However, the face that governance happens in a decentralized manner on blockchain networks can also mean that changes are, at times, happen slowly; because there isn’t just one small group of individuals making decisions about the future of a network from the top down, it can take time to gather support, for example, to changes in a network’s protocol.
On the Ethereum network, these issues have manifested in other ways: while transaction speed may not be much of a concern on Ethereum as it is on Bitcoin, there has been quite a bit of chatter about another aspect of Ethereum’s protocol: the ability to manually set transaction fees.
What kinds of problems does this cause? And can Ethereum’s governance system efficiently implement a mechanism that will stop the problem from taking place in the future?
In June, an Ethereum users $5.2 million in fees on two ETH transactions--the reasons are unclear
Transaction fees on the Ethereum network are referred to as “gas”, which is Priced in sub-units of the cryptocurrency ether, known as 'gwei'. Users can manually set the price of gas on each transaction.
The ability to manually set transaction fees was included in the Ethereum protocol as a way for users to be able to have a higher degree of control over the speed of their transactions. However, this can go awry.
The next day, the same user paid the same amount of fees on a transaction worth $86,400.
(To be clear, many Bitcoin wallets also allow transaction senders to manually set their fees; as such, there have been incidents on the Bitcoin network in which, for example, a transaction sender paid a $137,081.31 fee on a transaction that amounted to $5.)
However, regarding the most recent Ethereum incident--it was later theorized that the massive fees may have either been accidental or the result of a malfunction in the users’ digital wallet; others theorized that the massive fees could have been an attempt at money laundering or some other kind of foul play.
The mining pools that receive the fees are working toward solutions
The transaction fees were sent to two mining pools: Bitfly and Sparkpool. Both of the companies announced on twitter that they were working to seek a solution from the transaction sender, presumably so that the funds could be returned.
“We believe that this was an accident and in order to resolve this issue the tx sender should contact us at via DM or our support portal at https://support.bitfly.at immediately!,” Bitfly wrote.
Today our Ethermine ETH pool mined a transaction with a ~10.000 ETH fee (https://t.co/B5gRWOrcPf). We believe that this was an accident and in order to resolve this issue the tx sender should contact us at via DM or our support portal at https://t.co/JgwX4tGYr4 immediately! pic.twitter.com/sWxVRx5muv
SparkPool tweeted that it was “further investigating the incident of unusually high tx fee, and you are welcome to provide clues to support@sparkpool.com.”
“[...] There will be a solution in the end,” the mining pool said.
We are further investigating the incident of unusually high tx fee, and you are welcome to provide clues to support@sparkpool.com. SparkPool has had the experience of handling similar issues properly. There will be a solution in the end. https://t.co/mZc49Q0Y4r
Getting into the belly of the beast: Ethereum's protocol may need to change
While it certainly may be positive to see these mining pools exhibiting such ethical behavior, the fact remains that the mechanism that allowed the incident to happen in the first place is still there.
Indeed, Evgen Verzun, cybersecurity expert, inventor, serial entrepreneur and founder of HyperSphere.ai, explained to Finance Magnates that “the main issues are connected to the current transaction inclusion system.”
Evgen Verzun, cybersecurity expert, inventor, serial entrepreneur and founder of HyperSphere.ai.
“Users are able to encourage miners to add their transactions to the next block,” and thereby speeding up their transaction time, “by increasing the gasPrice parameter, identified as the ‘price of transaction’.”
“Miners, being rational, will always try to fill the new blocks with transactions that make more money, that's why transactions with higher than average gasPrice parameters are usually included in the first available block (auction model),” Verzun explained.
EIP-1559 can make mass-exit games viable because it is the first secure oracle for on-chain congestion. https://t.co/rKun24a0Aj
This can lead to confusion. Even if users don’t go so far as to accidentally set their gas price to $2.6 million, “in times of high network congestion, especially when blocks are close to full, required gasPrice may spike dramatically as users try to out-bid each other for inclusion,” Verzun said.
When this happens, “even if your wallet uses some transaction pricing algorithms, users still may pay too much to get their transaction into an almost full next block.”
In other words, “currently, wallets do their best to calculate the estimated gas fee on the spot, which isn’t always 100% accurate, resulting in overpayment on fees,” explained Olivia Lovenmark, Director of Content at cryptocurrency exchange OKCoin.
Olivia Lovenmark, Director of Content at cryptocurrency exchange OKCoin.
However, the Ethereum community is working on a solution. Vitalik Buterin, the creator of the Ethereum network, said that the massive transaction fees were “definitely a mistake”, and that Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) 1559 should “greatly reduce the rate of things like this happening by reducing the need for users to try to set fees manually.”
While it’s not clear whether or not EIP 1559 will be adopted yet, many in the Ethereum community believe that it could be integral to the future of the network. Ari Paul, co-founder and CIO of BlockTower Capital, tweeted that the proposal was “make or break” for the network.
“To date, gas fees have been determined based on an inefficient auction process,”OKCoin’s Olivia Lovenmark explained. to Finance Magnates.
“EIP 1559 would improve this by making it clear what fees are with an automated system that is comparable to Bitcoin's difficulty adjustment in the sense that both adjust based on network volume and usage.”
Indeed, “EIP 1159 proposes a ‘BASEFEE,’ which automatically adjusts to the network’s congestion level of transactions, providing a ‘market rate’ instead of users referencing prices paid.”
