I'd like to share my perspective on Continuum's fee structure for bridging assets. The current consideration is a flat rate, which has its advantages for users dealing with substantial sums. However, it may pose some limitations for those involved in smaller transactions, effectively excluding them from the benefits Continuum aims to offer.
It's essential to acknowledge that different bridges have diverse approaches to charging users for their services. Here's a breakdown of a few examples:
cBridge: Their fee structure ranges from 0% to 2% of the bridged amount, and this percentage varies depending on the type of asset being bridged.
Wormhole Portal: Currently, their fees are negligible.
Stargate: Users are subject to a fixed fee of 6 basis points (bps).
Axelar Satellite: This bridge charges users for relayer gas fees, which can vary significantly based on the source and destination chains. This approach doesn't rely on a percentage of the bridged amount.
Considering these different models, if Continuum were to adopt a flat-rate fee structure across the board, it might not be as competitive as other bridging solutions, particularly for transactions involving smaller sums, which actually constitute a significant portion of the total number of transactions.
In my opinion, a more flexible and balanced approach would be to implement a dynamic fee calculation, up to a predefined maximum fee threshold. For instance, fees for transactions below a certain threshold (e.g., $10 or a predetermined flat fee) could be based on a percentage of the bridged amount, not exceeding 2%, similar to the cBridge model, but capped at a maximum of $10 (or the chosen flat fee).
By adopting this approach, Continuum can cater to the needs of both small and large transfers across its network, ensuring a fair and competitive fee structure.
Regarding the matter of the General Message Passing (GMP), it could potentially be set as a flat fee. Furthermore, introducing the option to use Continuum's native token (CTM) to pay for fees while offering users a discount is a practical idea. However, it's crucial to consider that most users may prefer not to hold tokens for an extended period and would likely opt to purchase them on an as-needed basis.
As a reference, Router Protocol's Voyager provides a relevant example of a bridge that allows users to pay fees with the protocol's token. They also offer the flexibility of payment in other tokens, but it might be a strategic decision to limit payment options to primary tokens like stablecoins (e.g., USDC and USDT) and major cryptocurrencies like ETH or WETH to streamline the user experience.
In summary, by adopting a dynamic fee calculation approach and offering convenient payment options, Continuum can better serve a wide range of users and improve its competitiveness in the bridging space.
