Polygon Version of Bitcoin Ordinals Sends Gas Fees Skyrocketing

DecryptPublicado a 2023-11-28Actualizado a 2023-11-28

Resumen

Before the drop, Polygon gas fees had increased 1,000% compared to the same time a day ago.

Gas fees for transactions on Polygon’s proof-of-stake chain skyrocketed to more than $0.10 or 5,000 gwei on Thursday—rising sharply as the Ethereum scaling solution weathered an apparent influx of inscriptions-related, PRC-20 activity.

As of this writing, Polygon gas fees had plummeted back down to around 270 gwei, according to livdir.com’s Polygon Gas Price Chart. However, before the steep drop, Polygon gas fees had increased 1,000% compared to the same time a day ago, when transactions cost 477 gwei.

“Watch out for that mass adoption incoming, LOL,” a Reddit user named DingDongWhoDis quipped, as several other community members tried to assess the influx of activity.

Gas fees quantify the computational power required to make a transaction on Polygon’s network—1 gwei is equivalent to 0.000000001 MATIC. Several transactions that occurred on Thursday while gas fees were elevated contained JSON text as input data, which resembles text-based inscriptions associated with BRC-20 tokens on Bitcoin.

Dubbed the PRC-20 protocol, it appears a token called POLS was primarily responsible for the influx of activity on Polygon on Thursday. Twitter user @0xhuoshen shared a screenshot of several PRC-20-related transactions back-to-back that sought to “mint” the POLS token.

As of this writing, around 9% of the token’s 2.1 trillion total supply had been minted, according to evm.ink. In total, POLS had 18,100 different owners, as of this writing.

An influx of activity related to Ordinals on Bitcoin sent transaction fees on Bitcoin to multi-year highs earlier this year, as fervor for “minting” or claiming BRC-20 tokens surged. Eventually, transaction fees came back down, but they have since risen again—albeit, not as much—amid renewed Ordinals activity, according to data from Ycharts.

BRC-20s, an experimental class of tokens, were pioneered by the pseudonymous data analyst Domo in March. Other developers have sought to replicate the BRC-20 standard on other networks, such as Ethereum, with the introduction of Ethscriptions.

“The inscriptions-based token wave cannot be stopped,” Tom Lehman, co-founder of Ethscriptions told Decrypt. “I do wonder the purpose of this on Polygon, where transaction fees are so low. Then again, I also wondered about the purpose of it on Ethereum.”

When Domo developed the first BRC-20 token, the analyst took inspiration from the ERC-20 token standard on Ethereum. Initially proposed in 2015, the standard set of rules outlined a vision for fungible tokens on the network, which is used for tokens like the stablecoin Tether.

Some Bitcoiners have taken matters into their own hands recently, with regards to BRC-20 activity. Named the Sophon, a pseudonymous developer’s bot derailed hundreds of newly created BRC-20 tokens on Bitcoin in October.

Lecturas Relacionadas

When Real Estate Ownership Goes Digital: What Happens to Your Rights, Risks, and Liquidity?

"Tokenizing Real Estate: Rights, Risks, and the Path to Liquidity" While tokenizing real-world assets (RWA) gains traction, real estate presents unique complexities. Beyond technical token issuance, critical challenges remain: enforcing legal rights, managing the underlying physical asset, and creating genuine secondary market liquidity. This article explores these issues through OneAsset, a Dubai-based commercial real estate (CRE) tokenization platform. OneAsset moves away from simply offering asset fragmentation. Instead, it focuses on institutional-grade infrastructure, prioritizing asset quality, legal enforceability, and operational fundamentals. Each property is held in an independent, single-asset vault, backed by a legally separate Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for bankruptcy remoteness. Investors acquire tokens representing the economic rights to a specific property, with precise legal claims defined by the underlying SPV structure. OneAsset emphasizes that tokenization cannot transform a poor-quality asset. Its initial focus is on institutional investors and quality Dubai-based CRE, selected for stable tenant cash flows and a clear regulatory environment. The platform integrates compliance by design, aiming to embed investor qualification and transfer rules directly into the token architecture. A core insight is that asset fragmentation does not automatically create liquidity. True liquidity depends on the asset's inherent quality—its location, cash flow, and valuation—as well as sufficient buyer demand. The goal is not just tradability, but making real estate rights more easily priced, verified, and reallocated. Looking ahead, the article discusses the potential for "AiFi" (AI-powered finance). For AI agents to autonomously allocate capital, investment assets like real estate tokens must become truly "machine-readable." This requires a high degree of standardization in legal rights, valuations, cash flows, and compliance data—a direction OneAsset is pursuing through its structured data reporting. In conclusion, real estate tokenization is shifting from a technology narrative to a focus on asset fundamentals. Blockchain can enhance efficiency and programmability, but it cannot replace sound underwriting, property management, or legal execution. The real work begins after the asset is on-chain.

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

When Real Estate Ownership Goes Digital: What Happens to Your Rights, Risks, and Liquidity?

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

After Affecting Two Generations, Meta Ordered to Pay $18 Billion in Damages

After more than two decades, a legal parallel has emerged. In 1998, major U.S. tobacco companies settled for $206 billion, leading to strict advertising bans and warning labels that significantly reduced smoking rates. On August 26, 2026, Meta reached a landmark settlement with U.S. attorneys general, agreeing to pay up to approximately $18 billion and implement mandatory changes to Facebook and Instagram. This historic settlement, one of the largest against a tech company, stems from allegations that Meta deliberately designed addictive features like infinite scroll and push notifications, harming youth mental health and violating child privacy laws. Facing a potential $1.4 trillion lawsuit and a series of unfavorable jury verdicts, Meta chose to settle on the eighth day of trial to avoid a catastrophic ruling. The core of the agreement is not just the financial penalty, which Meta will pay over 10 years, but a series of strict, 10-year product mandates for young users. These include a hard two-hour daily time limit (combined across apps), a default "nighttime block" from midnight to 6 AM, restricted notifications during school hours, hidden "like" counts, an optional non-algorithmic feed, and stronger age verification. An independent auditor will monitor compliance. Crucially, roughly 30% ($5.3 billion) of Meta's payment is contingent on YouTube and TikTok adopting similar measures and paying around $5 billion each. This move aims to create an industry-wide standard and prevent Meta from being competitively disadvantaged. The settlement is being likened to Big Tobacco's "tobacco moment." By legally framing addictive algorithm design as a "public nuisance," it sets a powerful precedent. Nearly 3,000 similar cases are pending against other social media giants, signaling a fundamental shift in regulatory pressure. The era where platforms could deny the addictive impact of their designs on children is effectively over.

marsbitHace 28 min(s)

After Affecting Two Generations, Meta Ordered to Pay $18 Billion in Damages

marsbitHace 28 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片