Evgen Verzun explained to Finance Magnates that on a practical level, if EIP 1559 was to be implemented, “transaction sending would stay easy for users, allowing them to manage two parameters: gasPremium--a ‘tip’ to miners for the inclusion of your transaction into the next block--and feeCap,” which is also optional.
‘feeCap’ is a mechanism that allows Ethereum users to set a “maximum price users agree to pay as transaction fee,” Verzun explained. At the same time, “the ‘BaseFee’ parameter, meaning a fee to perform transactions, is proposed to stay common for all users in a single moment, be calculated by the system and unable to change by users.”
The end result is that “such parameters may give ETH users better control of their transaction fees spending. Also some researchers are sure that EIP 1559 would let the system to improve the estimation of the fee, except for the times when there is congestion in the price for short periods,” he continued. “In these cases, the previous auction-based model may still be used, increasing the basic transaction fee.”
EIP 1559 would also add a deflationary mechanism
The proposal also is also slated to implement a change to the economics of Ethereum.
Indeed, Alon Muroch, chief executive and co-founder of Blox, explained to Finance Magnates that “EIP 1559 also represents a significant monetary policy change to Ethereum, with a deflationary mechanism being added to Ethereum.”
“The burning of fees, combined with a future reduction of the rate at which ETH is burned could eventually lead to a deflationary environment,” he said.
It is possible that within a couple years, ETH may not only be the most useful asset in crypto given its on-chain economy, but also crypto’s most credibly scarce asset given ETH 2.0 and EIP 1559.
This seems to be the primary reason that BlockTower’s Ari Paul believes that EIP 1559 is essential to the future of Ethereum: “reducing supply as a function of usage is a simple and convincing narrative as to why all sorts of activity on the platform will long-term benefit investors in L1,” he wrote on Twitter, addressing Vitalik Buterin.
“That narrative will be necessary for the next order of magnitude of growth in diverse ethereum holders.”
6/ Reducing supply as a function of usage is a simple and convincing narrative as to why all sorts of activity on the platform will long-term benefit investors in L1. That narrative will be necessary for the next order of magnitude of growth in diverse ethereum holders,
However, Evgen Verzun explained to Finance Magnates that “the baseFee denominated in ETH is proposed to be burnt as ‘payment to the network’, decreasing the outstanding supply of Ethereum over the long run.”
“This may affect ETH price, making it more scarce, but we should remember that EIP 1559 relates to current Proof-of-Work-based ETH 1.x network” that is not supposed to be permanent, Verzun said. Proof-of-Work refers to the mining-powered algorithm that powers the Ethereum network.
Alon Muroch, CEO of Blox.io.
Additionally, “even if EIP 1559 would be accepted, and assuming ETH 1.x runs adjacent to ETH 2.0 for several years,” Verzun believes that the amount of ETH burned as a result of EIP 1559 may be insignificant in light of the forthcoming ETH 2.0 release, since the new Ethereum algorithm will be “based on a Proof-of-Stake consensus algorithm and a completely new mining principle.”
No guarantees, and no timeline
Of course, EIP 1559 won’t fix everything: “as with anything new proposed to the Ethereum system, there are security concerns around edge cases,” Alon Muroch pointed out.
Additionally, the proposal is still in a fairly early stage of development; there’s still no guarantee that EIP 1559 will be adopted by the Ethereum network--or, if it will be implemented, there’s no clear timeline for when.
For now, a group Ethereum developers are seeking funding from the community to continue working on the proposal, and have opened a request for funding on Gitcoin.
“This grant will support the research and development of blockspace & fee market improvements for Ethereum, in particular of EIP-1559,” the fund’s description reads, adding that “the Gitcoin Grant will *not* cover all of the costs associated with this work.”
The subtlety is that this is a second-order claim about where the *risks* (ie. variance) get shifted, and not a claim that EIP 1559 introduces new possibilities in terms of *expected values*.
“ConsenSys, through their hiring of implementers in PegaSys and the Ethereum Foundation, through their hiring of various researchers and implementers, are already covering the bulk of the development costs for this EIP,” the description explains.
Funding will be used for client implementations, specification audits, bug bounties, and other testing and development work: the description says that “changing the fee market on Ethereum is one of the largest changes being planned for Eth1 to date. It will require extensive testing, including potentially new testnets and/or private ‘ephemeral testnets.’”
What are your thoughts about EIP 1559? Let us know in the comments below.
However, the face that governance happens in a decentralized manner on blockchain networks can also mean that changes are, at times, happen slowly; because there isn’t just one small group of individuals making decisions about the future of a network from the top down, it can take time to gather support, for example, to changes in a network’s protocol.
On the Ethereum network, these issues have manifested in other ways: while transaction speed may not be much of a concern on Ethereum as it is on Bitcoin, there has been quite a bit of chatter about another aspect of Ethereum’s protocol: the ability to manually set transaction fees.
What kinds of problems does this cause? And can Ethereum’s governance system efficiently implement a mechanism that will stop the problem from taking place in the future?
In June, an Ethereum users $5.2 million in fees on two ETH transactions--the reasons are unclear
Transaction fees on the Ethereum network are referred to as “gas”, which is Priced in sub-units of the cryptocurrency ether, known as 'gwei'. Users can manually set the price of gas on each transaction.
