For a long time we know how expensive the Ethereum gas fee is to say it is a transaction fee. Both for delivery and for swapping tokens that use the Ethereum blockchain. Many parties are concerned about this problem, and there are also many attempts to say it can solve the fee problem on the Ethereum network. Various things from the creation of bridges, and plasma to upgrades to the Ethereum blockchain network are expected to reduce this. However, in reality, there is no definite answer that can be said to answer the challenge of the cost problem which has been a problem so far.
Even if there is, it can only be considered as a reduction in the problem of costs, not because transaction fees are cheap, and on the other hand, it can also be done by crossing or crossing the bridge and switching to another blockchain network support so that it can reduce huge costs.
From what there are developers in the Ethereum community and network developers other than Ethereum, there really isn't anything that can be said to be a low-cost-based network in terms of using smart contracts. The point is only to reduce the cost of being large so large that other networks appear to be small. And most importantly, there is no complete token backing that is absolutely adaptable between different blockchain networks, as each brings tokens within their scope without wanting to be left behind as well as the tokenization issues that are present.
So the thing that needs greater attention is the issue of updates or upgrades made by every developer who on average uses a smart contract system similar to Ethereum. Where the core upgrade that has taken place so far has only been in the form of additional updates for adjustments to new things that are present, adding to the security side but not addressing the important side which has become a common problem in the EVM development side and should take priority. And at the end, the essence of the existence of the EVM itself is actually ignored for its actual use.
The result that is interesting for developers is that the cost side is more attractive for them to be able to be said as a vehicle for generating funds which can be said to be an advantage for developers to cover development problems, maintain market price stability and maintain profits for themselves. Where the amount of transaction costs that have taken place since the cessation of POW mining systematics has become even more unreasonable in terms of transaction costs resulting from the systematic use of POS itself.
Fundamentally or not, the existing rotation system from the use of the POS system can be said to be part of the big profit-seeking space for the Ethereum developers themselves. Not caring about the condition of the need for language currency which is more sought after at lower costs than the existing traditional conditions. The flow of the programming language has been made in such a way as to indeed produce high gas costs and indeed has no intention of reducing or seeking answers to the actual needs of transaction problems.
The conclusion may just be a mere point of view, it really sucks about the problem of transaction fees which are difficult to say cheap for users with small capital nuances, so they can't be used as the cryptocurrency systematics should be created. And maybe there was actually never any intention to reduce the problem of fixing the problem of transaction fees to be cheap even if there was just a discourse to close or make the existing conditions subside, because if there really was that it would clearly reduce the condition of the survival of the Ethereum coin to survive as it is until then this is on the market. This means it is a big monopoly that they use as a bridge in the name of crypto for figuratively making money like the work of bankers in the past banking context.
-===-