The range of fee transaction

The circulation of cryptocurrencies is very dependent on the value prevailing in the market. In terms of price and in terms of use. In this case, to get the project to continue or in the definition of surviving is the existence of being recognized and not being recognized. Admitted or not, in general, this is a free market that determines. Whether from any side, or in terms of how to play well or play badly, it has become commonplace in the economic factors that have been in force. The point is to be able to survive or survive the waves of the current era.

The factor of the progress of the era is indeed very influential especially attached to the alert condition of humans as actors who tend to act based on gradation. Where the tendency of boredom can affect the current conditions.

Trying to explore the future development of cryptocurrencies through the problem of transaction fees, of course, is a very interesting thing. Moreover, if it applies for free, of course it is something that is highly sought after and also liked.

However, cryptocurrencies cannot develop if the issue of transaction fees is waived or fees are charged for free (if you want to give, that's fine too), because the revenue earned is the result of transaction fees incurred to keep the ecosystem running. Where this is better known as transaction costs, from this transaction fee the results obtained are used as maintenance or development costs for project developers who develop to be able to manage the flow so that transactions can continue properly and correctly.

Until now, transaction fees in the crypto world are still a big polemic, especially in bitcoin, ethereum and smart contract ecosystems that use the ethereum blockchain. The rest might be said to be fine, or you could say that it is within the limits of reasonableness that is acceptable to reason. The two sides of the problem that come from both bitcoin and ethereum are that the higher the value, the greater the transaction costs, if you say it is due to the multiple of the value increase. Prevention, solutions are not not done, but it doesn't seem to have yielded good results so far.

There is one thing that needs to be seen, the formation of costs that were previously cheap are now getting bigger along with the increase in value. This means that it could apply to other coins. When one of the coins that was previously cheap, once it rises to a high, the amount of transaction fees is also due to the multiple value of the calculated increase in price. Even if theoretically or non-theoretically examined, basically the transaction costs are actually the same, but they become large because of the multiple calculations of the related values. And the problem from here that is affected is that transactions with small value are burdened by the difficulty of making transactions.

Not one or two or three projects looked at this problem, and ultimately provided a solution in the form of a defined transaction cost range. It can be said that there are those who continue to run and are accepted by users, and there are also those who die because they don't get a glance at the breakthroughs they have made. Back to being a problem condition for the word problem. Where the language of decentralization is not as easy as the description of decentralization itself. Investor space, community, public, and developers mingle into one giving the choice whether to stop a project or not.

So if you look at the development side of the crypto world from the range of transaction fees, it can actually be avoided and harmony can be achieved for modeling cheap transaction fees using cryptocurrencies. Unfortunately, some parties only care about the level of profit compared to the progress and speed of the prospects for the cryptocurrency world itself. So to pay attention to the language level of the number of users who need fast and cheap costs, it seems that they don't care at all. Even if it is said that they are trying and looking for a solution, it seems that it is only a figment of the imagination for a mere form of appeasement, like a government official acting to calm down the masses who are demonstrating. If it really subsides, let it be. And what is clear is that there may be some developers who care, but their concern is closed by the power of investors who want more than modeling profits.

-===-