The ability to manually set transaction fees was included in the Ethereum protocol as a way for users to be able to have a higher degree of control over the speed of their transactions. However, this can go awry.
The next day, the same user paid the same amount of fees on a transaction worth $86,400.
(To be clear, many Bitcoin wallets also allow transaction senders to manually set their fees; as such, there have been incidents on the Bitcoin network in which, for example, a transaction sender paid a $137,081.31 fee on a transaction that amounted to $5.)
However, regarding the most recent Ethereum incident--it was later theorized that the massive fees may have either been accidental or the result of a malfunction in the users’ digital wallet; others theorized that the massive fees could have been an attempt at money laundering or some other kind of foul play.
The mining pools that receive the fees are working toward solutions
The transaction fees were sent to two mining pools: Bitfly and Sparkpool. Both of the companies announced on twitter that they were working to seek a solution from the transaction sender, presumably so that the funds could be returned.
“We believe that this was an accident and in order to resolve this issue the tx sender should contact us at via DM or our support portal at https://support.bitfly.at immediately!,” Bitfly wrote.
Today our Ethermine ETH pool mined a transaction with a ~10.000 ETH fee (https://t.co/B5gRWOrcPf). We believe that this was an accident and in order to resolve this issue the tx sender should contact us at via DM or our support portal at https://t.co/JgwX4tGYr4 immediately! pic.twitter.com/sWxVRx5muv
SparkPool tweeted that it was “further investigating the incident of unusually high tx fee, and you are welcome to provide clues to support@sparkpool.com.”
“[...] There will be a solution in the end,” the mining pool said.
We are further investigating the incident of unusually high tx fee, and you are welcome to provide clues to support@sparkpool.com. SparkPool has had the experience of handling similar issues properly. There will be a solution in the end. https://t.co/mZc49Q0Y4r
Getting into the belly of the beast: Ethereum's protocol may need to change
While it certainly may be positive to see these mining pools exhibiting such ethical behavior, the fact remains that the mechanism that allowed the incident to happen in the first place is still there.
Indeed, Evgen Verzun, cybersecurity expert, inventor, serial entrepreneur and founder of HyperSphere.ai, explained to Finance Magnates that “the main issues are connected to the current transaction inclusion system.”
Evgen Verzun, cybersecurity expert, inventor, serial entrepreneur and founder of HyperSphere.ai.
“Users are able to encourage miners to add their transactions to the next block,” and thereby speeding up their transaction time, “by increasing the gasPrice parameter, identified as the ‘price of transaction’.”
“Miners, being rational, will always try to fill the new blocks with transactions that make more money, that's why transactions with higher than average gasPrice parameters are usually included in the first available block (auction model),” Verzun explained.
EIP-1559 can make mass-exit games viable because it is the first secure oracle for on-chain congestion. https://t.co/rKun24a0Aj
This can lead to confusion. Even if users don’t go so far as to accidentally set their gas price to $2.6 million, “in times of high network congestion, especially when blocks are close to full, required gasPrice may spike dramatically as users try to out-bid each other for inclusion,” Verzun said.
When this happens, “even if your wallet uses some transaction pricing algorithms, users still may pay too much to get their transaction into an almost full next block.”
In other words, “currently, wallets do their best to calculate the estimated gas fee on the spot, which isn’t always 100% accurate, resulting in overpayment on fees,” explained Olivia Lovenmark, Director of Content at cryptocurrency exchange OKCoin.
Olivia Lovenmark, Director of Content at cryptocurrency exchange OKCoin.
However, the Ethereum community is working on a solution. Vitalik Buterin, the creator of the Ethereum network, said that the massive transaction fees were “definitely a mistake”, and that Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) 1559 should “greatly reduce the rate of things like this happening by reducing the need for users to try to set fees manually.”
While it’s not clear whether or not EIP 1559 will be adopted yet, many in the Ethereum community believe that it could be integral to the future of the network. Ari Paul, co-founder and CIO of BlockTower Capital, tweeted that the proposal was “make or break” for the network.
“To date, gas fees have been determined based on an inefficient auction process,”OKCoin’s Olivia Lovenmark explained. to Finance Magnates.
“EIP 1559 would improve this by making it clear what fees are with an automated system that is comparable to Bitcoin's difficulty adjustment in the sense that both adjust based on network volume and usage.”
Indeed, “EIP 1159 proposes a ‘BASEFEE,’ which automatically adjusts to the network’s congestion level of transactions, providing a ‘market rate’ instead of users referencing prices paid.”
Evgen Verzun explained to Finance Magnates that on a practical level, if EIP 1559 was to be implemented, “transaction sending would stay easy for users, allowing them to manage two parameters: gasPremium--a ‘tip’ to miners for the inclusion of your transaction into the next block--and feeCap,” which is also optional.
‘feeCap’ is a mechanism that allows Ethereum users to set a “maximum price users agree to pay as transaction fee,” Verzun explained. At the same time, “the ‘BaseFee’ parameter, meaning a fee to perform transactions, is proposed to stay common for all users in a single moment, be calculated by the system and unable to change by users.”
The end result is that “such parameters may give ETH users better control of their transaction fees spending. Also some researchers are sure that EIP 1559 would let the system to improve the estimation of the fee, except for the times when there is congestion in the price for short periods,” he continued. “In these cases, the previous auction-based model may still be used, increasing the basic transaction fee.”
