This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/monero by /u/gr8ful4 on 2024-04-13 12:51:34.

I heard from a few people that we should increase Monero fees. My take was always to be observant as there doesn't seem to be a need for a rushed decision - if at all. Often staying with the status quo is the best we can do even if it means short term pain. Obviously the other can be true as well. Taking on some change that will generate some short term pain in order to bring forward long term gains (e.g. delisting on CEX and building of DEX ecosystem/liquidity, Seraphis address changes, FCMP increased tx size).

There are a couple of things that we should consider, though.

1. We do not know the objective(s) of the attacker(s)
2. We do not know the budget of the attacker(s)
3. We do not know the attacker(s)

Without knowing those parameters we will risk fixing something that doesn't need fixing while creating social or technical problems that might be much harder to fix later or even worse turn out to be net negative.

1. FCMP will have much bigger tx than today (especially before Seraphis). As fees are calculated with byte size, this will have an effect of increased fees.
2. Haveno and other DEX need low frees to be attractive for traders to provide plenty of liquidity as tx fees are cutting into the profit margin if too high (see mediocre adoption of bisq at least partially thanks to high BTC fees).
3. Haveno and other DEX also will increase the number of tx anyways. So this might as well be seen as a stress test we can learn from.
4. Prices are currently suppressed. And as fees are not paid in USD but XMR they will rise with price just like in BTC, BCH, LTC
5. If we increase now, we create a precedent that needs to be very wisely argumented (to not be misused as a central planners tool, especially if the need for whatever reason arises again to then reduce the fees).
6. We don't know the attackers budget. If it is a state attacker able to tap into infinite fiat money we will never price out the attacker, but price out actual use cases and make it more expensive for the community countering the poisoning attacks through community churning/ self-sends.

I hope these points help everybody understand a little better the trade-offs we face by action and inaction alike.