Q1 2026 — Pyth Core Onchain Fees

[KemarTiti]

Background

On December 9th, 2025, the Pyth DAO, via the OP-PIP-87 and The Pyth Token Phase 2 discussion, mandated the Pythian Council to (1) design a pricing matrix, and (2) apply pricing changes on-chain via OP-PIPs on a quarterly basis for all Pyth Products (excluding Pyth Pro).

This post will solely focus on Pyth Core fees. Onchain fees for other products like Entropy or Express Relay have their dedicated posts.

Until this vote and decision, there had been some prior work but limited in scope that were performed for the Pyth Core products (1, 2). And, as of today, only 11 chains (out of 100+ deployments) have non-negligible fees applied for onchain usage. All are listed here.

Implementation Strategy

Fee Structure Considerations

Fees will be based on three core principles:

• Per-feed model: Fees apply to each individual price feed

• Per-update charges: Each feed update incurs a fee

• Proportionality: Fees should stay reasonable relative to overall transaction costs

Another important factor behind the fee increase for certain chains—especially non-EVM chains such as Solana, Sui, Aptos, Injective (CosmWasm), TON, and NEAR—is the significantly higher technical effort required to upgrade smart contracts compared with EVM chains. For EVMs, the upgrade template (used to adjust the protocol fee) has already been developed and deployed on some networks, whereas no technical work has yet been completed for non-EVM chains.

As a result, initial fee increases are expected to be implemented on EVM chains first and, once the required work has been done and tested, fess will be progressively rolled out to non-EVM chains.

Proposed Fee Structure

The table below is a recap of all suggested change (or not) for all chains supported by Pyth.

If you want to review the process behind such numbers, please refer to the subsequent post below.

Blockchain	Existing Price Update Fee	New Price Update Fee	Token	Note
0G	0.000000000000000001	0.2	0G	Fees increased
Abstract	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Apechain	0.000000000000000001	0.2	APE	Fees increased
Arbitrum	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Aurora	0.000003	0.000003	ETH	Fees unchanged
Avalanche	0.00025	0.0005	AVAX	Fees increased
Berachain	0.000000000000000001	0.003	BERA	Fees increased
Bittensor	0.000000000000000001	0.00005	TAO	Fees increased
Blast	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
BNB	0.000000000000000001	0.0000125	BNB	Fees increased
BTTC	0.000000000000000001	25,000	BTT	Fees increased
Base	0.000000000000000001	0.0000015	ETH	Fees increased
Boba	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Camp	0.000000000000000001	2	CAMP	Fees increased
Celo	0.000000000000000001	0.1	CELO	Fees increased
Chilliz	0.000000000000000001	0.33	CHZ	Fees increased
Conflux	0.1	0.1	CFX	Fees unchanged
Core DAO	0.000000000000000001	0.02	CORE	Fees increased
Cronos	0.06	0.06	CRO	Fees unchanged
Cronos zkEVM	0.000000000000000001	0.06	CRO	Fees increased
Ethereum	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Etherlink	0.000000000000000001	0.01	XTZ	Fees increased
Eventum	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Filecoin	0.000000000000000001	0.01	FIL	Fees increased
Flow	0.000000000000000001	0.1	FLOW	Fees increased
Gnosis	0.000000000000000001	0.01	XDAI	Fees increased
Gravity	0.000000000000000001	1	G	Fees increased
Hedera	0.000000000000000001	0.01	HBAR	Fees increased
Hemi	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
HyperEVM	0.000000000000000001	0.0001	HYPE	Fees increased
Injective EVM	0.000000000000000001	0.001	INJ	Fees increased
Ink	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Iota (EVM)	0.000000000000000001	0.1	IOTA	Fees increased
Kava	0.000000000000000001	0.15	KAVA	Fees increased
KCC	0.000000000000000001	0.001	KCS	Fees increased
Kaia	0.000000000000000001	0.2	KAIA	Fees increased
Lightlink	0.000000000000000001	1	LL	Fees increased
Linea	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Manta	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Mantle	0.000000000000000001	0.01	MNT	Fees increased
Merlin	0.000000000000000001	0.0000001	BTC	Fees increased
Meter	0.02	0.04	MTR	Fees increased
Mezo	0.000000000000000001	0.0000001	BTC	Fees increased
Mode	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Monad	0.000000000000000001	0.005	MON	Fees increased
Morph	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Neon	0.000000000000000001	0.15	NEON	Fees increased
opBNB	0.000186	0.0000125	BNB	Fees decreased
Optimism	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Plasma	0.000000000000000001	0.05	XPL	Fees increased
Polygon	0.000000000000000001	0.1	POL	Fees increased
Polygon zkEVM	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Polynomial	0.000000000000000001	0.0000015	ETH	Fees increased
Ronin	0.001	0.1	RON	Fees increased
Scroll	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Superseed	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Sei EVM	0.01	0.1	SEI	Fees increased
Shimmer	1	100	SMR	Fees increased
Skate	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Sonic (EVM)	0.000000000000000001	0.000000000000000001	S	Fees unchanged
Soneium	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Story Protocol	0.000000000000000001	0.006	IP	Fees increased
Swellchain	0.00005	0.000003	ETH	Fees decreased
Taiko	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Unichain	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Viction	0.000000000000000001	0.1	VIC	Fees increased
WEMIX	0.000000000000000001	0.03	WEMIX	Fees increased
Worldchain	0.00001	0.000003	ETH	Fees decreased
zkSync Era	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Zetachain	0.000000000000000001	0.1	ZETA	Fees increased
Solana	0.000000001	0.00001	SOL	Fees increased
Eclipse	0.000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Sonic (SVM)	0.000000001	0.3	SONIC	Fees increased
Fogo	0.000000001	0.000000001	FOGO	Fess unchanged
Aptos	0.00000001	0.005	APT	Fees increased
Sui	0.000000001	0.004	SUI	Fees increased
IOTA (Sui)	0.000000001	0.1	IOTA	Fees increased
Movement	0.00000001	0.25	MOVE	Fees increased
TON	0.000000001	0.005	TON	Fees increased
Fuel	0.000000000000000001	0.000003	ETH	Fees increased
Injective (Cosmwasm)	0.000000000000000001	0.0001	INJ	Fees increased
Osmosis	0.000001	0.1	OSMO	Fees increased
Neutron	0.000001	0.25	NTRN	Fees increased
XION	0.000001	0.05	XION	Fees increased
NEAR	0.000000000000000000000001	0.005	NEAR	Fees increased
Starknet	0.000000000000000001	0.125	STRK	Fees increased