EIP 1559 would also add a deflationary mechanism
The proposal also is also slated to implement a change to the economics of Ethereum.
Indeed, Alon Muroch, chief executive and co-founder of Blox, explained to Finance Magnates that “EIP 1559 also represents a significant monetary policy change to Ethereum, with a deflationary mechanism being added to Ethereum.”
“The burning of fees, combined with a future reduction of the rate at which ETH is burned could eventually lead to a deflationary environment,” he said.
It is possible that within a couple years, ETH may not only be the most useful asset in crypto given its on-chain economy, but also crypto’s most credibly scarce asset given ETH 2.0 and EIP 1559.
This seems to be the primary reason that BlockTower’s Ari Paul believes that EIP 1559 is essential to the future of Ethereum: “reducing supply as a function of usage is a simple and convincing narrative as to why all sorts of activity on the platform will long-term benefit investors in L1,” he wrote on Twitter, addressing Vitalik Buterin.
“That narrative will be necessary for the next order of magnitude of growth in diverse ethereum holders.”
6/ Reducing supply as a function of usage is a simple and convincing narrative as to why all sorts of activity on the platform will long-term benefit investors in L1. That narrative will be necessary for the next order of magnitude of growth in diverse ethereum holders,
However, Evgen Verzun explained to Finance Magnates that “the baseFee denominated in ETH is proposed to be burnt as ‘payment to the network’, decreasing the outstanding supply of Ethereum over the long run.”
“This may affect ETH price, making it more scarce, but we should remember that EIP 1559 relates to current Proof-of-Work-based ETH 1.x network” that is not supposed to be permanent, Verzun said. Proof-of-Work refers to the mining-powered algorithm that powers the Ethereum network.
Alon Muroch, CEO of Blox.io.
Additionally, “even if EIP 1559 would be accepted, and assuming ETH 1.x runs adjacent to ETH 2.0 for several years,” Verzun believes that the amount of ETH burned as a result of EIP 1559 may be insignificant in light of the forthcoming ETH 2.0 release, since the new Ethereum algorithm will be “based on a Proof-of-Stake consensus algorithm and a completely new mining principle.”
No guarantees, and no timeline
Of course, EIP 1559 won’t fix everything: “as with anything new proposed to the Ethereum system, there are security concerns around edge cases,” Alon Muroch pointed out.
Additionally, the proposal is still in a fairly early stage of development; there’s still no guarantee that EIP 1559 will be adopted by the Ethereum network--or, if it will be implemented, there’s no clear timeline for when.
For now, a group Ethereum developers are seeking funding from the community to continue working on the proposal, and have opened a request for funding on Gitcoin.
“This grant will support the research and development of blockspace & fee market improvements for Ethereum, in particular of EIP-1559,” the fund’s description reads, adding that “the Gitcoin Grant will *not* cover all of the costs associated with this work.”
The subtlety is that this is a second-order claim about where the *risks* (ie. variance) get shifted, and not a claim that EIP 1559 introduces new possibilities in terms of *expected values*.
“ConsenSys, through their hiring of implementers in PegaSys and the Ethereum Foundation, through their hiring of various researchers and implementers, are already covering the bulk of the development costs for this EIP,” the description explains.
Funding will be used for client implementations, specification audits, bug bounties, and other testing and development work: the description says that “changing the fee market on Ethereum is one of the largest changes being planned for Eth1 to date. It will require extensive testing, including potentially new testnets and/or private ‘ephemeral testnets.’”
What are your thoughts about EIP 1559? Let us know in the comments below.
Rachel is a self-taught crypto geek and a passionate writer. She believes in the power that the written word has to educate, connect and empower individuals to make positive and powerful financial choices. She is the Podcast Host and a Cryptocurrency Editor at Finance Magnates.
Schwab Aims Crypto Custody at Its $5 Trillion Advisor Channel by 2027
Featured Videos
Buy, Build or Both? Trading Tech for Brokers, Banks & Beyond
Buy, Build or Both? Trading Tech for Brokers, Banks & Beyond
Buy, Build or Both? Trading Tech for Brokers, Banks & Beyond
Buy, Build or Both? Trading Tech for Brokers, Banks & Beyond
For every feature and product, someone has to decide: build it in-house or buy from a vendor. In Singapore and across APAC, local banks and global players face the same question with very different constraints.
This session gathers heads of technology and e-trading to compare how client demand and cost structures shape their choices, and how long it actually takes to ship in each.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand view of how client feedback informs decision-making across different market participants.
Understanding pain points and benefits of working with 3rd party integrations at scale.
Insight into products and innovation banks’ retail and trading heads will look for in 2026.
For every feature and product, someone has to decide: build it in-house or buy from a vendor. In Singapore and across APAC, local banks and global players face the same question with very different constraints.
This session gathers heads of technology and e-trading to compare how client demand and cost structures shape their choices, and how long it actually takes to ship in each.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand view of how client feedback informs decision-making across different market participants.
Understanding pain points and benefits of working with 3rd party integrations at scale.
Insight into products and innovation banks’ retail and trading heads will look for in 2026.
For every feature and product, someone has to decide: build it in-house or buy from a vendor. In Singapore and across APAC, local banks and global players face the same question with very different constraints.
This session gathers heads of technology and e-trading to compare how client demand and cost structures shape their choices, and how long it actually takes to ship in each.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand view of how client feedback informs decision-making across different market participants.
