Discussion: Potential Adjustment of Transaction Fees

[sYNCHROtime]

Simple Summary

Over the past six months, transaction fees have gradually increased. Based on the current situation analysis, I’d like to initiate a discussion on whether to proceed with on-chain transaction fees reduction measures in the future.

Motivation

After September 2024, no adjustments have been made to on-chain transaction fees related parameters. But the rising price of TRX, along with an increase in on-chain active users and growing transaction volume, has led to a gradual rise in transaction fees. This is driven by two key factors: higher direct fees and increased competition for on-chain resources.

Variations in transaction fees may influence multiple aspects of on-chain activity, including staking behavior, user experience, DApp sustainability, and community development. To ensure the healthy and sustainable development of the network and its ecosystem, I think it’s necessary to discuss whether to adjust on-chain parameters to reduce fees.

Background

After proposals #92, #94, #95, and #97 were executed in September 2024, transaction fees related parameters remained unchanged. In this way, the amount of TRX needed for a single transaction fee remains stable.

Key Cost Drivers

1. TRX Price Effect

As shown in the chart below, thanks to the strong development of the TRON network, the price of TRX has continued to rise over the past six months — increasing by approximately 80% — and this upward trend may continue in the future.

Higher TRX prices directly increase costs for transactions burning TRX.

2. Impact of User and Transaction Volume Changes

The scale of active on-chain users has shown an upward trend over the past six months (increasing by 22% in May 2025 compared to October 2024). On-chain transaction volume has also increased significantly (rising by 25% in May 2025 compared to October 2024). Refer to the chart below.

Because the Bandwidth and Energy resources obtainable through on-chain staking have an upper limit, the growth in active on-chain users and transaction volume leads to increased TRX staking. This intensifies competition for these resources, thus requiring more TRX to be staked to obtain the same amount of resources.

Based on a comprehensive analysis, the changes in these two metrics have collectively contributed to an increase in on-chain transaction costs and intensified competition for resources compared to previous levels.

Transaction Cost Comparison (USDT Transfer)

Chain	Fee	Time	Characteristics
Ethereum	<$0.5	2025-06	High volatility
BSC	<$0.01	2025-06	Low cost, mature ecosystem
Solana	<$0.01	2025-06	Low cost,fast transaction speed
Polygon (L2)	<$0.001	2025-06	Lowest cost
TRON (TRC-20)	$2.0 (burn 13.5 TRX)	2024-10	High stability, staking reduces fees
TRON (TRC-20)	$3.6 (burn 13.5 TRX) $0–$3.6 (stake ~5000 TRX)	2025-06	～80% fee increase since 2024-10

The table reveals that the cost per USDT transfer on TRON no longer holds a significant advantage over other chains when using the TRX burning method. Compared to the situation on TRON October last year, the cost has also increased – a rise proportional to TRX's price appreciation.

However, TRON still maintains strong competitiveness due to its staking mechanism, network stability and high throughput.

Nonetheless, transaction fees are expected to rise further as TRX's value gradually increases and the chain's ecosystem development demands grow.

Analysis

The recent increase in transaction fees brings both benefits and potential downsides to the network. A detailed analysis is provided below:

Positive Impacts

• The progressive rise in TRX staking volume thereby enhances chain stability.
  • To mitigate costs from TRX burning, a growing number of users opt for staking to acquire resources, minimizing TRX burn during transactions.
  • The increase in on-chain active users and growing transaction volume will also lead to more staking, as users seek additional resources.
  • As indicated in the "Stake 2.0 Staking Trend Chart" below, active on-chain staking quantities demonstrate a progressive increase.
  • Should current circumstances persist, this growth trajectory will continue.
• Reduced TRX liquidity supports price of TRX stability
• Discourages low-value transactions, improving network health

Negative Impacts

• Higher dApp operational costs, reducing developer incentives and passion
• Decreased user engagement and diminished appeal to new users
• The shift toward staking has reduced on-chain TRX burning, consequently weakening the deflationary effect.
  • As shown in the TRX Supply Growth Chart below, TRX has gradually transitioned from deflation to inflation over the past six months. However, the recently approved #102 Proposal – which reduces block production and voting rewards – will promote TRX deflation.
  • Long-term implications: This reduction in deflationary pressure may moderately constrain TRX's value appreciation potential.

Discussion

The current gradual increase in transaction fees enhances chain stability but adversely affects ecosystem development within the community. However, given the progressive growth in active users and on-chain transaction volume, the increase in transaction fees does not seem to have a noticeable impact on the chain’s development. Nevertheless, to better facilitate sustained growth, deliberation on implementing fee-reduction mechanisms warrants consideration.

