When you are burning much much more of your tokens periodically? Much less much scarcity is much more valuable like btc. Pyth like most coins too much supplies and adoptions not enough. Utilities is inportant but sacrcity more important
Andrew, your post is not relevant to this thread.
Please contribute your ideas and thoughts here to continue this conversation in a constructive way:
1 Like
@KemarTiti Thanks for putting forward this proposal, it’s a meaningful step toward sustainable fee alignment. That said, I’m wondering why we’re not addressing the most needle-moving opportunity for the network - the sponsored chains generating the majority of price updates (i.e., Solana, Aptos, Sui). While the Aptos and Sui integrations are newer/more fragile and Pyth doesn’t necessarily want to risk the threat of them moving to another oracle, Solana is a mature ecosystem with relatively low cost per update and heavy usage by high-frequency protocols.
This is not coming from a deep dive, so pardon any facetious reasoning or inaccurate claim, but it seems likely that the heaviest Pyth feed consumers on Solana would be perpetuals/derivatives DEXes (Drift, Kamino), lending platforms (MarginFi), and aggregators like Jupiter. Quick look at the revenue generation for each of these applications on DefiLlama indicates $10M+ for each application. While price updates are a minimal cost to subsidize, even a modest fee per update would generate millions in revenue for Pyth. I’m curious about taking such a granular approach by moderately increasing fees on chains that generate relatively fewer price updates compared to addressing the needle-moving chains?
1 Like