Summary
Proposal: No fee changes for Q3 2026.
With Pyth Core sunsetting at the end of this month per OP-PIP-100, the Pythian Council recommends skipping the usual fee adjustment cycle. The engineering effort, governance overhead, and implementation time aren’t justified for a product with weeks left.
That said, we’re posing an open question to the community before finalizing.
Revenue Performance
The fee implementation has been working. Monthly protocol revenue across all EVM chains:
| Month | Revenue |
| -------- | ------- |
| Jan 2026 | $1,765 |
| Feb 2026 | $8,140 |
| Mar 2026 | $20,756 |
| Apr 2026 | $19,534 |
| May 2026 | $37,672 |
| Jun 2026 | $27,340 |
Total H1 2026: ~$115K. Up from near-zero before fee implementation.
The Q2 fee adjustments (moving toward $0.015/update target) contributed to the May/June jump. Revenue normalized in June as some high-activity chains migrated to Pro.
Current State
Q2 fees are live across 70+ EVM chains. Since implementation:
- Most chains: Still within target range ($0.009-0.015/update)
- Some drift: Token volatility pushed a few chains above or below target
- One outlier: Monad fees now yield ~$0.0002/update and the token volatility pushed it well below target
A proper recalibration would require updating fee contracts across dozens of chains, significant engineering and council time for marginal benefit.
Why Skip Q3 Adjustments
- Sunset timeline:
Core deprecates end of July. Migration to Pro is already underway.
- Resource cost:
Contract upgrades, Wormhole governance execution, council implementation — all for ~3 weeks of relevance.
- Migration focus:
Douro Labs and integrators are focused on Pro onboarding, not Core maintenance.
Open Question
Should we 2x (or else) fees instead?
Rather than fine-tuning fees, what if we doubled/tripled/etc all Core fees as a migration accelerant?
I personally lean toward no changes as the sunset timeline does the work for us. But if the community feels strongly that a fee increase would meaningfully accelerate migration, I am open to it.