Should adjustments proceed, comprehensive analysis is required regarding:

1. Modification of on-chain parameters (such as bandwidth and energy unit prices, dynamic energy model variables, etc.)
2. Potential Impacts After the Adjustment

[Sunny6889]

TRC-20 token transaction fees appear disproportionately high compared to other major blockchain networks. We should conduct a comprehensive analysis to establish differentiated fee structures based on transaction types and use cases.

[barbatos2011]

TRC-20 token transaction fees appear disproportionately high compared to other major blockchain networks. We should conduct a comprehensive analysis to establish differentiated fee structures based on transaction types and use cases.

Yes, burning TRX is much more expensive compared to other chains. However, TRON has a staking mechanism that allows users to make transfers for free by staking.

We can see the data from here(https://tronscan.io/#/data/charts/network/energy-consumption), more than 80% energy consumption is from staking.

[Benson0224]

TRC-20 token transaction fees appear disproportionately high compared to other major blockchain networks. We should conduct a comprehensive analysis to establish differentiated fee structures based on transaction types and use cases.

Yes, burning TRX is much more expensive compared to other chains. However, TRON has a staking mechanism that allows users to make transfers for free by staking.

We can see the data from here(https://tronscan.io/#/data/charts/network/energy-consumption), more than 80% energy consumption is from staking.

Agree, Acquiring resources through Staking is a unique model specific to TRON. Theoretically, staking sufficient TRX can essentially achieve near-zero transaction costs.

As mentioned above, staking currently accounts for 80% of the network's energy consumption for transactions. However, the main text only compares costs based on burning TRX for fee payments. I recommend further analysis and elaboration on this point.

The fact that 80% of transaction energy comes from staking indicates that most ordinary users rely on staked energy to pay for transactions. Additionally, energy renting platforms are highly active—beyond JustLend, numerous community-driven projects exist. Therefore, a more comprehensive analysis is necessary to accurately depict TRON's current fee structure.

[0xbigapple]

This is truly a big and beautiful proposal. High transaction fees on Tron have troubled many users. While repeated increases the energy limit have benefited TRX stakers, they have also raised costs for non-staking users. Could you provide specific proposals and their impacts on updating the energy unit price or modifying the dynamic model for community discussion and voting? Also, what is the target transaction fee you aim to achieve?

[GordonLtron]

Fee reduction would mitigate the positive impacts identified in the above analysis while improving the negative impacts. However, the most critical factor seems to be the potential future growth sources. If growth comes from new users or new projects, fee reduction would be more favorable. Conversely, if growth stems primarily from existing users, maintaining the status quo might be the better choice, as hodlers also hope for TRX to continue appreciating.

[bladehan1]

Support moderate fee reduction: The current fee increase has weakened the ecosystem's competitiveness, making adjustments strongly necessary. We need to carefully evaluate the target fee level to achieve a competitive edge while assessing the impact of adjustments on inflation and staking.

[lxcmyf]

The transaction fee of TRON consists of the following parts:

1. Bandwidth

   • Ordinary transfers consume bandwidth points and are free of charge.

   • When the bandwidth is insufficient, TRX will be consumed for deduction.

2. Energy

   • Smart contract calls mainly consume energy.

   • If the caller does not have sufficient energy, TRX will be deducted.

Reducing the risk of transaction fees and balancing considerations

1. Is the resource allocation mechanism reasonable
   Resource deflation? The increase in coin price has resulted in a decrease in the resources obtained by the pledged unit TRX. It is necessary to evaluate whether the release and use of resources are balanced.
   The bandwidth and energy unit prices need to be dynamically adjusted to ensure that resources are not monopolized by large players.

2. The incentive mechanism should be maintained
   If the handling fee is reduced too much, it will decrease the revenue of nodes (especially witness nodes), thereby affecting their maintenance motivation.

3. Prevent the proliferation of junk trading
   The handling fee is the 'firewall' that prevents DDoS attacks.
   Reducing fees may attract junk contracts/bulk small-scale attack transactions, affecting network stability.

[barbatos2011]

This is truly a big and beautiful proposal. High transaction fees on Tron have troubled many users. While repeated increases the energy limit have benefited TRX stakers, they have also raised costs for non-staking users. Could you provide specific proposals and their impacts on updating the energy unit price or modifying the dynamic model for community discussion and voting? Also, what is the target transaction fee you aim to achieve?

Agreed. Each parameter that could impact the on-chain price needs further analysis if there’s strong demand for lowering fees.

