I’m not a fan of fixed fee because it hit more hard on small holders than whales, so for withdraw and bridge I think is more fair a % of tax on the amount bridged/withdraw than a fixed one.
Regarding compute provider bond amount instead(both for register and CU) I think that is fair also in case of a token price much higher than the actual.
This proposal is good in my opinion; however, there might be a need to conduct a community impact assessment within intervals. Should the price of $NODE appreciate significantly, these figures might need to be revisited. So basically, we could look into including a time frame by which these proposals might need to be revisited. Coming in two phases, ask the community if they desire the numbers to be altered or not, up or down
I would like to expand on why I completely disagree with this withdrawal fee. I already have to wait 150 days after redeeming my gNODEs to receive the full amount, and I believe the tokens should be sent directly to my wallet after this maturation period, without a ‘claim’ step.
But even in a scenario where a claim is required, the only fair charge would be the gas fee. As it stands, if I had to claim as frequently as I redeem (daily), it would hypothetically cost me 3650 NODE over a year.
On top of that, this fixed fee completely ignores the token’s potential to appreciate, which makes this simple transaction progressively more costly over time.
I couldn’t agree more.
This withdrawal fee really doesn’t make sense, especially since we already have to wait 150 days to receive the full amount of gNODEs. After such a long waiting period, it would only make sense for the tokens to be automatically sent to our wallets, without any extra cost.
Adding a fixed fee on top of the gas feels like punishing the people who actually believe in and support the project. And the fact that it’s a fixed amount makes it even worse — as the token grows in value, the fee just becomes heavier and more discouraging over time.
Removing this fee would be the right move.
It’s simple, fair, and truly in line with what NodeOps stands for — transparency, decentralization, and community-driven growth.
I genuinely hope the team listens to this kind of feedback, because it’s coming from those who really want to see the project succeed long-term.
This proposal sets a solid foundation for sustainability. The 2000 $NODE bond for providers ensures long-term commitment and the CU specs strike a good balance between performance and accessibility. Let’s see how the 14-day unbonding results to.
Proposal: Revision of NodeOps Protocol Fee Structure
Summary
This proposal seeks to establish a fair, sustainable, and community-aligned fee model for the NodeOps Protocol. It introduces adjustments to current operational parameters and addresses community concerns regarding the withdrawal fee and overall cost structure.
Rationale
There is a shared concern among community members regarding the existing withdrawal fee and certain fee parameters within the protocol. After redeeming gNODEs, participants already experience a substantial waiting period before receiving their full balance. Many believe that, once this period concludes, tokens should be automatically transferred to users’ wallets without the need for an additional claim step.
If a manual claim process must remain in place, the general consensus is that the only fair charge should be the network gas fee. Any fixed withdrawal cost places an unnecessary burden on users, especially for those who engage frequently with the system.
Furthermore, a fixed fee structure does not account for potential appreciation in the token’s value, which could make the same transaction disproportionately expensive over time. A more flexible, value-aware approach would better align with fairness, accessibility, and the long-term interests of the NodeOps community.
Proposed Parameter Adjustments
Category
Variable
Proposed Value
Notes
Compute Provider
Registration Bond
2000 $NODE
Lowers entry barrier while maintaining network security
Compute Provider
Bond per CU (1 vCPU, 2GB RAM, 30GB NVMe Disk)
200 $NODE
Reflects proportional scaling with resources
Compute Provider
Minimum CU per Machine
1 CU
Enables smaller and more diverse participation
Compute Provider
Unbonding Period
14 days
Improves liquidity and operational efficiency
Bridge
Bridge Fee
1 $NODE
Covers minimal operational costs
Withdrawal
Withdrawal Fee
Gas-only model or+2NODE
Additional Recommendations
Dynamic Fee Model: Implement an adaptive fee structure that adjusts according to network activity or token valuation.
Transparency Dashboard: Provide clear visibility into how collected fees are used within the protocol.
Provider Incentives: Offer reduced fees or rewards for long-term, reliable participants who strengthen the network.
Expected Outcomes
A more inclusive and accessible protocol that encourages broader participation.
Greater fairness and proportionality in fee distribution.
Enhanced transparency and long-term community trust in the NodeOps ecosystem.
Absolutely loving the direction of PIP-002. This is exactly the structure NodeOps needs to scale with strength and clarity.Ratifying these parameters shows true DAO maturity and on-chain accountability. With 2000 $NODE registration bonds, clear CU metrics, and fair fees, the protocol is building a solid, self-sustaining foundation.This move isn’t just governance,it’s evolution in motion. The 14-day unbonding, bridge, and withdrawal fees keep the system balanced and secure. This is how real infrastructure is built, transparent, community-approved, and future ready.
That’s a really thoughtful point, and I fully agree with the idea of periodic reviews. Having a structured community impact assessment at set intervals would ensure the parameters remain sustainable and fair, especially as $NODE evolves in value and utility.
It’s natural for market dynamics to shift, and revisiting these figures over time would demonstrate both adaptability and transparency.
I do not agree with the fixed fee for withdrawal. We participate in the project, provide our infrastructure to support the project, we have to wait 150 days to receive our full reward, there is no reason for me to pay extra fee after each withdrawal
I disagree with the withdrawal fee as well.
If I already have to wait 150 days to get 100% of my tokens, I shouldn’t have to pay an additional fee just to withdraw what’s already mine.
After such a long unbonding period, the tokens should be automatically released to my wallet without any extra cost.
Adding a fixed withdrawal fee feels unnecessary and unfair to long-term supporters of the project.
I think this one stands out compared to the others. The fees are reasonable, the rewards are multi-layered, and the protocol is built for long-term sustainability.
But I think the community should look into the community concerns, for instance about the long duration of 150 days to claim compute rewards. If it could be reduced, I guess the community would appreciate.
Interesting point. The flip is also true in that a % fee impacts whales. Is a good middle ground perhaps to have a % fee with a fixed upper limit / cap?
I think the parameters in PIP-002 are well-balanced for launch, 2000 $NODE for registration and 200 per CU strike a good mix of commitment and accessibility.
My only thought is around future flexibility: as $NODE’s value grows, these static numbers might become too heavy for new compute providers to join.
It’d be great if, in the future, the DAO can revisit or dynamically adjust these values based on network maturity and token price. That way, decentralization remains strong while maintaining the protocol’s integrity.
Overall, solid foundation for now, the real strength here is that the community can evolve these rules through future PIPs. Governance in motion
