Does a contract platform that uses DOT as gas fees make sense?

Although I’m not familiar with the specific operational process of PSYG blockspace (which could be an order system), I’ve been considering something recently. If we develop a smart contract platform that uses DOT as gas fees and combine it with the PSYG blockspace mechanism, could we create an interesting mechanism similar to ETH L2?

Here’s how it could work:

  1. Users pay DOT as gas fees to deploy smart contracts or use services on the parachain/parathread.
  2. The parachain/parathread collects the received DOT as payment and uses it to obtain the required backspace ( Ordering a Core ).
  3. The system collects fees and burns them.

With this approach:

  1. The usage scenario for DOT expands.
  2. Burning reduces circulation.
  3. Supply and demand reach a balance.

Does such a platform make sense? I would like to discuss it with everyone. Please forgive me if I have overlooked any considerations. Thank you.


Super cool, I am not sure if the current design would be optimized for this? We had a related discussion recently with some parachain people wrt exactly this kind of DOT utilization. From my POV something like this for cross chain contract operation could give DOT (and also KSM) more utility and could reward some participating in the transaction additional fees, but my cross chain ink-fu is too smol.


Makes sense to me.

You might struggle to generate demand for your own token (if you choose), but generating revenue in DOT could reasonably fund operations.


Yes, the specific design logic is still unknown at the moment, but based on the information currently available to me, I believe it is achievable. Essentially, it is still the operational logic of parachains, but with the dynamization of block production time (ordering blockspace when there are transactions and keeping it unchanged when there are no transactions).

1 Like

Yes, this mechanism allows for profit generation through the difference in gas fees, and I believe it is a sustainable operational approach.

Currently, it is unknown whether the team has any plans for this.

1 Like

Allowing users to pay for block weight on your chain in DOT instead of your token isn’t in itself much of a differentiator - you also also need a compelling smart contract platform; accepting DOT isn’t going to win the market…

There are a lot of smart contract chains, both in Polkadot and outside; I think most teams are focused on finding a more compelling differentiator.

Indeed, such a platform itself may not have additional competitive advantages. It simply provides users with an alternative option to directly use DOT as a payment for fees. If operated, it would require additional costs for promotion or marketing, similar to OP or ARB. Token incentives may be necessary in this case.

Certainly, if it is operated by Polkadot team, the situation may be better.

Personally, I believe that from a technical and profitability standpoint, this parachain should be viable. The key question remains how it will be operated in the end.

Every parachain is operated by a Polkadot team. A parachain that wins a slot auction is just as much a part of Polkadot as a pay-as-you-go parachain, or a system parachain, or the relay chain.

We’re all building Polkadot, just different parts.

1 Like

Basically, a chain business model (tokenomy if you prefer) relies on the usage of its own token. The more the token is used, the more valuable it becomes. Without this fees payement usage, the token should become worthless. You can imagine what it means…

Basically, a chain business model (tokenomy if you prefer) relies on the usage of its own token.

Chains need to do two things:

  1. Purchase blockspace
  2. Use that blockspace to provide services in exchange for fees, which allows them to do more of (1)

Neither of these functionalities requires its own token. The main utilities of tokens are:

  1. Governance
  2. Profit-sharing
  3. Representation of ownership of assets (e.g. liquidity pools, RWA)
  4. Speculative investment

None of these things are necessary to bootstrap and grow a “boring business” which simply collects more revenue than it has costs. And minimizing the number of tokens to handle also eases friction across the ecosystem, which is very important for building cross-chain network effects.

I’m very much in support of “token-less chains” or at least mostly token-less chains (as governance is typically necessary to iterate and upgrade a deployed protocol).


I actually lean toward “token-less chains” as well. This business model is very straightforward, and the later governance (iterations, upgrades) can be delegated to DOT.

1 Like

I have already published my ideas as a blog post: Magnet: Polkadot’s Smart Contract Scaling Dock Based on the PAYG Model. Feel free to check it out and let’s discuss together.

1 Like