Understanding pain points and benefits of working with 3rd party integrations at scale.
Insight into products and innovation banks’ retail and trading heads will look for in 2026.
For every feature and product, someone has to decide: build it in-house or buy from a vendor. In Singapore and across APAC, local banks and global players face the same question with very different constraints.
This session gathers heads of technology and e-trading to compare how client demand and cost structures shape their choices, and how long it actually takes to ship in each.
Attendees will walk away with:
First-hand view of how client feedback informs decision-making across different market participants.
Understanding pain points and benefits of working with 3rd party integrations at scale.
Insight into products and innovation banks’ retail and trading heads will look for in 2026.
Regulation Roundup: Setup, Compliance, and Hidden Costs of Entry
Regulation Roundup: Setup, Compliance, and Hidden Costs of Entry
Regulation Roundup: Setup, Compliance, and Hidden Costs of Entry
Regulation Roundup: Setup, Compliance, and Hidden Costs of Entry
Regulation Roundup: Setup, Compliance, and Hidden Costs of Entry
Regulation Roundup: Setup, Compliance, and Hidden Costs of Entry
As Singapore's capital-intensive requirements leave only a few retail brokers active in the city-state, there are many opportunities to be made in and around.
This session gathers regulators, advisors, and operators who have set up across multiple APAC jurisdictions to break down figures, what's working, what's breaking, and what's next.
Attendees will walk away with:
Survey of capital thresholds and other requirements across regions in APAC
Nuanced understanding of Singapore's role in the retail trading space
Glimpse into parallel developments in digital assets and RWA
As Singapore's capital-intensive requirements leave only a few retail brokers active in the city-state, there are many opportunities to be made in and around.
This session gathers regulators, advisors, and operators who have set up across multiple APAC jurisdictions to break down figures, what's working, what's breaking, and what's next.
Attendees will walk away with:
Survey of capital thresholds and other requirements across regions in APAC
Nuanced understanding of Singapore's role in the retail trading space
Glimpse into parallel developments in digital assets and RWA
As Singapore's capital-intensive requirements leave only a few retail brokers active in the city-state, there are many opportunities to be made in and around.
This session gathers regulators, advisors, and operators who have set up across multiple APAC jurisdictions to break down figures, what's working, what's breaking, and what's next.
Attendees will walk away with:
Survey of capital thresholds and other requirements across regions in APAC
Nuanced understanding of Singapore's role in the retail trading space
Glimpse into parallel developments in digital assets and RWA
As Singapore's capital-intensive requirements leave only a few retail brokers active in the city-state, there are many opportunities to be made in and around.
This session gathers regulators, advisors, and operators who have set up across multiple APAC jurisdictions to break down figures, what's working, what's breaking, and what's next.
Attendees will walk away with:
Survey of capital thresholds and other requirements across regions in APAC
Nuanced understanding of Singapore's role in the retail trading space
Glimpse into parallel developments in digital assets and RWA
As Singapore's capital-intensive requirements leave only a few retail brokers active in the city-state, there are many opportunities to be made in and around.
This session gathers regulators, advisors, and operators who have set up across multiple APAC jurisdictions to break down figures, what's working, what's breaking, and what's next.
Attendees will walk away with:
Survey of capital thresholds and other requirements across regions in APAC
Nuanced understanding of Singapore's role in the retail trading space
Glimpse into parallel developments in digital assets and RWA
As Singapore's capital-intensive requirements leave only a few retail brokers active in the city-state, there are many opportunities to be made in and around.
This session gathers regulators, advisors, and operators who have set up across multiple APAC jurisdictions to break down figures, what's working, what's breaking, and what's next.
Attendees will walk away with:
Survey of capital thresholds and other requirements across regions in APAC
Nuanced understanding of Singapore's role in the retail trading space
Glimpse into parallel developments in digital assets and RWA
Rails for Growth: 'Payments as Infrastructure' for Financial Superapps
Rails for Growth: 'Payments as Infrastructure' for Financial Superapps
Rails for Growth: 'Payments as Infrastructure' for Financial Superapps
Rails for Growth: 'Payments as Infrastructure' for Financial Superapps
Rails for Growth: 'Payments as Infrastructure' for Financial Superapps
Rails for Growth: 'Payments as Infrastructure' for Financial Superapps
For fintechs who try to capture the retail investment crowd, payments can be a game-changer from user experience to back-office plumbing.
This session brings together builders from across the payment ecosystem to examine how new rails are altering the way capital moves in APAC and beyond.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of how stablecoins, on-chain settlement, and tokenised money are being used in live institutional workflows today
Understanding of what MAS initiatives like Project Orchid and Project Bloom signal for the future of digital money in Singapore's capital markets
Insight into how mobile-first fund platforms and digital distribution channels are pulling payment infrastructure closer to the point of investment
Perspective on the compliance and custody challenges firms face when payments, trading, and settlement converge on the same rails
For fintechs who try to capture the retail investment crowd, payments can be a game-changer from user experience to back-office plumbing.
