# Gas fee, MEV, etc

**URL:** <https://research.rsk.dev/t/gas-fee-mev-etc/313>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [February 26, 2022, 7:34pm UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/gas-fee-mev-etc/313 "2022-02-26T19:34:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![alex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@alex](https://research.rsk.dev/u/alex)\
**Post date:** [February 26, 2022, 7:34pm UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/gas-fee-mev-etc/313/1 "2022-02-26T19:34:10Z")

</div>

I see a contradiction in the way RSK and RSK apps are selling this sidechain when they say gas fees are low, lower than Ethereum and others.  
Well, we know it is low because is not so popular yet, so like any alt-coin, fees are low because blocks are not full.  
So we want RSK to be popular and at the same selling it as low gas fee sidechain makes little sense in long term.

How is RSK going to battle this issue different to other networks? can be implemented all solutions that are there currently, sure. But is there anything different in RSK? a different position in how to limit/raise gas fee? any solution on the MEV issue?

I hope RSK will have to deal with this issues in the near term  
cheers

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![light](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/research.rsk.dev/light/32/59_2.png) [@light](https://research.rsk.dev/u/light)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2022, 5:05am UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/gas-fee-mev-etc/313/2 "2022-03-01T05:05:25Z")

</div>

This is not a complete answer to your question, but this is part of the answer:

> **[Towards Higher Onchain Scalability with the Unitrie | RSK - Smart Contract...](https://blog.rsk.co/noticia/towards-higher-onchain-scalability-with-the-unitrie/)**
>
> Keywords

See also this post which has more info about scalability (which is related to the issue of fees)

> **[RSK Scalability](https://medium.com/iovlabs-innovation-stories/rsk-scalability-c44252f05a4b)**
>
> In 2015 a group of Bitcoiners including myself started brainstorming on how to use Bitcoin to achieve true financial inclusion. True…

For MEV, there are a few “solutions”, like fair-ordering or threshold decryption. These are probably best implemented on a rollup rather than L1 RSK.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![shreemoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ba9def/32.png) [@shreemoy](https://research.rsk.dev/u/shreemoy)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2022, 5:03pm UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/gas-fee-mev-etc/313/3 "2022-03-01T17:03:39Z")

</div>

These concerns are also tied to conflicting objectives. RSK security comes from bitcoin merged mining – and miners are compensated from fees. If fees are too low, then the network will not be sustainable. So RSK needs to maintain or increase the security payout to miners while also finding ways to offer more to users and devs. As @light pointed out - scalability efforts will pay dividends here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SergioDemianLerner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/779978/32.png) [@SergioDemianLerner](https://research.rsk.dev/u/SergioDemianLerner)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2022, 1:21pm UTC](https://research.rsk.dev/t/gas-fee-mev-etc/313/4 "2022-03-16T13:21:40Z")

</div>

To add to the links that @light has already provided. I’ll give you just some examples of RSK compared with Ethereum:

- An average EOA (Externally Owned Account) in Ethereum consumes 142 bytes (78 content, 32 hash reference, 32 index) when serialized in the state.
- An average EOA in RSK consumes only 11 bytes.

That’s 10 times less.

- An average storage cell (i.e. an ERC20 balance) in Ethereum consumes 72 bytes (8 content, 32 key, key reference).
- An optimized ERC-20 storage cell in RSK consumes just 28 bytes. (note: not all RSK ERC20 contracts are using this feature)

That’s 2.5 times less.