While it makes sense that the minimum blob base fee proposal was rejected due to lack of demand from L2s and that the fee market is pricing blobs above what that minimum fee would be, I believe we should reconsider including symmetric fee adjustments in a future hard fork.
The current asymmetric adjustment mechanism in the eip above allows fees to drop more rapidly than they rise, which could lead to inefficient market behavior over time. As demonstrated in the examples with the 6-6-0 blob distribution pattern, asymmetric adjustments can result in suboptimal resource allocation, more volatility in blob usage, possibly an underpricing of blob gas, and other issues outlined here https://ethresear.ch/t/the-target-demand-paradox-in-the-blob-fee-market-an-analysis-of-eip-4844-eip-7961/
It’s important to recognize that L2s aren’t the only relevant stakeholders here, and their incentives are naturally aligned with mechanisms that systematically result in lower fees. Of course they would favor asymmetric fee adjustments that allow fees to drop more quickly - they’re the primary fee payers! But we need to consider the entire ecosystem’s health, including validators, network security, and long-term sustainability beyond just the interest of L2s.
As outlined in your OP summarizing the discussion on it, symmetric fee adjustments would:
- Create more predictable fee behavior for all participants
- Discourage extreme utilization patterns
- Promote more balanced blob usage across blocks
- Prevent excessive fee oscillation that hurts the network’s economic stability
Even if L2s aren’t demanding this feature, implementing symmetric adjustments would create a more sustainable fee market that benefits the entire ecosystem long-term. Sometimes the most important protocol improvements aren’t the ones most loudly requested, but those that create foundational stability and address concerns from the broader ETH community.
What do people think about reviving the symmetric fee adjustment proposal in a future update?