Tension is building within the Internet Computer community after a long time developer publicly criticised plans to raise replicated subnet memory costs by 2.5 times under a proposal known as Mission70.
Posting on X, developer Snassy, who says he has been building on ICP since its early days, argued that cycle costs have constrained application design from the outset. He described an environment where developers routinely shift as much computation as possible to users’ browsers in order to reduce backend expenses, a reversal of common web2 practice where servers handle most processing.
According to his account, the viability of many ICP applications depends on finding ways to minimise on chain resource consumption. He cited Swaprunner as an example, explaining that most of its activity runs in the browser, with the frontend calling other backends directly. This structure, he said, avoids cycle costs that would otherwise make the project unsustainable given current liquidity and trading volumes on the network.
Snassy also pointed to earlier projects such as SneedScan, an ICRC1 token indexer, which he designed to update only when prompted by user visits rather than running continuously. On other platforms, automated indexing would be routine. On ICP, he said, the cost would have been prohibitive. He described similar architectural compromises across applications including Sneed Hub, where client side processing is used extensively to reduce on chain expense.
His broader concern is that raising memory pricing by 2.5 times risks pushing already stretched developers further into the red. He questioned whether investors fully appreciate the economic trade offs facing builders, arguing that many applications operate with limited revenue options and that advertising models remain difficult to implement within the network’s structure.
The Mission70 proposal aims to reduce ICP inflation by at least 70 per cent by the end of 2026 through supply adjustments and increased demand. As an initial step, it recommends repricing replicated subnet memory to better reflect security guarantees, redundancy and operational costs. The proposal also notes that forthcoming low cost blob storage will offer a cheaper alternative for largely static data.
Supporters argue that recalibrating prices is necessary to align incentives and strengthen long term network sustainability. They say replicated memory carries strong security assurances and that pricing should reflect that value. The Network Nervous System, which governs the protocol, allows parameters to be adjusted over time, and further reviews of computation and network cycle pricing are expected.
According to the governance listing, the proposal is classified as a Motion under the topic of Governance. Its status is currently Open and it is Accepting Votes. It was created on 25 February 2026 at 1:41am.
Critics counter that cost increases may weaken the platform’s competitiveness as an on chain cloud. While ICP promotes tamper resistant and serverless architecture, developers argue that affordability remains central to adoption. Some question whether raising costs before broader commercial traction has materialised could slow ecosystem growth.
The debate highlights a wider issue facing decentralised infrastructure projects. Balancing token economics, developer incentives and long term sustainability is rarely straightforward. For ICP, Mission70 represents an attempt to tighten monetary policy while positioning the network for future demand. For builders on the ground, the immediate concern is whether higher costs will make experimentation and iteration harder at a time when user numbers and liquidity remain modest.
A vote on the proposal is under way. The outcome may shape not only inflation dynamics but also the tone of relations between investors, governance participants and the developers building applications on the network.
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