At first glance, Sonic Chain looked like just another L1 trying to muscle its way into an already crowded arena. But after actually peeling back the layers, I have to admit—it’s got something different going on. Instead of squeezing developers for every last drop of value, they’re doing the unthinkable: actually letting them keep most of the fees their apps generate.

Wild concept, right? Yet, somehow, most chains haven’t figured this out.

Fee Monetization (FeeM): A Blockchain That Pays Like YouTube?

This isn’t some gimmicky staking reward system or a convoluted emissions model. Sonic is straight-up applying Web2 logic to Web3:

👉 Think YouTube, but for blockchain apps. Instead of ad revenue, devs get a slice of the transaction fees their applications produce.

And here’s the kicker—up to 90% of those fees go directly back to the developer. No unnecessary burning, no arbitrary redistributions, just a direct incentive to build and sustain useful applications.

Compare that to the standard L1 playbook: raise billions, attract devs with temporary grants, then eventually let the ecosystem dry up once incentives run out. Sonic is flipping that script.

This is the kind of model that actually makes developers want to stick around.

How It Works: No Free Rides

Not every app gets to tap into this fee-sharing model by default—you have to apply. If you don’t? Well, your transaction fees are basically getting torched.

Here’s how the breakdown works:

🔹 Non-FeeM Apps:
▸ 50% of fees burned
▸ 45% to validators
▸ 5% to an ecosystem vault

🔹 FeeM Apps:
▸ 90% of fees go to the developer
▸ 10% to validators
▸ 0% burned

That burn mechanism for non-FeeM apps? Sneaky. It forces developers to make a choice: either opt into the revenue-sharing model or watch their potential earnings vanish into thin air. Either way, Sonic wins.

Does This Actually Scale?

The numbers Sonic is throwing around are, frankly, aggressive:

900M+ transactions per day capacity (which, let’s be real, is probably best-case scenario)
At just 10M transactions per day, the network could rake in $36.5M per year
Developers would pocket $16.4M of that

Even if these numbers are optimistic, the point stands: this model is significantly more sustainable than L1s that rely on endless token emissions.

Most L1s keep developers on life support by constantly printing new tokens to distribute as rewards. Sonic is trying to make the network itself profitable enough to sustain development without inflating supply to oblivion.

No Double-Dipping: Gas Tracking at the Code Level

One obvious risk? Devs gaming the system—over-reporting gas usage to milk the rewards. Sonic addresses this by tracking gas consumption at the VM level, ensuring rewards are tied to actual execution costs.

For example:

🔹 A transaction burns 100,000 gas and earns 0.017 S in rewards.
🔹 Inside that, Project A (a DEX aggregator) used 37,000 gas, while Project B (a liquidity pool) used 63,000 gas.
🔹 The reward gets split accordingly—no loopholes, no funny business.

It’s a small but crucial detail that keeps the system from turning into a free-for-all.

So, Is This the Future?

Honestly, the fact that this isn’t already standard practice is insane. L1s need developers more than developers need L1s—yet most chains act like builders are just disposable.

Sonic is making a bold bet that paying devs directly is the way to build a sticky, long-term ecosystem. If this works, other chains might have no choice but to follow suit.

Of course, none of this matters if Sonic can’t actually hit the transaction numbers they’re projecting or if FeeM ends up being unsustainable over time. That’s the real test.

But if they do pull it off? This could be the first L1 that devs don’t just build on—but actually want to stick with.