Jump to content
The Coin Wire

Crypto moves, protocols and policy

Injective puts fixed gas proposal to a live governance vote

Injective’s Proposal 709 would assign fixed gas to selected exchange messages; the vote is live, and mainnet adoption still depends on governance approval.

By The Coin Wire Editorial3 min read

Injective puts fixed gas proposal to a live governance vote

Injective has put Proposal 709 to a governance vote to enable fixed gas requirements for selected exchange messages, giving traders and integrators published gas amounts to use when preparing transactions. The TokenPost report on Proposal 709 says the feature has run on Injective’s testnet since July but remains disabled on mainnet. The vote opened on Oct. 13 and is scheduled to end Oct. 17, according to the Injective mainnet proposal record.

The change targets gas estimation, not the trading charges paid when orders execute. Gas measures the computational work required to process a transaction; under the proposal, selected exchange messages would use predetermined gas requirements instead of requiring each transaction to be simulated for an estimate. That could make transaction preparation more consistent for supported actions, but it does not mean every Injective transaction would have the same cost.

Which exchange actions would get fixed gas?

Proposal 709 would switch on the exchange module’s fixed_gas_enabled parameter. The proposal names order placement, cancellations, deposits and withdrawals; TokenPost also reports subaccount transfers among the covered messages. Its cited values include 120,000 gas for a derivative limit order, 70,000 for a derivative order cancellation and 70,000 for a subaccount transfer.

Those are gas requirements, not dollar prices. The transaction fee still depends on the gas price as well as the gas amount, so a fixed requirement makes one input more predictable without fixing the final amount paid in dollars. TokenPost reports Injective’s listed minimum gas price as 160 million INJ units. It also notes that a separate gas-heuristics listing gives 240,000 gas wanted for a single derivative limit-order transaction when overhead is included. The two figures cover different measurement scopes; the final amount for the proposed mainnet configuration is not specified in the reporting.

How does this compare with the current approach?

Without fixed gas for a message, integrators may simulate a transaction to estimate how much gas it needs. Proposal 709 says published values would let traders and integrators set gas without simulating each transaction, with the stated aim of reducing latency and out-of-gas failures. The trade-off is scope: the proposal applies to selected exchange messages, so it does not establish a single predictable gas requirement for all activity on the chain.

Gas is also only one part of a trading cost. TokenPost reports that Injective’s global minimum trading fees are 0.1% for makers and 0.2% for takers, separate from gas. Proposal 709 leaves trading-fee rates unchanged. Traders comparing venues or estimating a strategy’s costs would still need to account for those charges alongside gas and any applicable market-specific fees.

What would determine whether it reaches mainnet?

The proposal must pass governance before Injective enables the parameter on mainnet. The proposal record lists a 100 INJ deposit and a voting end time of Oct. 17 at 19:02 UTC. At the time of the record, turnout stood at 29.68% against a 33.4% quorum, so the vote had not yet met the listed participation threshold.

The next signals are whether turnout reaches quorum, how staked INJ holders vote, and whether the proposal passes. Even approval would settle only the governance step; the available proposal record does not confirm a mainnet activation date. For users, the practical test will be whether published gas requirements make supported transactions easier to prepare while keeping the resulting fees and transaction success rates clear.

Source material