This session brings together builders from across the payment ecosystem to examine how new rails are altering the way capital moves in APAC and beyond.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of how stablecoins, on-chain settlement, and tokenised money are being used in live institutional workflows today
Understanding of what MAS initiatives like Project Orchid and Project Bloom signal for the future of digital money in Singapore's capital markets
Insight into how mobile-first fund platforms and digital distribution channels are pulling payment infrastructure closer to the point of investment
Perspective on the compliance and custody challenges firms face when payments, trading, and settlement converge on the same rails
For fintechs who try to capture the retail investment crowd, payments can be a game-changer from user experience to back-office plumbing.
This session brings together builders from across the payment ecosystem to examine how new rails are altering the way capital moves in APAC and beyond.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of how stablecoins, on-chain settlement, and tokenised money are being used in live institutional workflows today
Understanding of what MAS initiatives like Project Orchid and Project Bloom signal for the future of digital money in Singapore's capital markets
Insight into how mobile-first fund platforms and digital distribution channels are pulling payment infrastructure closer to the point of investment
Perspective on the compliance and custody challenges firms face when payments, trading, and settlement converge on the same rails
For fintechs who try to capture the retail investment crowd, payments can be a game-changer from user experience to back-office plumbing.
This session brings together builders from across the payment ecosystem to examine how new rails are altering the way capital moves in APAC and beyond.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of how stablecoins, on-chain settlement, and tokenised money are being used in live institutional workflows today
Understanding of what MAS initiatives like Project Orchid and Project Bloom signal for the future of digital money in Singapore's capital markets
Insight into how mobile-first fund platforms and digital distribution channels are pulling payment infrastructure closer to the point of investment
Perspective on the compliance and custody challenges firms face when payments, trading, and settlement converge on the same rails
For fintechs who try to capture the retail investment crowd, payments can be a game-changer from user experience to back-office plumbing.
This session brings together builders from across the payment ecosystem to examine how new rails are altering the way capital moves in APAC and beyond.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of how stablecoins, on-chain settlement, and tokenised money are being used in live institutional workflows today
Understanding of what MAS initiatives like Project Orchid and Project Bloom signal for the future of digital money in Singapore's capital markets
Insight into how mobile-first fund platforms and digital distribution channels are pulling payment infrastructure closer to the point of investment
Perspective on the compliance and custody challenges firms face when payments, trading, and settlement converge on the same rails
For fintechs who try to capture the retail investment crowd, payments can be a game-changer from user experience to back-office plumbing.
This session brings together builders from across the payment ecosystem to examine how new rails are altering the way capital moves in APAC and beyond.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of how stablecoins, on-chain settlement, and tokenised money are being used in live institutional workflows today
Understanding of what MAS initiatives like Project Orchid and Project Bloom signal for the future of digital money in Singapore's capital markets
Insight into how mobile-first fund platforms and digital distribution channels are pulling payment infrastructure closer to the point of investment
Perspective on the compliance and custody challenges firms face when payments, trading, and settlement converge on the same rails
From Rewards to Retention: The 5 Loyalty Program Mistakes Brokers Need To Avoid (Case Study)
From Rewards to Retention: The 5 Loyalty Program Mistakes Brokers Need To Avoid (Case Study)
From Rewards to Retention: The 5 Loyalty Program Mistakes Brokers Need To Avoid (Case Study)
From Rewards to Retention: The 5 Loyalty Program Mistakes Brokers Need To Avoid (Case Study)
From Rewards to Retention: The 5 Loyalty Program Mistakes Brokers Need To Avoid (Case Study)
From Rewards to Retention: The 5 Loyalty Program Mistakes Brokers Need To Avoid (Case Study)
Acquisition is getting more expensive. Most brokers already know that. The harder question is what happens after the client funds the account.
This session looks at how broker loyalty programmes are moving from “nice-to-have rewards” into a serious retention layer inside the client portal.
In this session, Desmond Leong, CEO of Returning.AI, will break down the practical mechanics behind high-performing broker loyalty programmes: what to reward, what not to reward, how onshore and offshore entities need different incentive structures, what belongs in the rewards store, and how brokers can recycle reward budgets back into trading value instead of letting them disappear as pure cost.
The talk will cover common mistakes brokers make when launching loyalty programmes, including copying retail-style rewards, ignoring jurisdictional constraints, over-relying on bonuses, failing to connect rewards to lifecycle stages, and measuring vanity engagement instead of retention, LTV, CAC payback, deposits, and active trading behaviour.
Attendees will leave with a clear do-and-don’t framework they can use to pressure-test their own loyalty strategy.
Why loyalty is no longer a “nice-to-have” marketing feature for brokers
The building blocks of any loyalty program and what they mean: points, tiers, missions, stores, leaderboards, boosters, and cashback-style mechanics
Understanding of how key regulators read loyalty incentives and where the compliance lines are
What should go in the rewards store, and what quietly destroys ROI
How trading credits, rebates, VIP perks, education, and service benefits can recycle value back into the brokerage
The 5 mistakes brokers should avoid when building or buying a loyalty programme
Real figures from a live deployment: what moved in daily activity, tier progression, and trader spend
Acquisition is getting more expensive. Most brokers already know that. The harder question is what happens after the client funds the account.
This session looks at how broker loyalty programmes are moving from “nice-to-have rewards” into a serious retention layer inside the client portal.
In this session, Desmond Leong, CEO of Returning.AI, will break down the practical mechanics behind high-performing broker loyalty programmes: what to reward, what not to reward, how onshore and offshore entities need different incentive structures, what belongs in the rewards store, and how brokers can recycle reward budgets back into trading value instead of letting them disappear as pure cost.
