Sorry, but nobody signed up for their transaction to fail, this is a bullshit excuse.
> Besides high fees, the transaction load resulted in a bottleneck that resulted in failed transactions that people still had to pay fees for—now in the thousands of dollars for nothing in return, not even an NFT.
This same user is arguing that Crypto is justified because it helps people in dictatorial or corrupt nations protect their money.
I really can't stand this hypocrisy - "it's working as intended to drop transactions even after charging exorbitant transaction fees - by the way it also is protecting impoverished people's money". You cannot tell me this is a good-faith argument.
- No one is forced to use the blockchain when it is congested. Quite the opposite. The high prices are supposed to be a self-correcting mechanism and to put a back-off signal for all those that can wait.
- "holding" assets do not cost anything on the blockchain.
- There are ways to dial the "perfomance/cost/decentralization" trade-off knobs. There are off-chain systems to move funds. Use centralized exchanges when possible, and you can avoid paying anything. Pool your resources with people that you can trust/cooperate, and you can have a separate ledger [0] that can abstract the different blockchains into one single "balance" and only interacts with the blockchain when you need to actually move the funds.
> I suppose you mean a larger group of people than my closest family and a bunch of friends?
No. I mean exactly on that scale. It could be friends and family, it could be your employer and your co-workers. It could be you and some members of your church.
My recommendation on Hub20 is "don't open an account in any instance unless you and the operator could knock on each other's doors".
> more than an established physical bank?
Trust is a sliding scale. It's up to you to know how comfortable you'll be by leaving funds on the hands of each.
No one held a gun to their head and said "you have to bet thousands of dollars of ETH."
If you want to move lots of money for the purposes of escaping authoritarian regimes, there are other chains which have extremely negligible transaction fees.
So what you're telling us is, as far as I can see, that if you're someone who might want to execute payments on a time-sensitive basis without accepting the risk of losing huge fees to transactions that fail anyway ... if that is not within your risk appetite ... you better stay away from the Ethereum Mainnet. Right?
Because it's profitable for Yuga Labs to do that? They're a business making a business decision. They know users are more likely to participate in the community in the future if Yuga is willing to cover costs out-of-pocket.
Again, assess the risks yourself. Assume responsibility for your own actions. Especially in an environment like crypto today.
This is broken for anyone attempting to use ETH beyond a speculative asset. Consider if we get into the "crypto wins" future where it takes over as a payment method and replaces/live beside and equal to USD or traditional currencies. People can't just wait hours to buy random things there's a certain amount of transactions that are time sensitive. It's even worse when you think about the future where other record keeping has moved on chain because that too has a certain immediacy. Go to the doctor at the wrong time and suddenly it's thousands of dollars in fees to add to your on-chain medical records.
They voluntarily and intentionally paid these fees.
This is not broken.