08 June 2022| ZebPay Trade-Desk
Ethereum’s volatile and generally terribly expensive gas fee has been one amongst the highest factors that aren’t solely regarding ETH users, however the whole community of crypto investors. Critics have typically cited this issue in concert of the foremost fatal flaws of Ethereum, gap wide opportunities for the ‘Ethereum killers’ out there. However, crypto continues to be one of the most fashionable crypto assets within the market, once Bitcoin. Even if that} investors are considerably alert to the fact that free transactions are not something the business is understood for, the Ethereum gas fee are a few things that nettled most investors. Besides, at the top of the day, the requirement to pay a hefty group action fee simply to conduct one transaction undermines blockchain technology’s catchword of being all-inclusive. Not all users have the aptitude to pay such high fees. The Ethereum gas fee mechanisms troubled investors who thought that within the future, the crypto would lose its significance if there are higher alternatives. Let’s take a look at a few very odd crypto transactions which cost the user unnecessarily high fees.
In the year of 2019 in Feb one of the industry users accidentally paid 2,370 Ether as fess for the 3 Eth-based transaction. The sender had given out fees of 420,210 and 2100 Etheruem during the trine transactions. According to asset’s prices that time it would cost approximately $365,800. But luckily this sender got something as an act of good from SparkPool, which was the mining pool on the other end of the transaction. The user said as part of the blockchain message “Thank you SparkPool and your miners for helping us to recover our loss,” and then added “We are willing to share half of 2100 ETH with the miners to thank the miners’ integrity.” Ether is now trading around $1,850 per coin at the time of publication, making this event worth just over $5 million in total.
In the summer of 2020, three Ethereum transactions surfaced, generating more than $5 million in total fees based on ETH prices at the time. Someone sent 0.55 ETH worth about $134 in total on June 10, 2020 in a transaction on June 10, 2020 while spending a whopping $2.6 million worth of ETH on gas, an industry term for withdrawn funds for transactions on the Ethereum network. After the multi-million dollar fee event, two other major transactions surfaced.Another $2.6 million was seen being paid to ship 350 ETH. The other transferred 3,221 ETH, giving almost the same amount of gas: 2,310 ETH to be exact. All three movements occurred between June 10 and 11, 2020.
However, this saga may not have been the sum of some errors. Later reports revealed that the third transaction, which cost 2,310 ETH to move 3,221 ETH, was the result of a “malicious attack” involving a victim’s wallet. The two multi-million dollar gas transfers remain fruitless, though theories include simple user error, hacker-related blackmail attempts, and an alleged money-losing Ponzi scheme. However, in today’s market, the three transactions are worth more than $43.6 million.
The decentralised finance boom of 2020 brought stories of substantial gains, but also at least one instance of fee turbulence. DeFi started out as another likely crypto industry bubble with surging prices, suspicious project activity, and other drama. The DeFi sector, which is largely based on the Ethereum blockchain, started seeing high transaction fees. However, even considering the high fees, one user paid too much to send one of their trades through Uniswap, a popular exchange in the DeFi niche. As reported in November 2020, this trader accidentally entered his gas amounts in the wrong places in his MetaMask wallet and made a $120 transaction while spending $9,500 on gas.”I thought this happened to others, but I was wrong,” the trader said on Reddit. “Metamask didn’t fill in the gas limit field with the correct amount on my previous transaction and that transaction failed, so I decided to change it manually on the next transaction,” he explained. “But instead of putting 200,000 in the ‘Gas limit’ input field, I put it in the ‘Gas price’ input field, so I paid 200,000 GWEI for this transaction and destroyed my life.”
Although several Ethereum fee issues have emerged, crypto participants have also suffered from Bitcoin fee issues. A particularly painful transaction surfaced on the Bitcoin blockchain in December 2020. According to TradingView data, the price of Bitcoin fluctuated between around $22,765 and $24,205 on December 19, the day of the transaction, making the fee worth at least $79,000 at the time. At the time of publication, this transaction is currently valued at approximately $170,000. A seemingly similar transaction hit the Bitcoin blockchain on November 18, 2020, revealing about 2.66 BTC spent on fees for transferring about 0.01 BTC. Based on the Bitcoin price range as of Nov. 18, the sender spent at least $45,000 to transfer a comparatively insignificant sum of the asset. That fee is now worth around $130,000.
Read About: How Ethereum’s EIP 1559 Affects You
Users can send crypto assets to virtually anywhere in the world via the blockchains on which they are based. However, there are fees associated with sending crypto assets. Transactions may take longer for certain assets depending on the associated blockchains. Certain crypto wallets and platforms offer users the option to choose a transaction fee. Higher fees generally result in faster transactions.However, over the years, some asset holders have placed their coins or tokens in the wrong slots, resulting in exorbitant, albeit accidental, fee payments. For example, a cardholder might intend to send 12 Bitcoin (BTC) for a fee of 0.01 BTC, but accidentally put 12 BTC in the fee field, spend 12 BTC in fees, and only send 0.01 BTC to the intended destination.
Many of these transaction fee stories were probably mistakes. With crypto, it is important to exercise caution. Hurry and distractions can sometimes lead to costly mistakes. Education is also important. Lack of knowledge about crypto wallets, transactions and assets can have adverse consequences when sending funds.
Disclaimer: This report is not intended to be relied upon as advice to investors or potential investors and does not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of any investor. All investors should consider such factors in consultation with a professional advisor of their choosing when deciding if an investment is appropriate. The Company has prepared this report based on information available to it, including information derived from public sources that have not been independently verified. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is provided in relation to the fairness, accuracy, correctness, completeness, or reliability of the information, opinions, or conclusions expressed herein. This report is preliminary and subject to change; the Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise the reports to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. Trading & Investments in crypto assets viz. Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, etc. are very speculative and are subject to market risks. The analysis by the Author is for informational purposes only and should not be treated as investment advice.