An active builder @SnassyIcp on the Internet Computer has spoken out against the first stage of Mission 70, after a proposal to raise storage gas costs by 250 per cent passed.
“The first part of mission 70 passed, increasing gas costs on storage by 250%,” he wrote. “So, that battle was lost, from my perspective. But there are more proposals to come, with what is expected to be even more radical cost increases on processing (the ‘compute’ in ‘Internet Computer’), so the war is not over; there are more battles to be lost ahead!”
Despite acknowledging that his stance runs counter to much of the prevailing sentiment, he said he intends to continue arguing his case. “Despite provably and measurably going against public opinion, I want to continue stating my case, hoping against hope that the next proposal will not pass – or better yet, not contain the suggested radical price hike.”
At the centre of his argument is a question about demand. “There are two kinds of customers (builders) we can imagine for ICP: those who really do need ICP, and those who might just find it useful or simply like it.”
He argues that pricing power depends on which category the network currently serves. “When someone really needs your product, you are in a pretty position at negotiating table, and your mission is essentially to see how far you can yank up prices before your customer has a heart attack. All of us ICP investors would obviously love to be in this position.”
By contrast, he says that where users are experimenting with a relatively new product, cost sensitivity becomes decisive. “When people are mostly playing around with your perhaps new, untested product to kick the tires and try to figure out if it could be useful for them, you are in a much different position. Here, price matters a lot, and customers can be expected to leave pretty readily if you are not sensitive to their price elasticity.”
He believes supporters of the hike are assuming strong, inelastic demand already exists. “A lot of the discussion around m70 gas hikes from the proponent side seems to assume that we’re in the first situation – that there are loads of customers who need ICP.”
“If you think that is the case, then I do understand that it would feel absolutely natural and reasonable to, at the very least, expect those customers to cover their costs (not be subsidized with cheap gas that you sell at a loss) – it would even not feel far fetched to ask customers to pony up enough for a modest profit to be made on providing the service.”
Yet he challenges that premise. “That is definitely what I would think too, if I thought ICP had any customers that needed it. Remember, I am a huge fan of ICP and I build on it every day, but I don’t think we have those customers, because I haven’t met them and nobody seems to be able to point them out.”
“So if you think that it is indeed the case that there are loads of customers who at this point in time need ICP…would you mind showing them? Nobody seems to know where they are.”
He maintains that raising prices before product market fit is established could undermine adoption. “The reason I am against increasing gas prices is thus simply that: I don’t think we have any customers yet that need ICP.”
“I also think the way to get to customers that need ICP is via letting customers playing around and searching for PMF. Once they find a way to make a solid revenue on ICP, they will need it, and then we can think about hiking prices.”
Repeating his position, he writes: “The whole mistake with raising prices now is that there are, in my opinion, no customers that need it yet. Show me that I am wrong.”
He questions whether there are “huge, rich customers” prepared to absorb increases of several hundred per cent. “Do you think there are huge, rich customers that need ICP and are ready to save the network by paying 500% more (or so) for gas?”
Speculation about potential national adoption or undisclosed enterprise deals does not persuade him. “Maybe all of Pakistan will soon be using ICP? And/or all of Switzerland?” he writes, before adding, “And maybe (this is the big one so many come back to), maybe Dom has some giant, huge, secret enterprise client lined up in the wings, that he will reveal as soon as we have voted through the gas hikes, that will make the hikes make sense!”
“I doubt it.”
On the question of security and infrastructure costs, he argues that most current applications do not require the highest configuration. “ICP has great security, but not great enough for those who really need security, and the customers we have on ICP right now don’t need security that bad as to pay ‘enterprise grade’ security prices. You don’t need 13 nodes for OpenChat. You don’t Need 13 nodes for Dragginz. You don’t need 13 nodes for Sneed’s SNS Forum.”
“Bluntly put, most customers don’t need 13 node subnets, at least not for most of their apps, and providing some flexibility here would probably be more important than all of mission 70 for adoption and thus eventual cycle burn, deflation and price increase.”
He describes the current phase of the network as one driven by experimentation. “I think we are where we are, that we’re still in the phase where the only builders we have, and will have for some time, are customers who suspect they could find ICP useful, but don’t yet need it. Customers who are kicking the tires, doing proofs of concept, exploring costs and opportunities…customers who might eventually find PMF and then they will start really needing ICP – but we’re not there yet, and these things do take time.”
“It’s also not a bad place, at all, that we’re in. That’s how networks grow and new, paradigm shifting tech gains adoption. It takes some time, it requires some investor patience, but the rewards can be out-sized.”
He supports much of Mission 70 in principle but disputes the timing of the price increase. “I am not against the direction of mission 70, and I am for most of it – I am only against the timing for the gas cost hike.”
“The tech is great and getting better at a reassuring pace.”
As a daily builder, he says he does not yet depend on the network in a way that justifies higher costs. “But as someone who builds on the network every day, I don’t need the network yet. I hope to get to a point when I do. And then I will be all for making sure the network not just covers costs but turns a profit, and I’ll be pleased as pie to see Sneed DAO pay our fair share from revenue streams to ensure the network is sustainable.”
“But that day is not today, and unless voters who support the m70 gas hikes can point me to any examples of known customers who do make enough profits already to sustain a cost increase by several hundred percent, I think they are committing a serious mistake by voting for gas hikes that could destroy the only viable path to the rosy future that we all want to reach but that they seem to think we are already in.”
“The battle rages on. Spread the word.”
Dear Reader,
Ledger Life is an independent platform dedicated to covering the Internet Computer (ICP) ecosystem and beyond. We focus on real stories, builder updates, project launches, and the quiet innovations that often get missed.
We’re not backed by sponsors. We rely on readers like you.
If you find value in what we publish—whether it’s deep dives into dApps, explainers on decentralised tech, or just keeping track of what’s moving in Web3—please consider making a donation. It helps us cover costs, stay consistent, and remain truly independent.
Your support goes a long way.
🧠 ICP Principal: ins6i-d53ug-zxmgh-qvum3-r3pvl-ufcvu-bdyon-ovzdy-d26k3-lgq2v-3qe
🧾 ICP Address: f8deb966878f8b83204b251d5d799e0345ea72b8e62e8cf9da8d8830e1b3b05f
Every contribution helps keep the lights on, the stories flowing, and the crypto clutter out.
Thank you for reading, sharing, and being part of this experiment in decentralised media.
—Team Ledger Life
Community Discussion