As part of Entropy’s Advisory services, the team has been assisting Offchain with evaluating the potential impacts to DAO revenue and chain capacity if multidimensional gas pricing was activated. The primary focus of our study, along with the full report can be found below:
Chain Revenue: whether activated multi-gas pricing can preserve L2 fee revenue at, or close to, post-ArbOS 51 levels.
Chain Capacity: whether activating multi-gas pricing can increase effective chain capacity, measured as the L2 gas that can fit before transaction fees rise above the min base fee.
Main Findings
The Offchain research team specified two candidate resource-aware activation configurations for this study. Under the study assumptions, activation would increase effective capacity and reduce severe congested-day fee spikes, while lowering L2 fee revenue unless the min base fee is raised.
In terms of chain capacity:
If activated, the modeled ArbOS 60 multi-gas pricing design would raise median effective capacity by about 62% over the full window versus ArbOS 51; the modeled median gain is about 131% pre-ArbOS 51 and about 62% post-ArbOS 51.
In terms of DAO revenue from L2 Transaction Fees:
ArbOS 51 reduced transaction costs for users, while also reducing DAO L2 fee revenue in the observed period. If multi-dimensional pricing is activated, the calibration objective is to use available levers, including min base fee, to increase chain capacity while keeping DAO revenue at or close to ArbOS 51 levels; this is an activation target, not a result of the historical simulation.
The study uses two historical simulations with a re-created multi-gas pricing model: a simulation of observed transactions without elasticity and an elasticity-adjusted stress test by wallet segment.
In the simulation without elasticity, activated ArbOS 60 multi-gas pricing at a min base fee of 0.02 gwei would generate 1.81K ETH of full-window L2 fee revenue versus 2.87K ETH for the onchain ArbOS 51 baseline, a -36.8% change without taking elasticity into account, and similarly -36.7% if we take the elasticity scenario.
For the elasticity-adjusted stress test, we group high-activity wallets into clusters: sets of wallets with similar transaction behavior, resource usage, and counterparty-label patterns. Within that classified-wallet scope taking the elasticity-adjusted stress test, the first two revenue-share clusters are the primary readout: C1 MEV Bots account for 58.5% of classified L2 fee revenue and carry the largest churn risk if multi-dimensional pricing got enabled, while C2 DeFi Users account for 17.3% and show limited modeled churn through the displayed range. This implies that C1 MEV Bots are more price sensitive than C2 DeFi Users and enabling multi-dimensional pricing will reduce C1 MEV Bot activity & their contribution to classified L2 fee revenue.
Voting FOR on tally, my stance stays the same. The refund bugs were caught on Sepolia, so the bump to 61 doesn’t worry me. I get why Dynamic Pricing stays off for now, Entropy’s analysis backs it and we can vote it in later when the gas targets are ready. I trust Offchain Labs execution on these.
The update from ArbOS 60 to ArbOS 61 looks appropriate: the refund issue was caught during Sepolia testing, Arbitrum One and Nova were not affected, and the corrected version keeps the same core scope. I also support the decision to leave Dynamic Pricing disabled for now and remove the related special parameter rights, since Entropy’s analysis showed that more calibration is needed before activation.
The remaining changes are constructive: increasing the Stylus contract size limit to 96 KB should improve developer experience without changing Solidity/EVM assumptions, and the BaseFeeManager authority is bounded to a defined 0.01-0.10 gwei range. With the final audit now published, I’m comfortable supporting this upgrade.
Same yes as the snapshot round… Props to Entropy and Offchain for the continued checks and analysis to ensure this proposal is good. It’s reassuring because as a delegate its hard to do a real deep dive into these technical upgrades.
Merlyn Labs is voting FOR this proposal, since the ArbOS 61 fix addresses the refund issue found in testing while keeping the rest of the upgrade’s scope the same. Constructive improvements to the ArbOS are always welcome.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.
We voted FOR.
We supported this proposal during the off-chain stage, and we continue to support it at the on-chain stage.
The scope has changed since our previous vote, most importantly because Dynamic Pricing is no longer being activated as part of this upgrade. With that removed, our main considerations are the Stylus code size increase, the BaseFeeManager, and the fact that some features included in ArbOS 61 remain disabled on Arbitrum One.
Before voting, we asked our Research Team to review the final proposal and payload. Their view was that the proposal looks good overall. The only potentially sensitive point is the BaseFeeManager, since it gives Offchain the ability to adjust the minimum L2 base fee. However, the fee is capped and the DAO remains the admin, so they did not see this as a blocker.
Our Research Team also confirmed that the on-chain payload matches the proposal text. They had previously verified the ArbOS v61 WASM root used by Robinhood Chain, which is already running this version, and confirmed that it matches the one included in this on-chain payload.