee-discounts-for-eurr-and-usdr-trading-are-now-available/#respond Tue, 03 Jun 2025 02:50:30 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/fee-discounts-for-eurr-and-usdr-trading-are-now-available/

Applies to all eligible transactions (no volume requirements):

  • Manufacturer: 0 bps (free)
  • Taker: 1 bps

Eligible trading pairs

Eurr Pair:

  • EURR/EUR
  • EURR/USD
  • EURR/USDC
  • EURR/USDT

USDR Pair:

  • USDR/USD
  • USDR/USDC
  • USDR/USDT
  • USDR/EUR

To add assets to your Kraken account, go to Funding, select the subsequent assets, and press “Deposit”.

Below is more information about these assets:

Stablr Eur (Eurr)

The EURR is fixed to the EURO at a fully secured Stablecoin Pegged 1:1 and is designed for seamless cross-border transactions and Defi applications. EURR is supported by a mix of cash reserves and real-world assets, providing stability and liquidity for users looking for reliable euro-denominated digital assets.

stablrusd (usdr)

A USDR is a stubcoin that is fixed in US dollars, supported by real-world assets (RWAs), such as tokenized real estate and yield-backed securities. Unlike traditional stable coins, USDR generates passive income through its support, making it a unique alternative to the Decentralized Financial (DEFI) ecosystem.

please note, Geographical restrictions may apply.

Ready to trade, but don’t have a Kraken account yet? Sign up today!


]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/fee-discounts-for-eurr-and-usdr-trading-are-now-available/feed/ 0 39810 Bitcoin mining revenues fall to critical level for older miners as fee income slides post-halving https://earlybirdsinvest.com/bitcoin-mining-revenues-fall-to-critical-level-for-older-miners-as-fee-income-slides-post-halving/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/bitcoin-mining-revenues-fall-to-critical-level-for-older-miners-as-fee-income-slides-post-halving/#respond Thu, 01 May 2025 14:10:17 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/bitcoin-mining-revenues-fall-to-critical-level-for-older-miners-as-fee-income-slides-post-halving/

Bitcoin miner revenues have compressed sharply since the April 2024 halving.

Transaction fees currently contribute around 1.48% of block rewards, near the lowest share since 2023.

The decline highlights a growing reliance on subsidy income, which dropped to 3.125 BTC per block following the halving.

Bitcoin fees as percentage of block subsidy (Source: Bitbo)
Bitcoin fees as percentage of block subsidy (Source: Bitbo)

Hashprice has also remained stagnant.

At $48.9 per PH/s/day in late April, miner revenue failed to track Bitcoin’s spot price near $95,000. This dynamic has left power-hungry mining rigs operating at a loss. Units running between 25-38 J/TH earned about $0.06 per kWh, falling short of grid costs estimated at $0.08.

Hashprice chart (Source: Hashrateindex)
Hashprice chart (Source: Hashrateindex)

Fee spikes from Ordinals and Runes activity proved temporary. Despite surging to $127 per transaction during Runes’ April 2024 launch, average fees have since collapsed below $2.

The fading blockspace demand raises concerns about the sustainability of transaction-driven miner income. While 650 million users now have indirect access to Lightning Network channels, off-chain transactions have not materially boosted block rewards.

Developers are watching OP_CAT and CTV soft-fork proposals as potential catalysts. Galaxy Research expects consensus by 2025, though activation timelines remain uncertain.

Stress scenarios highlight miner vulnerability. With Bitcoin priced at $96,000 and fee income at 1%, nearly 35% of the network could face negative cash flow at standard electricity rates.

CryptoSlate modeling using Luxor hashprice and Coin Metrics ASIC-mix data shows that at an $85k BTC price and fees stuck at 1 % of the block reward, roughly a third of installed hashpower would operate below cash-flow breakeven at $0.08 /kWh.

At $96k, Bitcoin’s price rally shaves the pain, but one in five hashes is still unprofitable if the fee share stays pinned at 1 %. The subsidy alone can’t keep mid-gen rigs humming on $0.08 power for long, highlighting just how fee-sensitive post-halving miner margins have become.

Older ASICs could pause first, driving fleet upgrades and testing Bitcoin’s decentralization. Without stronger fee markets or new demand cycles, the post-halving environment is tightening margins industry-wide.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/bitcoin-mining-revenues-fall-to-critical-level-for-older-miners-as-fee-income-slides-post-halving/feed/ 0 33808 Ethereum Fee Plunges To 5-Year Low—Is This A Bottom Signal? https://earlybirdsinvest.com/ethereum-fee-plunges-to-5-year-low-is-this-a-bottom-signal/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/ethereum-fee-plunges-to-5-year-low-is-this-a-bottom-signal/#respond Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:43:17 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/ethereum-fee-plunges-to-5-year-low-is-this-a-bottom-signal/

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

On-chain data shows the Ethereum transaction fee has dropped to the lowest level in years recently. Here’s what this could mean for ETH’s price.

Ethereum Average Fees Now Valued At Just $0.168

In a new Insight post, the on-chain analytics firm Santiment has discussed the latest trend in the Average Fees of Ethereum. The “Average Fees” is a metric that, as its name suggests, keeps track of the average amount of fees that senders on the ETH network are attaching with their transactions.

This indicator’s value directly correlates to the amount of traffic that the blockchain is dealing with. The reason behind this lies in the fact that the network only has a limited capacity to handle transfers.

When the chain is busy, transfers can remain stuck in waiting until the transactions ahead of them clear out. Those who want their transactions to be processed ASAP can choose to attach a larger-than-average fee, so that the validators prioritise them.

In times of especially high traffic, this kind of competition among users can quickly drive the Average Fees up to significant levels. When there is little activity, however, senders have little incentive to pay any notable amount of fees, so the metric’s value can remain low.

It would appear that Ethereum has been witnessing the latter kind of conditions recently, as the Average Fees have registered a drop.

Ethereum Average Fees

Looks like the value of the metric has declined to a low level in recent days | Source: Santiment

As displayed in the above graph, the Ethereum Average Fees have fallen to a low of $0.168 recently, which is the lowest that it has been since 2020. This means that activity on the network is historically low at the moment.

According to the analytics firm, this may not actually be so bad from a trading perspective, as low fee periods can often precede rebounds in the cryptocurrency’s price.

Below is a chart that shows an example of this trend in action:

Ethereum Trend

The past trend in the transaction fees of ETH | Source: Santiment

As is visible in the above graph, the Ethereum Average Fees falling under the $1 mark back in 2023 led to bullish momentum for the asset. The explanation behind this pattern may lie in the fact that low-fee periods can indicate disinterest from the crowd.

Historically, ETH and other digital assets have tended to move in a way that goes contrary to the expectation of the majority. This means that a lack of optimism can lead to rebounds, while excessive hype can result in tops. From the chart, it’s apparent that ETH’s Q1 2024 top came as the metric surpassed $15, indicating a plethora of excitement.

“Generally, fee levels under $1 are a pretty promising sign that the crowd has become disinterested,” notes the analytics firm. “Just remember that there is no set guaranteed “bottom” or “top” level every time fee costs breach below or above a certain level.”

ETH Price

At the time of writing, Ethereum is trading around $1,600, up more than 1% in the last 24 hours.

Ethereum Price Chart

Looks like the price of the asset hasn't moved much recently | Source: ETHUSDT on TradingView

Featured image from Dall-E, Santiment.net, chart from TradingView.com

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/ethereum-fee-plunges-to-5-year-low-is-this-a-bottom-signal/feed/ 0 31458