Questioning the feeless narrative

Since day 1 or so we’re marketing Zenon as a feeless L1, which is factually wrong and more than that: it might look sketchy to people who know a bit about how blockchains work. Beside, do we want ot be associated with the projects that branded themselves as feeless before? I let you look them up, they’re not really the good ones.

However, it does not mean we have nothing for us and yes, absolutely, our fee structure is different. The user doesn’t pay per tx with the native currency of the NoM, they pay with electricity (through PoW) or fuse QSR for a given throughput. Ultimately, infrastructures such as CEX might need a lot of QSR and / or process a lot of PoW, which will lead to quite a decent amount of fee on their balance sheet. So, yes, we have a fee market, and anyone who’ve been in crypto long enough know that’s necessary and why it is necessary. Ours is very interesting and deserve to be marketed right because it would draw more attention from the right people who might see “feeless” as a bad thing (IOTA, hello).

Our fee structure brings a new very interesting aproach about how to build fee markets and profit from them, we shouldn’t hide it under wrong over simplified claims. Electricity or QSR are fee. There’s a fee market. And it’s really a smart and novel one.

Personal opinion. Discuss.


It agree that it isn’t accurate to call it feeless if you need throughput via QSR, but using pow is.

It is technically feeless, but I understand the argument that it’s misleading because PoW may not scale and you need to buy or generate QSR in the first place.

‘feeless paradigm’ or ‘novel fee system’ or ‘novel mechanism for fees’
^^ all of those convey that the fee structure is interesting and different, and it doesn’t give high expectations of truly feeless … there’s a saying which is it’s better to underpromise and over-deliver … but in marketing, it’s better to over-promise and build hype right? No one cares about facts … be provocative and sell a vision?

And if they ‘see feeless as a bad thing’ and refuse to spend 5-10 minutes reading the intro article to understand it, that’s on them.

Regenerative Gas
Regenerative Throughput
Renewable Gas Fees
Non-expendable gas costs
Non-depleting Transaction Costs
One-time Gas Fee for All transactions

The video game reference is probably easiest to wrap head around first used in a game called Punch-Out in 1983:

I tend to agree and feel myself taking cautionary pause whenever wordsmithing along the lines of “free” and “feeless”.

The operative word that I like to wield is, “plasma.”

“Feeless plasma paradigm” feels good, for example.

It’s not a fee, it’s not necessarily PoW, and it’s not necessarily PoS… and that’s why plasma is not easy to capture and define.

“Definition” is inherently relative, and we tend to try to define any new thing in relation to the pre-existing things. However, when your thinking shifts off-axis into a new dimension, it becomes increasingly difficult to describe your new concept, in the terms that defined the old.

For example, when theoreticians try to describe and draw 5D, by using 3D and displaying it on a 2D screen. (If you struggle to understand a 5D visualization in terms of 3D, you’re not an idiot.)

Thus, the folly is not in using the words “feeless, PoS, PoW”, etc, but the mistake might be in employing only one of those terms at a time.

Moreover, NoM plasma is it’s own creature, with it’s own definition, and we have an actual working plasma mechanism with mechanics that are summarily defined and self contained within the very term “plasma”.

I could attempt to describe Chadass in relative terms, as compared to 13 other community members, but alas… he is so truly and authentically unique, that he is self-defining.



Good points, agree


Using pow mean you give computational power in exchange got the right to transact. This is a by definition a fee. Not paying with ZNN doesn’t mean it’s feeless. You pay. It’s not 0.

Beside “feeless” in crypto leans toward experimentation that were rather crappy, at best. We might not want to associate ourselves with this kind of history. We might want to market the real and genuinely interesting nature of the NoM rather than sticking on noob compatible buzzwords that stop making sense when we look at how things really work.

1 Like

Rather than argue the semantics of “feeless”, I will support your overall point and double down on your quoted statement by reiterating that we are not here to associate ourselves with history, but we are here to create it.