[barbatos2011]

Reducing the risk of transaction fees and balancing considerations

1. Is the resource allocation mechanism reasonable
   Resource deflation? The increase in coin price has resulted in a decrease in the resources obtained by the pledged unit TRX. It is necessary to evaluate whether the release and use of resources are balanced.
   The bandwidth and energy unit prices need to be dynamically adjusted to ensure that resources are not monopolized by large players.
2. The incentive mechanism should be maintained
   If the handling fee is reduced too much, it will decrease the revenue of nodes (especially witness nodes), thereby affecting their maintenance motivation.
3. Prevent the proliferation of junk trading
   The handling fee is the 'firewall' that prevents DDoS attacks.
   Reducing fees may attract junk contracts/bulk small-scale attack transactions, affecting network stability.

Yes, we need to hear more voices in the discussion, as these actions will come with both benefits and trade-offs.

[Cainuriel]

I would like to add my opinion to the very high deployment fees. I have been capturing TRX on testnet for a month to be able to test an ERC20.

But I see that I won't make it because two and a half million energy equals stakear: 454,545 TRX, which at the time on mainnet will be worth $54,545 USD.

How do you get anyone to deploy anything on this network?

I've been developing smart contracts in EVM for several years, and I've never seen anything like this.

I imagine this red one wasn't designed to have smart contracts, and that must be the reason for the high cost.

What is the reason for such high rates to deploy?

And now, how do you get energy leasing on the shasta network?

[GordonLtron]

And now, how do you get energy leasing on the shasta network?

You can access
https://shasta.tronex.io/ for shasta
https://nileex.io/join/getJoinPage for nile test tokens

[barbatos2011]

I would like to add my opinion to the very high deployment fees. I have been capturing TRX on testnet for a month to be able to test an ERC20.
But I see that I won't make it because two and a half million energy equals stakear: 454,545 TRX, which at the time on mainnet will be worth $54,545 USD.
What is the reason for such high rates to deploy?

Yes, currently, staking for energy requires a significant amount of TRX. However, those TRX can be reclaimed after use — they are not burned. Therefore, it can essentially be considered a free option for obtaining energy.
On the other hand, if you choose to burn TRX for energy, it maybe will cost several hundred TRX, and that amount is permanently lost. This is expensive.

I think the positive effect is that it introduces a threshold for deploying smart contracts, which can help reduce useless data on-chain.
However, I agree that this approach is not very friendly to new individual developers. It might be worth considering a reduction in deployment fees. Do you have any suggestions on how we could improve this?

[GordonLtron]

To obtain testnet tokens , you can join devloper discord or telegram and use the below commend
!nile (your address sends 5000 nile TRX to (your address (max 5000 in 24 hours).
!nile_usdt (your address sends 5000 USDT (Smart Contract on Nile Test Net) to (your address (max 5000 in 24 hours).
!nile_usdd (your address sends 5000 USDD (Smart Contract on Nile Test Net) to (your address (max 5000 in 24 hours).
!nile_usdc (your address sends 5000 USDC (Smart Contract on Nile Test Net) to (your address (max 5000 in 24 hours).
!shasta (your address sends 5000 shasta TRX to (your address (max 5000 in 24 hours).
!shasta_usdt (your address sends 5000 USDT (Smart Contract on Shasta Test Net) to (your addressADDR (max 5000 in 24 hours).
!shasta_usdd (your address sends 5000 USDD (Smart Contract on Shasta Test Net) to (your address (max 5000 in 24 hours).
!shasta_usdc (your address sends 5000 USDC (Smart Contract on Shasta Test Net) to (your address (max 5000 in 24 hours).

TRON Developer Community
Telegram

English：
https://t.me/TronOfficialDevelopersGroupEn
https://t.me/troncoredevscommunity

Discord：
https://discord.com/invite/hqKvyAM

[ferdinand026]

I would like to add my opinion to the very high deployment fees. I have been capturing TRX on testnet for a month to be able to test an ERC20.
But I see that I won't make it because two and a half million energy equals stakear: 454,545 TRX, which at the time on mainnet will be worth $54,545 USD.
What is the reason for such high rates to deploy?

Yes, currently, staking for energy requires a significant amount of TRX. However, those TRX can be reclaimed after use — they are not burned. Therefore, it can essentially be considered a free option for obtaining energy. On the other hand, if you choose to burn TRX for energy, it maybe will cost several hundred TRX, and that amount is permanently lost. This is expensive.

I think the positive effect is that it introduces a threshold for deploying smart contracts, which can help reduce useless data on-chain. However, I agree that this approach is not very friendly to new individual developers. It might be worth considering a reduction in deployment fees. Do you have any suggestions on how we could improve this?

Yes, staking TRX to obtain energy not only helps make the TRON network more stable but also allows transactions to be completely free.
Additionally, if you don’t want to stake TRX, there’s another way to reduce transaction fees — renting energy. You can have a try. It allows you to save significantly on fees without the need to stake more TRX, making it a great alternative.