SGP-0003: Resource and Inclusion Fee

Originally published on X.

This SGP asks validators and delegators to endorse restructuring Solana's base transaction fee into a fixed base inclusion fee paid to the block leader and a separate resource fee that scales with requested transaction cost and is 100% burned. A "yes" is a mandate to pursue that fee model; the detailed mechanism is specified in SIMD-0553.

Links#

• Governance webpage
• Proposal text (github)
• Original SIMD (github)
• Discussion
• Validator info Dashboard

Author: Cavemanloverboy (Temporal)

Short summary of details & inarguable facts only#

(No opinion or analysis.)

The proposal splits Solana's 5,000 lamport base fee into a flat 2,500 lamport inclusion fee paid to the leader and a resource fee, burned in full, computed from the cost units a transaction requests. (temporal)

From Temporal's blog, in order of importance, the resource fee exists to (temporal):

• Add an incentive for builders to reduce the resource footprint of their applications.
• Slightly raise costs for inefficient searchers.
• Slightly lower market maker operating costs.
• Stop perpetually diluting SOL holders.

Analysis & Opinions#

• @cavemanloverboy: Motivating a Resource and Inclusion Fee on Solana
• @temporal_xyz: Solana Prices Signatures and Nothing Else. SIMD-0553 Prices Everything.

An honest caveat that most coverage skips: these estimates assume nobody changes behavior, and the entire point of the fee is to change behavior. If developers respond by requesting fewer cost units, realized burn comes in lower than projected while blocks pack tighter.

• @temporal_xyz: Solana's Job Is to Sell Computational Resources. Today It Gives Them Away.

Corrections / Additions: DM @ValigatorTech. Our goal in posting this is to collect as much information in one place as possible while encouraging honest, productive and respectful debate.