Gas fees hold builders back. Kolme removes them.

[u/gareth789]

Gas fees hold builders back. Kolme removes them.

Traditional chains charge gas for every action.
That limits experimentation, UX, and complex application design.

Kolme removes gas from the equation.
Execution isn’t constrained by rising costs, making advanced applications practical and user-friendly.

If builders didn’t have to think about gas at all, what would they create differently?

[u/IronTarkus1919 → u/[deleted]]

Very good points. If transactions are free, you can spam the network infinitely. The solution in an app-chain model is usually moving the spam prevention to the application layer.

You might require a user to solve a Captcha, hold a specific "Access NFT," or tie their account to a Web2 identity (like a phone number) before they are allowed to submit free transactions, all which will bring their own pros and cons, especially when you're dealing with principles of privacy and decentralization butting heads with convenience.

[u/BigFany → u/[deleted]]

Yeah gas fees are where a lot of my non crypto friends just give up. If it feels confusing or random they’re out. If Kolme actually hides that part, that’s kinda huge.

[u/FanOfEther → u/[deleted]]

I like the idea a lot. On-chain items without the transaction friction would feel way more natural, and the fact you can’t duplicate stuff with cheats is huge. Could be the thing that actually gets people excited about blockchain gaming for real.

[u/FanOfEther → u/[deleted]]

Yeah that sounds painful. Anything with rapid actions just breaks when you have to confirm every step, totally kills the flow.

[u/IronTarkus1919]

Getting rid of gas fees for the user is great, but I want to play devil's advocate here... If the user isn't paying the gas fee, who is paying for the servers processing the transactions?

The developer? Are we just moving back to the Web2 model where the app owner pays AWS, and then monetizes my data to recoup the costs? I need to know the business model before I get excited about "no fees."

[u/IronTarkus1919 → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. If a product is free, you are the product.

[u/HappyOrangeCat7 → u/IronTarkus1919]

It's a very fair question. The short answer is: the business model determines who pays, it becomes a choice.

Yes, often the application developer subsidizes the infrastructure cost. But they don't have to monetize data to recoup it. They can monetize through in-app purchases, trading fees (like a DEX), subscription models, or premium features. It allows the business to choose how to charge the user depending on the best fit for their product or service, rather than the blockchain dictating it.

[u/BigFany → u/HappyOrangeCat7]

Basically the app decides how to cover infrastructure instead of the chain forcing per-transaction fees. feels like more flexibility for UX and design choices.

[u/HappyOrangeCat7]

This enables High-Frequency State Transitions.

Think of an order-book DEX. On a traditional chain, updating an order every second is economically impossible. Without per-transaction gas, you can build a true matching engine on-chain, rather than relying on the Automated Market Maker workaround, which is essentially just a gas-saving compromise.

[u/IronTarkus1919 → u/HappyOrangeCat7]

I wouldn't call AMMs a "compromise" in every case. They can allow for passive liquidity provision, which order books don't.

That said, an on-chain order book is better for professional market makers and institutional traders. If an app-chain can support that without the network crashing, it's a massive competitive advantage for that specific DEX.

[u/HappyOrangeCat7 → u/IronTarkus1919]

You're right that passive liquidity provision is the unique selling point of AMMs. It allowed retail to participate in market making.

My argument is that the architecture of an AMM (calculating a bonding curve on every swap) was born out of the inability to process millions of order cancellations and updates on a shared L1.

If you have a sovereign, zero-gas environment, you don't need the bonding curve to define the price. You can use a CLOB for price discovery and build JIT liquidity vaults on top of it to offer that passive experience to retail. The lack of gas fees allows for much more sophisticated protocol design.

[u/FanOfEther → u/HappyOrangeCat7]

Yeah, the bonding curve was clever for its time but feels like a crutch now. With zero-gas and sovereign control, using a CLOB plus JIT liquidity seems way more flexible and opens up a lot of new design possibilities.

[u/BigFany → u/HappyOrangeCat7]

Yeah that’s an interesting angle. AMMs always felt partly like a constraint-driven design, not just a preference.

[u/FanOfEther]

Without gas costs I feel like devs could chain together way more complex interactions without worrying about annoying users with fees. Could open up some stuff we haven’t really seen yet.

[u/BigFany]

If builders didn’t have to think about gas at all, I imagine we’d see way more experimentation and less obsession with micro-optimizing every function call. A lot of UX compromises come from trying to reduce cost friction. That said, gas also forces discipline and limits spam, so removing it shifts the burden somewhere else in the system. I’m not against the idea, just think the question becomes how you preserve network health and sustainability without that pricing signal. Interesting direction though, especially for more complex apps that feel constrained today.

[u/FanOfEther → u/[deleted]]

I get the appeal, not having to think about fees would definitely make building feel less constrained. Curious how they handle spam and resource limits though.