We don’t want fees because that’s exclusionary. We don’t want PoW because it’s potentially wasteful. But some mechanisms are needed to cost-out (pun!) attackers. Perhaps what is already in place is good enough …
But if testing shows that an additional mechanism is needed, then perhaps a choice can be offered to users. Do a PoW OR pay a txn fee.
Ah but individual nodes can work with delays. This is not network time or anything like that, its simply a delay within the node itself.
I like it
If the client needs 5 sigs to send the transaction off then a 5 to 25 second (ave 15 secs) extra delay on top of an expected couple of seconds lag, then the potential transaction rate for a single client is like 5,000 transactions per day instead of upwards of 40 thousand. Certainly a slowdown without causing any extra work on the nodes other than the potential for them to be supplying more* sigs at any one time compared to no delays. In effect the network still has the same potential transaction rate per day, just each individual one takes longer. But this is still acceptable at an average of 15 seconds.
* the reason for more sigs at any one time is the fact that one sig is sitting in the node waiting to be sent for 1 to 5 seconds now rather than immediately sent. This only requires a queue of sigs to be sent which should not be excessive in size/entries and if full then further sig requests would be rejected for that node if it gets full.
For businesses wanting high throughput, it would possibly be useful to allow for a txn fee option to step around any potential rate limiters.
…or if possible trigger the fees/delay only when some load metric of the network is exceeded. But that would be not easy I guess.
Sounds logical to me. If you want instant transaction, you pay a fee. Otherwise you just have to wait x seconds
If the network got congestion problems, it means that it’s succesfull. If it goes offline, we’ll just put it back online and every test, results in more feedback and maybe external help for solutions.
With approximately 100K tech layoffs, this is a great time, to test the payment-only network, not to mention the people working @ home @ the moment.
I wonder what people mean with ‘stable’ in “stablecoins”? Probably that there is a less perceivable fluctuation in the price. 
a store of value + inflation = cakeism
Imco ‘stable’ is a gurantee that I pay zilch for a SAFE tx today/tomorrow/to∞, this also gives SAFE an edge. Imho “stable” is a gurantee that I pay 1 nanoSAFE for a non-SAFE tx today/tomorrow, but those costs could even go lower with increased sub-units. It’s pretty logic why you want to set the fee for non-SAFE tx to 1 nanoSAFE, it’s the closest thing to free, attracts more lower income users and highlights the tx costs with competing payment platforms. When the values of tx’s are fixed you have stability, although it might be confusing for someone looking @ the continuously fluctuating price of that value from a fiath pov.
The payment-only network will only get more attractive if it can do things like mass-payments. The time delayed pay-out in Brave browser’s ad rewards, could turn to a token migration and instant BATdbc pay-outs for over 400K users. Higher fees? zero incentive…
Innovation is almost a guarantee that you’ll get more storage and computation for your SAFE, like computers and smartphones.