Temp Check: Default Validator Configuration of 0 minimum gas price

This is a temperature check post to determine if minimum-gas-prices = 0uosmo should be the automatic default for nodes in a future release.

The EIP-1559 style mempool filter, implemented initially in v20.x in response to transaction spam and fully rolled out in the v21 Software Upgrade, has resulted in a fee market being established on Osmosis.

This has improved the spam resilience of OSMO and the overall transaction fee revenue generated by the chain.

Source: Lenses

With the progressive block time decrease from ~6 to ~3.2s, when a block does not include the current market rate gas fee as standard, there is a noticeable lack of transactions followed by a catch-up block. This lag causes a poor experience for users with unpredictable transaction execution times.

Source: Mintscan

As a higher minimum-gas-prices parameter was previously encouraged to combat transaction spam, several validators set this parameter higher than the current market rate, overwriting what users submit as the fee and only including a minimal number of transactions in their proposed block. By setting the default gas price for nodes to 0uosmo, the mempool filter would have total control over the gas prices used within a block, ensuring that more blocks were consistently full and increasing the average speed of a transaction on Osmosis.

If a validator wishes, they can opt out of the default configs with the --reject-config-defaults flag. However, this default aims to ensure that the majority of validators fully utilize the fee market, even during quieter periods.

If this is acceptable, this default configuration will be added to a future minor or major release of Osmosis.

1 Like

I think it is acceptable, but it does not really solve the underlying issue, since it can still be changed manually.

The basic question to be asked here would be why validators are having the parameter set at a value which does nothing more than hurt the project they validate. If that is not answered, then it might only catch some validators off guard. But others which are paying attention might just continue with these practices, which does not solve the problem at all.

I think it would be interesting to monitor which blocks are not filled and which validators are committing that block. That way you have a shortlist of “culprits” and you can work on understanding the real reasoning and solve it without having to go through governance potentially.


I have a list of validators. I have reached out to the ones we have contact info for. There are, however, a handful that I have no clue how to contact.

Dev had an idea of charging the validator who proposes empty blocks a certain fee, which I think we can discuss further. But for now this easy fix should get us to a 99 percent solution imo


I can imagine, but it remains a fix which can be bypassed. So it does not solve the root cause in the end :slight_smile:

Would be good to have at least a sense of direction. Validators who do not do the utmost to serve Osmosis to the max they can should maybe not have a place at all. I mean, we want Osmosis to be successful, that means everyone have to do the extra mile.

1 Like

I think that its ok, but it should be enforced, no opt out.

This makes sense to me