Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction 1.1 Research Questions and Contributions Related Work


Background


Inscriptions and ordinals
4.1 Operation Types
4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s


Data Collection


Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions
6.2 Inscriptions Characterization
6.3 Inscription Trading
6.4 Impact on Gas Fees


Discussion


Conclusion and References 6.3 Inscription Trading. In this study, we analyze the trading behavior of two inscription tokens within the zkSync Era: zrc-20 sync, the predominant token, and era-20 bgnt, a token of smaller stature but notable for its completed minting process. Our analysis, presented in Figures 4 and 5, shows their respective trading activities. Notably, era-20 bgnt demonstrates a higher level of trading activity compared to zrc-20 sync. Specifically, we observed 477 transfer transactions for zrc-20 sync, alongside corresponding token median prices as shown in Figure 4, and 1148 buy transactions for era-20 bgnt, with corresponding median prices depicted in Figure 5 During the studied period, the price of zrc-20 sync oscillated between $0.10 and $0.4, while era-20 bgnt ranged from $0.10 to $0.8. Trading of the era-20 bgnt token continued from its minting throughout the entire studied period. As the trades occur in batches of 4 or 5 tokens, they provide minimal compensation to the seller to cover the gas fees necessary to mint and list the inscriptions. The trading of inscriptions at such low prices is feasible due to the low gas fees on rollups, which ranged at zkSync Era from $0.05 to $0.25 during the period (see Figure 6). Next, we examine how spikes in inscription transactions influence gas fees across the network. Table 4 presents a breakdown of fees incurred during operations on inscriptions. In the first transaction, deploy, the maximum number of tokens that can be minted or claimed in a single blockchain transaction is specified. Therefore, mint and claim operations generally deal with this maximum amount specified in deploy, typically 4 or 5 tokens for mint while sometimes even 1000 for claim, as depicted in Table 1. We calculate the average fee per single token for each operation. We found that the mint operation is more efficient than claim, although both have a similar meaning. Minting was specified in the original BRC-20 specification. The interesting comparison provides claim operation for layer2-20 $L2 token, as it is operating across all rollups. Its mining (claiming) operation had a lower median fee on Optimism and Base, followed by zkSync Era and Arbitrum. Authors:
(1) Johnnatan Messias, Matter Labs;
(2) Krzysztof Gogol, Matter Labs, University of Zurich;
(3) Maria Inês, Silva Matter Labs;
(4) Benjamin Livshits, Matter Labs, Imperial College London. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 1.1 Research Questions and Contributions 1.1 Research Questions and Contributions Related Work Background Inscriptions and ordinals
4.1 Operation Types
4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s Data Collection Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions
6.2 Inscriptions Characterization
6.3 Inscription Trading
6.4 Impact on Gas Fees Discussion Conclusion and References Related Work Related Work Related Work Background Background Background Inscriptions and ordinals 4.1 Operation Types 4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s Inscriptions and ordinals Inscriptions and ordinals 4.1 Operation Types 4.1 Operation Types 4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s 4.2 Comparison with NFTs and ERC-20s Data Collection Data Collection Data Collection Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions 6.2 Inscriptions Characterization 6.3 Inscription Trading 6.4 Impact on Gas Fees Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions Empirical Analysis and 6.1 Overall Transactions 6.2 Inscriptions Characterization 6.2 Inscriptions Characterization 6.3 Inscription Trading 6.3 Inscription Trading 6.4 Impact on Gas Fees 6.4 Impact on Gas Fees Discussion Discussion Discussion Conclusion and References Conclusion and References Conclusion and References 6.3 Inscription Trading. In this study, we analyze the trading behavior of two inscription tokens within the zkSync Era: zrc-20 sync, the predominant token, and era-20 bgnt, a token of smaller stature but notable for its completed minting process. Our analysis, presented in Figures 4 and 5, shows their respective trading activities. Notably, era-20 bgnt demonstrates a higher level of trading activity compared to zrc-20 sync. Specifically, we observed 477 transfer transactions for zrc-20 sync, alongside corresponding token median prices as shown in Figure 4, and 1148 buy transactions for era-20 bgnt, with corresponding median prices depicted in Figure 5 During the studied period, the price of zrc-20 sync oscillated between $0.10 and $0.4, while era-20 bgnt ranged from $0.10 to $0.8. Trading of the era-20 bgnt token continued from its minting throughout the entire studied period. As the trades occur in batches of 4 or 5 tokens, they provide minimal compensation to the seller to cover the gas fees necessary to mint and list the inscriptions. The trading of inscriptions at such low prices is feasible due to the low gas fees on rollups, which ranged at zkSync Era from $0.05 to $0.25 during the period (see Figure 6). Next, we examine how spikes in inscription transactions influence gas fees across the network. Table 4 presents a breakdown of fees incurred during operations on inscriptions. In the first transaction, deploy, the maximum number of tokens that can be minted or claimed in a single blockchain transaction is specified. Therefore, mint and claim operations generally deal with this maximum amount specified in deploy, typically 4 or 5 tokens for mint while sometimes even 1000 for claim, as depicted in Table 1. We calculate the average fee per single token for each operation. We found that the mint operation is more efficient than claim, although both have a similar meaning. Minting was specified in the original BRC-20 specification. The interesting comparison provides claim operation for layer2-20 $L2 token, as it is operating across all rollups. Its mining (claiming) operation had a lower median fee on Optimism and Base, followed by zkSync Era and Arbitrum. Authors: (1) Johnnatan Messias, Matter Labs; (2) Krzysztof Gogol, Matter Labs, University of Zurich; (3) Maria Inês, Silva Matter Labs; (4) Benjamin Livshits, Matter Labs, Imperial College London. Authors : Authors (1) Johnnatan Messias, Matter Labs; (2) Krzysztof Gogol, Matter Labs, University of Zurich; (3) Maria Inês, Silva Matter Labs; (4) Benjamin Livshits, Matter Labs, Imperial College London. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Why Gas Fees Drop as Transaction Volumes Increase on zkSync

Empirical Analysis of Inscriptions on Ethereum and EVM-Compatible Rollups

EScholar Technologies

Too Long; Didn't Read

CTA: Download the FREE AI Productivity Shift report

Inscriptions Trading and Gas Fee Analysis of the zkSync Era

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Smart Cards, IPv6 Packets, and the Future of Post-Quantum Security

Exploring Yonatan Sompolinsky's blockDAG Protocols

How to Pay Less Gas for L1-to-L2 Transfers on Ethereum: An Overview of Practical Solutions

The Approach and the Solution to the Blockchain Trilemma

The Blockchain Trilemma: Could Layer 0 Be the Solution for Mass Adoption

Smart Cards, IPv6 Packets, and the Future of Post-Quantum Security

Exploring Yonatan Sompolinsky's blockDAG Protocols

How to Pay Less Gas for L1-to-L2 Transfers on Ethereum: An Overview of Practical Solutions

The Approach and the Solution to the Blockchain Trilemma

The Blockchain Trilemma: Could Layer 0 Be the Solution for Mass Adoption

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps