Debate Over Fee Transparency vs. Hidden Costs
On September 6, Steven Goldfeder, co-founder of Arbitrum, and Toly, co-founder of Solana, clashed on social media over blockchain transaction fees, MEV protection, and the merits of a single-sequencer architecture. Each argued that their own chain's design serves users better, but from opposing vantage points.
Goldfeder: Proactive MEV Defense Justifies Higher Sticker Fees
Goldfeder argued that comparing nominal gas fees alone is misleading. He said Arbitrum One and Robinhood Chain actively prevent frontrunning and most harmful MEV, while chains with lower advertised fees impose higher MEV costs—especially frontrunning against retail users. "I'd rather pay an explicit fee upfront than risk hidden losses from frontrunning and sandwich attacks in pursuit of lower gas," he stated.
Toly: Spread and Sequencer Rent Exceed Sandwich Attack Losses
Toly countered that Arbitrum's current bid-ask spread is worse for users, and its base fees are higher. He calculated that the 10% sequencer revenue share alone, expressed in basis points, already exceeds the loss rate from sandwich attacks—by roughly 10 times, according to his estimate—and this does not even include the spread penalty. "A single sequencer optimizing shareholder value will never outperform permissionless competition," he emphasized.