Next Steps

This proposal focuses exclusively on fee implementation strategy.

We welcome input from all stakeholders:

• Publishers

• Oracle users

• Committed Pythians

Your insights will be valuable in refining this proposal and guiding the DAO’s decision-making process.

[KemarTiti]

Below data is as of end of November, 2025, sourced from this Dune Dashboard here and internal data. Shown below are the monthly averages of price updates per chains. You can find the table here.

0G → 0.02 0G

0G has recently launched and Pyth usage seems to already be stable at 4,000 monthly updates. Transactions are rare and usually update 5 feeds altogether. Usual cost per tx is around $0.001, and about 800 are triggered monthly as of now for a total monthly cost of sub $1.

Charging 0.02 $0G per price update would mean 0.1 $0G per tx, which would amount to 800 $0G monthly ($650 / month).

Abstract → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth usage on Abstract has been relatively stable throughout the year, ranging around 3,500 monthly price updates. Most updates come from the Push Feeds here where 4 feeds are updated in a single tx. Usual cost per tx is around $0.06, and about 900 txs are triggered per month for an average monthly cost of $50.

Charging 0.000003 ETH per price update would mean 0.000012 ETH / transaction, which would amount to 0.01-0.015 $ETH monthly.

Apechain → 0.2 APE

Pyth usage on Apechain has been relatively stable from 1,500 to 3,500 monthly price updates triggered. Most updates trigger only 1 price update. Usual cost per tx is around $0.004 (0.02 APE), and about 1,500 to 3,500 txs are triggered monthly.

Charging 0.02 APE per update would amount to 60 APE monthly.

Arbitrum → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth usage on Arbitrum has been drastically reducing throughout 2025 and seems to now range from 25,000 to 50,000 monthly price updates. Most txs only update one price feed and spend $0.005 doing so.

Charging 0.000003 ETH per update would approx. amount to 0.1 ETH monthly, assuming recent usage numbers.

Aurora → 0.000003 ETH

The fees for Aurora were actually established early in 2025, it was part of the 1st cohort of chains seeing their fees increased—0.810117 ETH ($2,392.74) has been generated so far. Despite the fee increasing, usage has remained sustained.

I’d suggest keeping the 0.000003 ETH per feed updated, which should average 0.1 ETH per month.

Avalanche → 0.0005 AVAX

Similar to Aurora above, the fees for Avalanche were actually established early in 2025, it was part of the 1st cohort of chains seeing their fees increased—177.163250001 AVAX ($2,161.35) has been generated so far.

With the AVAX price action, I’d suggest doubling the AVAX cost from 0.00025 to 0.0005 AVAX, which would amount to 20+ AVAX collected per month.

Berachain → 0.003 BERA

Pyth usage on Berachain has been one of the biggest across the 100+ chains the oracle is deployed on. A single team has been triggering most of the price updates, and there are Push Feeds on this chain as well as. This usage is significantly driven by a chain with barely no onchain gas cost incurred, as a single tx updating 49 feeds and only paid 0**.**000057825389390384 BERA ($0.000037) for it. Increasing fees, even only slightly will very likely reduce significantly the onchain activity.

Nonetheless, I’d suggest charging 0.003 BERA ($0.002) per feed updated on Berachain, which would amount to 12,000 BERA collected monthly.

