Increase minimum transaction fee

Osmosis blocks are constantly being spammed with failed transactions from various types of bots, scripts or “skilled traders/devs” as some like to say. This adds no value to the chain only causing additional overheads on infra costs.

This proposal seeks to increase the minimum transaction fees for all tx types to 0.025 OSMO or the equivalent in other denoms.

Not sure what needs to occur technically to enforce this.

But this

And this

It is not healthy for the Osmosis ecosystem and infra.

This is an average bot tx.
It is not healthy for the Osmosis ecosystem and infra.

Are they actually making profit by doing this?

Or is it very marginal due to the tx costs?

Confirming that this isn’t a parameter chain side, this can occur by:

  • Validators raising the fee they are willing to accept (Which can happen without a prop)
  • The minimum being included in a new client release - although this wouldn’t be compulsory if not a major version release. Which would be a text prop to signal like the 0.0025 min was.

It would be good to have it protocol-included, since that would not allow much variation on the lower side.

We have seen that it works with the minimum commission being protocol-included :slight_smile:
And that it doesn’t work really well with the minimum gas-fee as we saw around the time when we wanted to move away from 0 gas-fees (not even sure if every validator is already using a non-zero gas fee by now)

1 Like

Ok, ty.

I think it would be good to do a text prop as signalling to increase the minimum fee to 0.025 osmo (or other token equivalent). This would remove a lot of the spam we see on the network by “arb bots” which are trying to profit 0.001 osmo using 0.0003 osmo as gas.

Anything else that I need to know before I put this up? Appreciate the response

There’s another thread on this forum that is also asking the same thing and the rationale is still a bit lacking, imo. Spam doesn’t seem to be a huge problem in the recent days, unless you can point me to an example? It was just a few isolated incidents that spawned this reactionary post. Isn’t the job of proto rev to clean up these arbitrage opportunities? It seems that the bots you listed in your tweet are directly competing with protorev, which should not be possible unless protorev simply doesn’t have the routes added. I would say a better solution to this spam is to just update protorev and capture that revenue. Those bots DO spam mostly failures, but some successes, which make them profitable (I’ve tracked their balances over several days). Make them unprofitable (all fails) and I bet they stop, no?

1 Like

I like it, solve the root cause instead of solving a symptom. If ProtoRev which is build-in-protocol does not cover all arbitrage, then it is indeed failing in its purpose and we should update ProtoRev. Which also benefits profitability of the protocol itself again as well, which is very very good.