The talk will cover common mistakes brokers make when launching loyalty programmes, including copying retail-style rewards, ignoring jurisdictional constraints, over-relying on bonuses, failing to connect rewards to lifecycle stages, and measuring vanity engagement instead of retention, LTV, CAC payback, deposits, and active trading behaviour.
Attendees will leave with a clear do-and-don’t framework they can use to pressure-test their own loyalty strategy.
Why loyalty is no longer a “nice-to-have” marketing feature for brokers
The building blocks of any loyalty program and what they mean: points, tiers, missions, stores, leaderboards, boosters, and cashback-style mechanics
Understanding of how key regulators read loyalty incentives and where the compliance lines are
What should go in the rewards store, and what quietly destroys ROI
How trading credits, rebates, VIP perks, education, and service benefits can recycle value back into the brokerage
The 5 mistakes brokers should avoid when building or buying a loyalty programme
Real figures from a live deployment: what moved in daily activity, tier progression, and trader spend
Acquisition is getting more expensive. Most brokers already know that. The harder question is what happens after the client funds the account.
This session looks at how broker loyalty programmes are moving from “nice-to-have rewards” into a serious retention layer inside the client portal.
In this session, Desmond Leong, CEO of Returning.AI, will break down the practical mechanics behind high-performing broker loyalty programmes: what to reward, what not to reward, how onshore and offshore entities need different incentive structures, what belongs in the rewards store, and how brokers can recycle reward budgets back into trading value instead of letting them disappear as pure cost.
The talk will cover common mistakes brokers make when launching loyalty programmes, including copying retail-style rewards, ignoring jurisdictional constraints, over-relying on bonuses, failing to connect rewards to lifecycle stages, and measuring vanity engagement instead of retention, LTV, CAC payback, deposits, and active trading behaviour.
Attendees will leave with a clear do-and-don’t framework they can use to pressure-test their own loyalty strategy.
Why loyalty is no longer a “nice-to-have” marketing feature for brokers
The building blocks of any loyalty program and what they mean: points, tiers, missions, stores, leaderboards, boosters, and cashback-style mechanics
Understanding of how key regulators read loyalty incentives and where the compliance lines are
What should go in the rewards store, and what quietly destroys ROI
How trading credits, rebates, VIP perks, education, and service benefits can recycle value back into the brokerage
The 5 mistakes brokers should avoid when building or buying a loyalty programme
Real figures from a live deployment: what moved in daily activity, tier progression, and trader spend
Acquisition is getting more expensive. Most brokers already know that. The harder question is what happens after the client funds the account.
This session looks at how broker loyalty programmes are moving from “nice-to-have rewards” into a serious retention layer inside the client portal.
In this session, Desmond Leong, CEO of Returning.AI, will break down the practical mechanics behind high-performing broker loyalty programmes: what to reward, what not to reward, how onshore and offshore entities need different incentive structures, what belongs in the rewards store, and how brokers can recycle reward budgets back into trading value instead of letting them disappear as pure cost.
The talk will cover common mistakes brokers make when launching loyalty programmes, including copying retail-style rewards, ignoring jurisdictional constraints, over-relying on bonuses, failing to connect rewards to lifecycle stages, and measuring vanity engagement instead of retention, LTV, CAC payback, deposits, and active trading behaviour.
Attendees will leave with a clear do-and-don’t framework they can use to pressure-test their own loyalty strategy.
Why loyalty is no longer a “nice-to-have” marketing feature for brokers
The building blocks of any loyalty program and what they mean: points, tiers, missions, stores, leaderboards, boosters, and cashback-style mechanics
Understanding of how key regulators read loyalty incentives and where the compliance lines are
What should go in the rewards store, and what quietly destroys ROI
How trading credits, rebates, VIP perks, education, and service benefits can recycle value back into the brokerage
The 5 mistakes brokers should avoid when building or buying a loyalty programme
Real figures from a live deployment: what moved in daily activity, tier progression, and trader spend
Acquisition is getting more expensive. Most brokers already know that. The harder question is what happens after the client funds the account.
This session looks at how broker loyalty programmes are moving from “nice-to-have rewards” into a serious retention layer inside the client portal.
In this session, Desmond Leong, CEO of Returning.AI, will break down the practical mechanics behind high-performing broker loyalty programmes: what to reward, what not to reward, how onshore and offshore entities need different incentive structures, what belongs in the rewards store, and how brokers can recycle reward budgets back into trading value instead of letting them disappear as pure cost.
The talk will cover common mistakes brokers make when launching loyalty programmes, including copying retail-style rewards, ignoring jurisdictional constraints, over-relying on bonuses, failing to connect rewards to lifecycle stages, and measuring vanity engagement instead of retention, LTV, CAC payback, deposits, and active trading behaviour.
Attendees will leave with a clear do-and-don’t framework they can use to pressure-test their own loyalty strategy.
Why loyalty is no longer a “nice-to-have” marketing feature for brokers
The building blocks of any loyalty program and what they mean: points, tiers, missions, stores, leaderboards, boosters, and cashback-style mechanics
Understanding of how key regulators read loyalty incentives and where the compliance lines are
What should go in the rewards store, and what quietly destroys ROI
How trading credits, rebates, VIP perks, education, and service benefits can recycle value back into the brokerage
The 5 mistakes brokers should avoid when building or buying a loyalty programme
Real figures from a live deployment: what moved in daily activity, tier progression, and trader spend
Acquisition is getting more expensive. Most brokers already know that. The harder question is what happens after the client funds the account.