Bittensor → 0.00005 TAO

Pyth Price Feeds finally started being used on Bittensor with a steady number of price updates triggered. Most txs update 2 feeds, and are rather not cheap as the updater pays about $0.5 (0.002553092 TAO) every time.

Based on the above, I’d suggest charging 0.00005 TAO (0.01$) per price feed updated, which would amount to approx. 0.15 TAO per month.

Blast → 0.000003 ETH

Both Blast and the Pyth Core usage on Blast seen a gradual but steady decline in activity throughout the year. Still, there are some updates of Pyth feeds on Blast and they usually update 7 feeds altogether and for now pays about $0.02 in gas cost (tx).

Given the relatively low usage and low chain gas cost, I would suggest charing 0.000003 ETH for each feed updated — in line with other EVM L2s.

BNB → 0.0000125 BNB

Pyth usage on BNB Chain has been steadily growing throughout 2025, now reaching all time highs. There are two types of users on BNB, a money market updating 8 feeds simultaneously and usually paying up to $0.30 in gas cost ; derivatives protocol updating a single price feed and paying close to $0.15.

Based on the above, I would suggest charging 0.0000125 BNB (about $0.01) per feed updated— this would amount to 1-1.5 BNB monthly.

BTTC → 25,000 BTT

There is literally no usage for Pyth Core on BTTC ; this can also be explained by the rather poor activity on the chain itself.

Just to keep things aligned in between chains, I would suggest applying a fee of 25,000 BTT (approx $0.01) per feed updated.

Base → 0.0000015 ETH

Pyth Price Feeds on Base have steadily grown throughout the year. Base remains one of the top/most active ecosystems in DeFi therefore it is important to be mindful of pricing there. Most transactions update only 1 price feed but some do update as much as 6 feeds together and still pay less than $0.01 in gas fees.

Based on the above, I would recommend charging 0.0000015 ETH per feed — half of the fees on other EVM chains ; which at current usage would bring in 1 ETH monthly.

Boba → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth usage on Boba has seen some swings throughout 2025 but seems to have found its plateau recently. Most of the update txs update only 1 price feed and this costs about $0.01 to the updater.

In line with other EVM L2s, I would also suggest charging 0.000003 ETH per update ; which should lead to approx 0.02 ETH collected monthly.

[KemarTiti]

Below data is as of end of November, 2025, sourced from this Dune Dashboard here and internal data. Shown below are the monthly averages of price updates per chains. You can find the table here.

Camp → 2 CAMP

Similar to BTTC, Pyth usage on Camp Network is small if not non-existent recently. Costs to update Pyth feeds on Camp are very low and any fee applied will be much greater than the base gas cost.

Given the above, I would suggest charging 2 CAMP per feed updated ($0.01).

Celo → 0.1 CELO

As Celo migrated to become an Ethereum L2, Pyth usage has slowed down, if not disappeared. Updating Pyth price feeds on Celo is significantly cheap as 5 feeds updated in a single transaction costs less than $0.001.

To keep pricing in line with other L2s, I would suggest charging 0.1 CELO per feed updated.

Chilliz → 0.33 CHZ

As for BTTC, there is no usage of Pyth Core on Chilliz.

Just to keep things aligned in between chains, I would suggest applying a fee of 0.33 CHZ (approx $0.01) per feed updated.

Conflux → 0.1 CFX

As Aurora, and Avalanche, Conflux had fees established to 0.1 CFX early in 2025. Until now, there has been slightly over 2,000 CFX tokens accrued by the contract. As fees increased in Q1, usage dropped to a new equilibrium of 1,500—4,000 monthly updates.

The current CFX fee is already rather aligned with other suggestions in terms of $, therefore I would suggest keeping the fees as is for now (0.1 CFX).

CoreDAO → 0.02 CORE

Core is one of the chains with the most activity for Pyth Core with updates being in the millions every month. Most of the updates are done 7 by 7 and this costs about $0.002 per transaction. As for Berachain, an increase in fees, even small, should have great impact on the underlying activity. I estimate the cost to perform all these price updates to be around $500 / month.

Based on the above, I would suggest charging 0.02 CORE per feed updated. This might lead to a reduction in usage but given the low cost, activity should remain sustained.

Cronos → 0.06 CRO

As for Aurora, Avalanche and Conflux, Cronos was among the first batch of chains seeing their fees increased and this might have been one of the best decision so far. The fees were applied to 0.06 CRO (approx 0.006$) per price update. As of today, over 130,000 CRO tokens have been collected, and downstream usage has seemingly not been impacted by such decisions.

Based on the above, I would suggest keeping the fees as is: 0.06 CRO.

Cronos zkEVM → 0.06 CRO

Cronos zkEVM has also been a good chain for Pyth Core usage. Transactions cost on Cronos zkEVM are not insignificant as we can regularly see txs cost above 0.05$.

Continuing on the success 0.06 CRO had on the general Cronos chain, I would suggest applying the same amount of fees on Cronos zkEVM.

