Home Source code Ethereum Post-Merger Transfer Fees Stay Low, As Mid-May High Priority ETH Fees Are 93% Cheaper Coinspeaker

Ethereum Post-Merger Transfer Fees Stay Low, As Mid-May High Priority ETH Fees Are 93% Cheaper Coinspeaker

0

Following Ethereum’s transition from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS) on September 15, blockchain network transaction fees were much lower than they were ten days before The Merge. About four months ago, on May 13, 2022, high priority ether transactions could cost 68 gwei or $2.97 per transaction, and today at $0.18 a high priority ether transaction priority is 93% cheaper.

Ethereum fees remain low after merger

The cost of transactions on the Ethereum network is cheaper after the merger, as the gas tracker of etherscan.io indicates that a high priority transaction on September 17, 2022 is approximately 8 gwei or $0.18 by transfer. 12 days ago, September 5, high priority ETH the transfer was 14 gwei or $0.47 per operation.

Fee metrics from etherscan.io indicate that today ETH transaction fees are over 61% cheaper than 12 days ago. Additionally, Ethereum’s recent change from PoW to PoS also caused a few fee aggregation web portals like bitinfocharts.com to publish erroneous cost data.

Ethereum post-merger transfer fees remain low, as mid-May high-priority ETH fees 93% cheaper
Ethereum Gas Tracker from Etherscan.io on September 17, 2022.

At $0.5888 per transfer, data from ycharts.com shows that the average ethereum (ETH) fees have also fallen since the merger. The metrics show the average transaction fees on the ETH network on September 14 was $0.6293 per transaction, and on the day of the merger the fee increased to $0.9812 per transaction.

Ethereum gas fees are also 93% lower than they were four months ago on May 13, 2022. Ycharts.com statistics show that on May 13 the average fee was $1.37 and they fell 57.66% from the current average fee of $0.58 per transfer.

Data from archive.org says etherscan.io’s gas tracker also shows ether fees were much higher 127 days ago in mid-May. Back then, a high priority transaction was 68 gwei or $2.97 per transfer to just send ethereum, compared to today’s $0.18 high priority transfer.

Today, etherscan.io’s gas tracker shows that an Opensea sale can cost $0.61 and four months ago it would have cost $28.58. A Uniswap decentralized exchange (dex) swap will cost $1.58 on September 17, but on May 13 it was around $26.07.

Sending an ERC20 token as tether (USDT) or usd coin (USDC) is also cheaper today at $0.46 per transaction. But 127 days ago, it would cost a user around $7.65 per transaction to send an ERC20-based coin.

As Bitcoin.com News has repeatedly reported in 2022, Ethereum’s data charges have been dropping steadily since mid-May. Post-merger suite data points to onchain ETH fees have remained low.

Keywords in this story

Bitinfocharts.com, data, dex exchanges, ERC20 token, ERC20 transfer, ETH, ETH fees, ether, Ethereum, Ethereum fees, etherscan, etherscan.io, Gas, Gas Tracker, L1, Layer two, Layer-One, Merge fees , metrics, Onchain, Scaling, September 2022, Statistics, swaps, Transaction, Transaction fees, transfer, Transfer fees

What do you think of the post-merger stats that show ether fees continue to stay low? Let us know what you think about this topic in the comments section below.

Jamie Redman

Jamie Redman is the news manager for Bitcoin.com News and a fintech journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He is passionate about Bitcoin, open-source code, and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written over 6,000 articles for Bitcoin.com News about disruptive protocols emerging today.




Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. This is not a direct offer or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or company. bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.