⚠️⚠️⚠️ The "zero-fee" infrastructure of #plasma open the door to misuse (spam and malicious attacks) 💣💣💣
This was my first thought when I heard about zero-fee transactions. 🤔🤔🤔
I have found the following reasons against it. 😍
1. Restriction of the Zero-Fee Offer
The zero-fee policy does not apply to all transactions on the network. it Is strictly limited to prevent abuse:
- Only Simple $USDT Transfers: The zero-fee model exclusively applies to standard USDT transfer functions.
- Other Transactions Cost Fees: More complex actions that require computational power (like executing Smart Contracts, interacting with DeFi protocols, swaps, or deploying new tokens) still require fees, which must be paid in $XPL.
- Advantage: An attacker would have to buy and pay in $XPL to overload the network with complex spam. The simple transfer function offers no economic benefit for spam attacks.
2. Built-in Paymaster Mechanisms
The system that covers the fees (the Paymaster) is not unregulated. It implements checks to prevent abuse by repetitive spammers:
- Eligibility Checks: Before the Paymaster subsidizes a transaction, it performs simple checks to ensure the transaction meets the strict zero-fee criteria.
- Rate Limits: There are limits on how often a single user or address can utilize the zero-fee transfers within a specific timeframe. This prevents spammers from sending mass volumes of nonsensical transactions just to flood the network.
3. $XPL Token as the Economic Anchor
Despite the zero-fee transfers for the end-user, there is an economic anchor that ensures security:
- Security through XPL Staking: The entire network is secured by the XPL token. Validators (who run the network) must stake (lock up) large amounts of XPLand risk losing them (Slashing) if they engage in malicious behavior or attack the network.
- Economic Incentive: The economic incentive to be honest, enforced through staking, is higher than the potential gain from carrying out an attack.
@Plasma , you did a good job! 👍👍👍