Eclipse → 0.000003 ETH

Despite some recent turmoil, Pyth activity on Eclipse has been quite sustained and significant. It is important to note that using Pyth on Eclipse is among the cheapest of all chains mentioned here. It costs sub $0.00001 to update a price feed on Eclipse.

Being an Ethereum L2, I would again recommend to apply the 0.000003 ETH fee per feed updated.

Ethereum → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth Core footprint on Ethereum has been steadily growing throughout 2025. It is important to note that most updates are originating from the Push Feeds here. Gas fees on Ethereum are widely varying as a single tx updating 6 feeds can cost as little as $0.03 or over $1,000 (during 10/10 crash).

While updaters on Ethereum mainnet should be less cost-sensitive, I would still suggest applying the same protocol fee of 0.000003 ETH per feed.

Etherlink → 0.01 XTZ

Etherlink is one of the chain with the most activity for the Pyth Core price feeds. This is likely due to a chain that has low gas cost: updating 6 feeds simultaneously costs less than $0.01. Similarly to Berachain and other chains with significant number of price updates, a slight increase in fees will likely have a great impact on the downstream usage.

I would suggest charging 0.01 XTZ per feed updated—this is still sub $0.01 per feed updated.

Eventum → 0.000003 ETH

Updates are triggered every 10min for this specific appchain and protocol, where 2 price feeds are updated regularly. Transaction costs about $0.01 on Eventum.

As for most chains with ETH as the underlying gas fees, I would suggest applying 0.000003 ETH.

Flow → 0.1 FLOW

Pyth’s activity on Flow is steady with couple price updates txs triggered every hour. The cost to use Pyth on Flow EVM is very low, as one tx updating 7 feeds cost less than $0.001. Overall the user triggers 4,000 transactions monthly incurring a total cost of less than couple dozens of dollars.

Therefore I’d suggest applying a 0.1 FLOW fee per price feed updated.

Gnosis → 0.01 xDAI

Sadly, the single user of Pyth price feeds on Gnosis wound down in March 2025. Since no usage has been recorded on Gnosis. Using Pyth on Gnosis is very cheap as 10 feeds updated in a single tx costs less 0.001$.

I would suggest applying the base oracle fee at 0.01 xDAI (0.01$) per feed updated.

Gravity → 1 G

Pyth usage on Gravity has been very stable and sustained. This is led from the Ecosystem itself.

As for other chains with significant usage, even a little fee increase should quite significantly impact the usage. Updates are triggered almost every minute, and update 5 feeds altogether for 0.002$.

I would suggest applying 1 G as fee per price feed updated.

[KemarTiti]

Hedera → 0.01 HBAR

With no more active usage on this chain, and a limited DeFi ecosystem, I would simply suggest applying the $0.01 baseline fee to update a price feed onchain, which is 0.01 HBAR.

Hemi → 0.000003 ETH

Using of Pyth Price Feeds on Hemi has been growing. Updating Pyth price feeds on Hemi is very cheap as it costs much less than $0.001. Transactions usually update a single price feed.

As most chain with ETH as the gas token, I would suggest applying 0.000003 ETH as the base oracle fee.

HyperEVM → 0.0001 HYPE

Pyth footprint on HyperEVM has been steadily growing throughout 2025, however it is important to note that majority of updates are coming from the Push feeds here. On average, txs to update Pyth feeds on HyperEVM cost about $0.01-$0.02. There are couple addresses updating a large number of price feeds at the same time, respectively 15 and 46.

With this in mind, I would suggest charing 0.0001 HYPE per price feed, which slightly below the usual targeted $0.01.

Injective EVM → 0.001 INJ

Injective native EVM has only launched recently and the first updates of Pyth feeds have started only in December. It is therefore impossible to determine and review existing metrics, apart from the cost to update a single asset on Injective EVM. Updating 1 feed on Injective EVM is very cheap with a cost sub $0.001.

I would suggest charging 0.001 INJ per price updated—this is slightly below the usual $0.01 mark but we should expect significant usage of Pyth feeds on Injective so being slightly cheaper should not impact this too much.

Ink → 0.000003 ETH

Initial usage of the Pyth feeds on Ink were coming from the Push Feeds operated by the Pyth Data Association—these were discontinued during Q3. Since usage has been sparse, akin to the underlying chain activity. Ink is a very cheap chain as it costs sub $0.001 to update 2 Pyth feeds.

I would simply suggest to apply the now traditional 0.000003 ETH per feed updated on Ink.

Iota → 0.1 IOTA

While Pyth was deployed prior to September 2025, the data collected is quite different from the recent months so it will be discarded in this analysis to rely on more trusted data.

Nowadays, there are, on average, one tx to update 5 price feed every 2 minutes. These txs cost $0.0002 which is very cheap. Extrapolating, the user triggers just north of 20,000 txs per month—amounting to less than coupe dozens of dollars cost.

I would suggest applying 0.1 IOTA, which remains sub $0.01 per feed updated.

