Why dApp on EOS is not profitable for developers? (Part 2)

The link to Why dApp on EOS is not profitable for developers? (Part 1)

“EOS puts the cost of transactions and storage onto the developers. ETH puts the cost onto users”

Who will pay?

The cost of resources can subsequently become a problem not only for developers but also for users of EOS-applications.

Former vice president of product Block.One Thomas Cox says that there are usage scenarios in which the developer can write dApp so that the user must have their own CPU and/or NET and/or RAM for interaction. He also noted that this is one way to write an earlier version of your dApp so that you do not go broke if the application suddenly becomes popular.

In a discussion on Reddit on how developers can cover the cost of RAM, CPU, and NET, the introduction of special commissions for users has become one of the main proposals.

“They could easily create a fee to use their dapp. Whether it be eos or their own token. That fee would go towards the dapps developers” – wrote the user under the nickname mr1ply.

Another participant in the discussion, SuddenAnalysis, notes that, although many applications will obviously start charging this fee, others “others will have an inflationary model where the developers receive some or all of the interest through inflation to continue paying for things [resources] relying solely on the value of their platform.”

“Inflation! You need to design your cryptoeconomics in a way that inflation will cover development costs.” – writes ablejoseph.

At the same time, the resources obtained by staking – CPU and NET – are, in the opinion of some users, not a big problem for developers:

“If the developers are already staking a bunch of EOS, they really shouldn’t have to be worried about ongoing expenses. The tokens themselves scale as the network expands. If they have to buy more EOS tokens then they should be able to sell their dApp token to pick up more EOS for CPU and bandwidth” – notes another participant of the discussion, adding that “each dApp is going to have to have a well thought-out economic model that can sustain itself and expand”.

It is too early to make forecasts for the cost, however: now the network is just beginning to attract users and developers. According to Dapp Radar, at the moment only six EOS-applications have more than one hundred visitors a day and only two – more than a thousand. In connection with this, CPU time costs a little: 0.00049966 EOS per KB ($ 0.003).

In a recent post on Reddit, the user of the second most popular EOS application – EOS Knights games – already draws attention to the hard-to-reach requirements for the amount of staking for the CPU. The user under the name AGameDeveloper says that he used 10 EOS ($ 59) as a stake, but this was not enough. According to EOS Knights, to start the game the user’s share on the CPU should be at least 15 EOS ($ 88), but AGameDeveloper writes that in fact, the minimum stake is $ 500.

“Current CPU utilization is 8%, so go figure how expensive the stake will be at 100%” – one of the users commented on the post.

Other problems

In August, hackers were able to absorb the RAM of someone else’s account, using the notification function to spam the RAM space with useless data. One of the solutions to such problems was described by EOS technical director Dan Larimer, but it was proposed in the framework of an ambiguous and yet unapproved proposal to completely rewrite the “constitution” of EOS. Another solution, published on GitHub, involves sending tokens through proxy-smart contracts that do not contain RAM. In any case, the solution to this problem, in fact, remains on the shoulders of the developers of each individual application.

In addition, the system, designed to protect against spam, was spammed, which became possible and not too expensive due to today’s low price of the CPU. The owner of the Blocktwitter account was entertained by “sending messages that included 192 million actions, which today amounts to about 95% of all EOS transactions,” said Tom Fu, a partner in the GenerEOS company. Practically all of them contain a record: “WE LOVE BM” (reference to Larimer’s nickname – bytemaster). According to Fu, the messages are “not important”, but they have a negative impact on the network, because Blocktwittter owns a large share of the CPU, resulting in a reduction in CPU time allocated to other users and developers.

Bright side

In early August, Larimer proposed a model for the lease of CPU and NET, which “will reduce the cost of using the EOS network.”

And Cox noted several obvious advantages of EOS, which already distinguish the young platform from Ethereum. First, the new “crypto-kitties” will not stop EOS, as it happened with Ethereum: staking ensures that the network’s performance will be supported by a certain amount of reserved CPU. Second, two of the three resources EOS – CPU and NET – are “renewable” (unlike gas in Ethereum). That is, after the expiration of the three-day validity period of the staking smart contract, the funds will be released and may be re-used for the same (or other) purposes. Unused or released RAM (RAM), too, can be sold – though, perhaps, at a lower price (or maybe even higher). In addition, the arbitration system that supports EOS security is considered sufficiently robust to defend against attacks against DAO and Parity scenarios, while the developers of Ethereum applications, according to Cox, are “in one bug from bankruptcy.”