This session looks at how broker loyalty programmes are moving from “nice-to-have rewards” into a serious retention layer inside the client portal.
In this session, Desmond Leong, CEO of Returning.AI, will break down the practical mechanics behind high-performing broker loyalty programmes: what to reward, what not to reward, how onshore and offshore entities need different incentive structures, what belongs in the rewards store, and how brokers can recycle reward budgets back into trading value instead of letting them disappear as pure cost.
The talk will cover common mistakes brokers make when launching loyalty programmes, including copying retail-style rewards, ignoring jurisdictional constraints, over-relying on bonuses, failing to connect rewards to lifecycle stages, and measuring vanity engagement instead of retention, LTV, CAC payback, deposits, and active trading behaviour.
Attendees will leave with a clear do-and-don’t framework they can use to pressure-test their own loyalty strategy.
Why loyalty is no longer a “nice-to-have” marketing feature for brokers
The building blocks of any loyalty program and what they mean: points, tiers, missions, stores, leaderboards, boosters, and cashback-style mechanics
Understanding of how key regulators read loyalty incentives and where the compliance lines are
What should go in the rewards store, and what quietly destroys ROI
How trading credits, rebates, VIP perks, education, and service benefits can recycle value back into the brokerage
The 5 mistakes brokers should avoid when building or buying a loyalty programme
Real figures from a live deployment: what moved in daily activity, tier progression, and trader spend
Stablecoins from Experimentation to Implementation
Stablecoins from Experimentation to Implementation
Stablecoins from Experimentation to Implementation
Stablecoins from Experimentation to Implementation
Stablecoins from Experimentation to Implementation
Stablecoins from Experimentation to Implementation
With over $300 billion in stablecoins now in circulation and APAC regulators moving from frameworks to enforcement, the conversation has shifted.
Held in partnership with 8Circle, this session brings together the builders of new payment rails and the institutions putting them to work.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of which stablecoin use cases have cleared proof of concept and are now operating at scale in APAC
Understanding of what the MAS Payment Services Act and Hong Kong's fiat stablecoin licensing regime mean for brokers and payment providers in practice
Insight into the infrastructure gaps firms most commonly underestimate before going live
Perspective on where the next wave of adoption is heading and what existing systems need to accommodate
With over $300 billion in stablecoins now in circulation and APAC regulators moving from frameworks to enforcement, the conversation has shifted.
Held in partnership with 8Circle, this session brings together the builders of new payment rails and the institutions putting them to work.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of which stablecoin use cases have cleared proof of concept and are now operating at scale in APAC
Understanding of what the MAS Payment Services Act and Hong Kong's fiat stablecoin licensing regime mean for brokers and payment providers in practice
Insight into the infrastructure gaps firms most commonly underestimate before going live
Perspective on where the next wave of adoption is heading and what existing systems need to accommodate
With over $300 billion in stablecoins now in circulation and APAC regulators moving from frameworks to enforcement, the conversation has shifted.
Held in partnership with 8Circle, this session brings together the builders of new payment rails and the institutions putting them to work.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of which stablecoin use cases have cleared proof of concept and are now operating at scale in APAC
Understanding of what the MAS Payment Services Act and Hong Kong's fiat stablecoin licensing regime mean for brokers and payment providers in practice
Insight into the infrastructure gaps firms most commonly underestimate before going live
Perspective on where the next wave of adoption is heading and what existing systems need to accommodate
With over $300 billion in stablecoins now in circulation and APAC regulators moving from frameworks to enforcement, the conversation has shifted.
Held in partnership with 8Circle, this session brings together the builders of new payment rails and the institutions putting them to work.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of which stablecoin use cases have cleared proof of concept and are now operating at scale in APAC
Understanding of what the MAS Payment Services Act and Hong Kong's fiat stablecoin licensing regime mean for brokers and payment providers in practice
Insight into the infrastructure gaps firms most commonly underestimate before going live
Perspective on where the next wave of adoption is heading and what existing systems need to accommodate
With over $300 billion in stablecoins now in circulation and APAC regulators moving from frameworks to enforcement, the conversation has shifted.
Held in partnership with 8Circle, this session brings together the builders of new payment rails and the institutions putting them to work.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of which stablecoin use cases have cleared proof of concept and are now operating at scale in APAC
Understanding of what the MAS Payment Services Act and Hong Kong's fiat stablecoin licensing regime mean for brokers and payment providers in practice
Insight into the infrastructure gaps firms most commonly underestimate before going live
Perspective on where the next wave of adoption is heading and what existing systems need to accommodate
With over $300 billion in stablecoins now in circulation and APAC regulators moving from frameworks to enforcement, the conversation has shifted.
Held in partnership with 8Circle, this session brings together the builders of new payment rails and the institutions putting them to work.
Attendees will walk away with:
A clear view of which stablecoin use cases have cleared proof of concept and are now operating at scale in APAC
Understanding of what the MAS Payment Services Act and Hong Kong's fiat stablecoin licensing regime mean for brokers and payment providers in practice
Insight into the infrastructure gaps firms most commonly underestimate before going live
Perspective on where the next wave of adoption is heading and what existing systems need to accommodate