Kava → 0.15 KAVA

Sadly usage of Pyth on Kava has been, akin to the chain itself, slowing down, now to almost 0 usage. Updating a Pyth price feed on Kava is very cheap.

I would simply suggest to apply the $0.01 baseline fee, or 0.15 KAVA per feed updated.

KCC → 0.001 KCS

As for Gnosis, sadly, the Pyth usage went to 0 on the Kucoin chain: KCC.

I would simply suggest to apply the $0.01 per feed fee, meaning 0.001 KCC.

Kaia → 0.02 KAIA

Pyth activity on Kaia has been very stable and sustained in 2025, which 150,000 to 200,000 price updates monthly. The cost to update Pyth feeds on Kaia is also very low: 0.0002$.

Given the low cost currently incurred by the end-user, I would also recommend applying the baseline $0.01 fee per feed updated: 0.2 KAIA.

LightLink → 1 LL

Pyth activity on LightLink is significant and has sustained throughout 2025. On average, there are txs to udapte 11 price feeds every 20 seconds. These txs cost incur no gas fees, in other words, it is currently free for the user to trigger price update onchain.

With this in mind, I would suggest applying 1 LL as onchain fee for every single price update triggered.

Linea → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth footprint on Linea has been very stable throughout most of 2025, and recently experienced a quite significant growth. It is important to note that most of the price updates are triggered from the Pyth Data Association Push Feeds here. Transactions on Linea are rather cheap as they cost on average $0.02.

As for all other L2s, I would suggest applying 0.000003 ETH as onchain fee per price feed.

Manta → 0.000003 ETH

Over the past few months, Pyth activity on Manta has been pretty stable though not very significant. Updating a single Pyth price feed on Manta is very cheap as it costs sub $0.005.

Given the above, I would, again, recommend charging 0.000003 ETH per feed updated on Manta.

Mantle → 0.01 MNT

Removing the June data, significant outlier, Pyth usage on Mantle has been relatively stable but not significant either. Updating feeds on Mantle is relatively cheap as updaters pay about $0.01.

I would suggest applying the fee baseline of $0.01 per feed update on Mantle: 0.01 MNT.

Merlin → 0.0000001 BTC

There has been a single (1) price update triggered on Merlin in 2025. The cost to update price feeds on Merlin is quite significant as the sole price update costs $0.35.

I would suggest charging 0.0000001 BTC per price feed update.

Meter → 0.04 MTR

As for other chains like Avalanche, Aurora and a few others, Meter saw its fees already increased early in 2025 to 0.02 MTR ($0.005). Only 260 MTR has been generated so far.

We can clearly see that the increase in fees has had a significant impact on the number of price updates. Nonetheless, I would suggest further increasing the fee from 0.02 MTR to 0.04 MTR to match the $0.01 baseline fee applied on other chains.

Mezo → 0.0000001 BTC

Mezo is a relatively new chain for the Pyth Network and usage seems already relatively stable. On average, we can see a single transaction every hour updating 7 feeds altogether. These txs costs are quite steep as they are just below $0.05.

Applying the same fee as on Merlin of 0.0000001 BTC, would only double the cost incurred by the updater.

Mode → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth usage on Mode has been quite strong and stable throughout 2025. Mode is a rather cheap chain to use as Pyth price updates costs about $0.001. Applying 0.000003 ETH as per update fee, would only amount to 0.1-0.2 ETH of new monthly cost for the users. Therefore, I would suggest to apply the new 0.000003 ETH baseline.

Monad → 0.005 MON

Monad only launched in November 2025, therefore data will be shortlived. However, there has been 5,000,000 price updates performed in November. Extrapolating December data, it is expected that there’ll be about 10,000,000 price updates triggered. It is important to note that most of the price updates triggered are coming from the Pyth Data Association Pusher, which should be kept in mind as fees are set.

Overall, I would still suggest to apply a 0.005 MON fee per feed updated. At current prices and metrics, this would mean about $1,000 of fees generated.

Morph → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth usage on Morph has been quite stable since Q2 of 2025. Overall, 4 feeds have been updated in a single tx that costs sub $0.01.

I would, again, apply the standard 0.000003 ETH fee (akin to other L2s) for Morph.

[KemarTiti]

Below data is as of end of November, 2025, sourced from this Dune Dashboard here and internal data. Shown below are the monthly averages of price updates per chains. You can find the table here.

Neon → 0.15 NEON

Pyth usage on Neon has been rather stable but quite low—as DeFi activity on Neon is still in its infancy. Updating 6 price feeds on Neon is actually not that cheap as txs cost on average $0.02 (0.3 NEON).

Based on the above, I’d recommend the same baseline of $0.01 per feed update: 0.15 NEON.

opBNB → 0.0000125 BNB

Pyth deployment on opBNB was the 1st ever requested via the DAO forum and it was agreed upon that the onchain fee to be 0.000186 BNB (currently $0.15). Despite a rather ‘significant fee’, Pyth price feeds found usage onchain and collected over 15 BNB (close to $15,000) since being deployed. Now usage is constant with one price feed updated every hour — explorer. opBNB DeFi ecosystem is still quite similar to a year ago with little relevant DeFi apps.

