Hi @Redallica, thanks for the comments.
Its complex imo to compare FLOW fee to L2s as they operate under different conditions, but here is a comparison - according to https://polygonscan.com - 45,000+ MATIC were collected yesterday (range between 25K-70K in the past few months) across 2.88M daily txns - costing an average of 0.016 MATIC or $0.02 (2 cents/txn) - this is ~14.8x what FLOW would charge post the 100x increase.
IMX charges a “Meta-transaction fee” - used to cover gas (behind the scenes) for txns that occur on eth mainnet. This is typically a small fraction (0.1%) of the total transaction value. I’m yet to go through Arbitrum papers but will get back to you on that!
On your second question - yes, transaction fees are already paid to the node operators as stated in the Flow whitepaper. The protocol first draws from the “collected transaction fee pot”, computes the gap [target reward tokens minus fee collected in that epoch], and then issues new tokens equivalent to the gap. Thus I’d called this FLIP a baby step towards addressing inflation (or paving path for it), though I’m also working on proposing how inflation could be lowered by addressing other factors.
Thanks for your feedback. Like I stated under “impact” section (point #3), imo Flow would continue to remain competitive and economically attractive, given the high correlation b/w token price of FLOW and other networks. A substantial change in FLOW token price is expected to happen in parallel to a “quite substantial” change in token prices of other chains, making sure that we continue to remain similarly “competitive, but cheap”, like shown in the table above “final word” section of the FLIP document. However, like you said, we must remain open as a community to revisit these fees based on market conditions!