Nonetheless. I would recommend lowering the fees charged as using Pyth for non-derivatives protocols would likely be not possible. I’d suggest the fees to be similar to those proposed on BNB Chain of 0.0000125 BNB.

Optimism → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth usage on Optimism is rather stable and sustained throughout 2025. Using Pyth on Optimism is very cheap as it currently costs sub $0.001 to update up to 4 price feeds altogether.

Given the current low cost, I would again, suggest applying the 0.000003 ETH fee per price feed.

Plasma → 0.05 XPL

Pyth usage on Plasma recently stopped (in December) after a correct 2 months start. Using Pyth on Plasma is incredibly cheap as a transaction to update a Pyth price feed costs < $0.000001.

Polygon → 0.1 POL

Pyth Price Feeds have seen their activity constantly decline on Polygon—most of the DeFi activity on Polygon remains isolated in a handful of applications that most do not need an oracle. Using Pyth on Polygon is super cheap as a single price update costs about $0.001.

I would suggest applying the basic $0.01 per feed fee to be in line with the other chains (0.1 POL).

Polygon zkEVM → 0.000003 ETH

Similar to Polygon above, Pyth and oracle based DeFi activity has been low to non-existant on Polygon zkEVM. It is also important to note that using Pyth on Polygon zkEVM is already quite expensive as txs to update feeds costs on average $0.15.

I would suggest applying the baseline 0.000003 ETH fee per update on Polygon zkEVM.

Polynomial → 0.0000015 ETH

Polynomial is a derivatives protocol on its own appchain with a Pyth deployment. The activity (updates of Pyth feeds) has been significant and quite sustainable throughout 2025. There are usually 9 feeds updated altogether on Polynomial and this tx costs is super low ($0.001).

Based on the above, I would suggest applying the same fee as Base (0.0000015 ETH), which is a slight discount when compared to most other L2s or EVM L1s.

Ronin → 0.1 RON

As for Avalanche, Aurora, Conflux, and others, Ronin saw its fees increased early in 2025 to 0.001 RON. With this, the DAO collected just above 1,000 RON as usage dramatically slowed down as the main user switched oracle, though usage started again (in December).

With the RON price action, I would suggest increasing the fee from 0.001 RON to 0.1 RON to match the $0.01 update target.

Scroll → 0.000003 ETH

Activity on Scroll (Pyth’s and DeFi more generally) had a rather tough/quiet year in 2025. Using Pyth on Scroll is pretty cheap as txs cost about $0.001.

As for other L2s, I’d recommend applying the now 0.000003 ETH fee baseline on Scroll.

Superseed → 0.000003 ETH

Superseed is an OP L2 chain that failed to gained traction this year and currently have less than $1M in TVL. With a strong start, Pyth usage went to zero on Superseed as there’s no onchain activity there.

I would still recommend charging the same fee, as on other EVMs, of 0.000003 ETH.

Sei EVM → 0.1 SEI

Similarly to Avalanche, Aurora, and a few other chains, Sei had seen its fees increased early in 2025 to 0.01 SEI. Despite this increase in fees, usage has sustained throughout 2025, and over 2,500 SEI has been generated by the DAO so far.

I would recommend increasing the fees to 0.1 SEI to match with the $0.01 overall baseline for Pyth feeds across networks.

Shimmer → 100 SMR

Like Avalanche above, early 2025, fees were increased on Shimmer. While usage stopped mid-year, this is coming from the underlying chain activity rather than cost to use Pyth feeds.

To approximately match the $0.01 new baseline mark, I’d suggest increasing the fees from 1 to 100 SMR.

Skate → 0.000003 ETH

There has not been a single price update performed on Skate chain this year. This is partly by design but still, I’d recommend charging the now baseline of 0.000003 ETH.

Sonic (EVM) → 0.000000000000000001 S

Pyth usage on Sonic has been significant and growing through all of 2025. It is important to note that Sonic currently has gas rebate program (FeeM) towards protocol generating txs/gas fees and the Pyth Network is currently ranked 6th in this program being allocated more than 180,000 S tokens ($10,000-$15,000). Having charged onchain protocol fees would have likely driven much less usage, and by extension less FeeM rewards.

Based on this, I would suggest keeping fees as is (0.000000000000000001 S), as the DAO generates likely more solely based on FeeM. If/when FeeM program would be changed or not yielding as much S tokens as currently, I would suggest increasing the protocol fees.

Soneium → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth usage on Soneium has been growing steadily through 2025. Cost to update feeds on Soneium is pretty cheap as they hover around $0.002 while updating 3 feeds together.

As for any ETH L2s, I would recommend increasing the fees on Soneium to 0.000003 ETH.

Story Protocol → 0.006 IP

Pyth usage on Story has been quite stable and pretty significant as every 20 seconds, 4 price feeds get updated. Story is a super cheap chain to update 4 Pyth feeds on as it costs sub $0.000001.

Nonetheless, I would still suggest aiming for approx. $0.01 per feed on Story. This might push the updaters to slightly reduce their activity but a balance shall be found.

Swellchain → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth deployment on Swellchain was performed through the DAO with fees established at 0.00005 ETH ($0.15). There has been close to zero usage on Swellchain this year for Pyth feeds. It may be due to the significant update costs.

Therefore, I’d suggest reducing the fees to the baseline of 0.000003 ETH.

[KemarTiti]

Below data is as of end of November, 2025, sourced from this Dune Dashboard here and internal data. Shown below are the monthly averages of price updates per chains. You can find the table here.

Taiko → 0.000003 ETH

Despite some great metrics over Q2 and Q3, Pyth usage has stabled much lower over Q4 ; which can also be explained with a slowing onchain activity on Taiko. Using Pyth on Taiko is relatively ‘expensive’ as it costs about $0.02 to update a single price feed on Taiko.

Still, as for other L2s, I’d recommend applying the 0.000003 ETH fee per feed updated.

Unichain → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth usage on Unichain has fallen off a cliff during Q4, mostly driven by the stopping of Push Feeds that the Pyth Data Association was subsidizing. While Unichain itself has still to find its sustained onchain activity, I would recommend applying the same fee of 0.000003 ETH.

Viction → 0.1 VIC

Pyth usage had been pretty good over Q2 and Q3 on Viction but the chain itself failed to sustain DeFi activity which correlates to a dramatic decrease in Pyth onchain footprint. Using Pyth on Viction is incredibly cheap.

As for all the other chains, I would suggest aiming $0.01 update fee per feed which means 0.1 VIC.

WEMIX → 0.03 WEMIX

There has been no usage of Pyth on Wemix chain this year despite a great 2024 activity.

As for all the other chains, I would suggest aiming $0.01 update fee per feed which means 0.03 WEMIX.

Worldchain → 0.000003 ETH

Similar to the Swellchain deployment, Pyth on Worldchain has been deployed with rather significant fees: 0.00001 ETH ($0.03) initially. Usage has failed to pick up steam sadly. As Worldchain starts focusing on DeFi more and more, I believe it is important to not be prohibitive cost wise. Therefore I would suggest reducing the fees to the baseline: 0.000003 ETH.

zkSync Era → 0.000003 ETH

Pyth’s footprint on zkSync has been quite stable throughout 2025 despite a slowing downtrend. Transactions on zkSync are among the highest cost wise of any L2s where it costs $0.04 to update up to 5 price feeds.

As for any other L2s, I would simply recommend charging 0.000003 ETH per feed updated on zkSync.

Zetachain → 0.1 ZETA

Pyth onchain activity on Zetachain has been significant and pretty stable all of 2025. It is important to note that updating Pyth feeds (up to 6) is very cheap on Zetachain as it costs about $0.0002.

Approximately aligning the fee for Zeta, about 0.1 ZETA per feed updated, would mean a new extra cost of about 50,000 ZETA tokens monthly ($3,500).

[KemarTiti]

Below data is as of end of November, 2025, sourced from this Dune Dashboard here and internal data. Shown below are the monthly averages of price updates per chains. You can find the table here.

Below are the non-EVM chains that will likely see their fees actually increased later on as the technical work is ready.

Solana → 0.00001 SOL

Solana remains one of the chains where the Pyth Price Feeds have the biggest footprint. It is however important to note that still majority of updates come from Push Feeds here.

Updating Pyth feeds on Solana remain quite cheap as it costs $0.001 to update up to couple price feeds.

I would suggest starting the fee increase with 0.00001 SOL per feed updated. This is below the EVM baseline established above but very few if not none of the EVMs have had such scale / weight in usage.

Sonic (SVM) → 0.3 SONIC

Despite some rather good usage over Q4, Pyth activity on Sonic stopped early December which can be linked to the underlying chain decreasing activity. Updating feeds on Sonic is relatively cheap as it costs sub $0.000001.

I would suggest applying a 0.3 SONIC fee per feed updated. This would make it rather aligned with the $0.01 initial benchmark.

Fogo → 0.000000001 FOGO

Price updates only started in December and according to Fogoscan, there are about 5,400 txs performed per day updating price feeds. Most of these updates stem from Push Feeds here. Given that the Fogo token has yet to launch it is rather hard to currently price this. I would therefore recommend waiting for the second quarter pricing update to apply fees on Fogo. Reminder that the Fogo public launch is currently scheduled for mid-January.

Aptos → 0.005 APT

Pyth has always been the most active/feeds the most updated on Aptos. The significant decrease from January 2025 is due to a rather significant decrease in update frequencies from Push feeds here. Updating Pyth feeds on Aptos costs on average $0.001. It is important to note that majority of updates come from Pyth Push Feeds.

I would suggest applying 0.005 APT per feed updated on Aptos. This is slightly below the $0.01 baseline established for most EVMs but due to an increased activity is, in my opinion, worth to take into account here.

Sui → 0.004 SUI

Similarly to Aptos, Pyth on Sui has always been the go-to oracle for DeFi protocols. The big decrease in January in price updates is also due to a significant decrease in update parameters of Pyth Push Feeds. The subsequent decrease in Q3 is also stemming from a similar decision.

Updating feeds on Sui currently costs, on average, sub $0.01 (0.004 SUI). Based on this I would suggest applying 0.004 SUI as protocol fee per feed updated. This would practically double the costs for end users but given the rather low amount, this seems sustainable.

IOTA (Sui) → 0.1 IOTA

Collecting data here was tedious and numbers were estimated based. More recent numbers (like November) are definitely more accurate than the original estimates as the chain launched. Updating feeds on IOTA (Sui) costs about 0.02 IOTA ($0.002).

Similarly to IOTA (EVM), I would suggest applying 0.1 IOTA as feed update fee.

Movement → 0.25 MOVE

Similarly to IOTA (Sui), data collection was not easy throughout the year but recently got better which enable to avoid extrapolating numbers too much. Updating Pyth feeds on Movement is super cheap as it costs 0.0005 MOVE, which is practically zero. Last but not least, it is important to note that majority of updates come from Push Feeds here.

Still I would recommend applying 0.25 MOVE per feed updated.

TON → 0.005 TON

Pyth price feeds on TON have already had a few lives. Indeed, thanks to the help from the EVAA team, a newly optimized contract has recently been deployed and used by the EVAA protocol itself. Updating price feeds on TON is rather not cheap as costs range from 0.1 to 0.3 TON.

While more data gets collected in terms of usage of this new contract, I would suggest applying only 0.005 TON as fee for every feed updated.

Fuel → 0.000003 ETH

Sadly collecting data for Fuel in a proper and automatic manner has not been possible this year. Extrapolating from the overall explorer activity from the contract would suggest that 8 feeds are updated a dozen time per day on average ; which would mean about couple thousands of price updates in a month. Transaction cost to update feeds are about $0.01 which is pretty good for 8 feeds altogether.

Still, I would suggest to apply a fee similar to EVMs chains of 0.000003 ETH.

Injective (Cosmwasm) → 0.0001 INJ

Pyth Price Feeds on Injective — Cosmos — have seen a constant and significant usage throughout 2025 and before. Updating up to 19 price feeds together costs 0.000715 INJ ($0.004) which is very cheap. Given the significant amount of price updates triggered, any increase in fees, even small, should lead to a significant reduction in price updates.

With this in mind, I would recommend charging 0.0001 INJ per feed updated.

Osmosis → 0.1 OSMO

Data collected this year has been very sporadic and the lack of tooling for Osmosis did not make it easy. However, on average, usage of Pyth feeds has been consistent and rather significant. Updating 2 feeds together costs about $0.003 per tx.

I would suggest applying 0.1 OSMO as the onchain oracle fee.

Neutron → 0.25 NTRN

Pyth usage on Neutron has been stable and quite sustained throughout 2025. Using Pyth on Neutron is quite cheap as it costs about $0.0002.

Given this, I would recommend charging 0.25 NTRN per price updated. This amount is currently slightly below the $0.01 mark as established on other chains but seems a good start given the rather significant usage.

XION → 0.05 XION

Since deployment, there has been little to no usage on Xion. The underlying chain activity has also been very low for DeFi.

With this in mind, I would just suggest to apply the $0.01 baseline target with 0.05 XION.

NEAR → 0.005 NEAR

Pyth usage on Near has been quite significant throughout the year, though diminishing recently. Updating price feeds on Near costs sub $0.01. Most of the usage is driven by the main DeFi application on NEAR.

Therefore, I’d suggest applying 0.005 NEAR as oracle update fee.

Starknet → 0.125 STRK

Pyth has never found any significant usage on Starknet — it is important to note that DeFi on Starknet is also not significant. Using Pyth on Starknet is quite costly as updating 5 feeds led to almost $0.1 in costs.

Still I would recommend charging 0.125 STRK per feed updated.

[Planck]

Thank you for sharing not only the proposal but also a detailed explanation of Pyth usage across so many blockchains. Very helpful and insightful!

Overall, this feels like a strong step toward sustainable fee generation. Moreover, I think it’s inevitable if we want to support long term network growth

Increasing fees modestly on the most active chains seems like a wise approach, and it’s great to see concrete numbers included. This improves transparency and allows projects leveraging Pyth Price Feeds to better predict their costs

I’ll review the proposal in more depth, but at first glance everything looks reasonable to me

[lowkeigh]

Its a massive yes for me, the fee updates above seem absolutely reasonable.

Appreciate the details you go into with these proposals, this sort of transparency is rare to come across in web 3.

Thank you for your work sir.

[Agarwal]

voted yess for this
thank you for the immeasurable efforts u have put in

[totti]

Thank you for this detailed proposal, much overdue in my opinion. Welcome this with open arms!