The price of truth: when blockchains eliminate the cost

Source: CritpoTendencia Original Title: The Price of Truth: When Blockchains Eliminate Cost Original Link: https://criptotendencia.com/2025/11/30/el-precio-de-la-verdad-cuando-las-blockchains-eliminan-el-costo/ The history of humanity has been marked by the cost of truth. From ritual sacrifices in ancient city-states to modern taxes that sustain institutions, there has always been a price to pay for words to become legitimate.

In the blockchain universe, that price translated into gas: the fee that accompanies each transaction, each contract, each act of verification. Gas became a symbol of transparency: paying to write on the chain was to accept that public truth requires a material effort.

However, there are blockchains that challenge this ontology of cost. In them, verification does not require fees; the truth is inscribed without the user having to sacrifice tokens. A philosophical question then arises: what does truth mean when it has no price? Is it more free and inclusive or does it lose the solemnity that cost imposed?

Gas as a Phenomenological Experience

In blockchains like Ethereum, gas is not just a technical mechanism: it is experience. The user feels that every action has weight, a cost that recalls the materiality of computation. Gas is a reminder that transparency consumes energy, that public truth is not free.

Philosophically, gas introduces an ethics of sacrifice: paying to register is equivalent to recognizing that truth requires effort. The hash becomes a footprint of that sacrifice; each mined or validated block is a testament to energy expended.

The phenomenology of gas is, then, the experience that public truth has a price. The user experiences the chain as a space where each act leaves an economic trace, where to exist is also to pay.

The gratuity as ontological rupture

But there are Web3 networks without fees that break this logic. In them, registration is free for the user; the truth does not require economic sacrifice. The ontology of cost dissolves: existing on the chain does not require payment.

This raises a philosophical twist. If public truth has no price, does it lose solemnity? Does the inscription become trivialized? Or, on the contrary, is digital existence democratized, freeing the individual from the economic burden?

The gratuity redefines the phenomenological experience: the user perceives the chain as a space of freedom where truth is inscribed without barriers. Transparency becomes accessible, everyday, part of the natural flow of digital life.

The dilemma of solemnity

The central question is whether the absence of cost reduces the solemnity of truth. In gas chains, each transaction is a conscious act: the user decides whether it is worth paying. That decision gives symbolic weight.

In networks without fees, registration is immediate and free of charge. The truth becomes abundant, almost trivial. Does it lose symbolic strength? Or does it gain authenticity by eliminating economic mediation?

Philosophy must ask whether solemnity depends on sacrifice or intention. Is what costs more true, or what is done freely?

Ontological inclusion and exclusion

Gas introduces exclusion: those who cannot pay are left out of the public truth. Digital existence becomes an economic privilege.

Free access, on the other hand, opens the door to inclusion. In gasless networks, anyone can inscribe their truth without barriers. The ontology of digital being is democratized.

But inclusion also poses risks: abundance can saturate the chain and dilute the relevance of each inscription. The truth can become noise. The dilemma is clear: do we prefer an expensive but solemn truth or a free but abundant truth?

The ethics of computing and energy justice

Gas reflects a form of energy justice: paying for a transaction acknowledges the material cost of computation. Transparency consumes energy and gas distributes that cost among users.

In gasless networks, the energy cost still exists but is hidden. Free access for the user does not mean free for the infrastructure. An ethical question arises: is it fair to make the material cost invisible? Who really pays for the energy consumed?

The philosophy of computing requires recognizing that every public truth has a physical cost. Free access can be inclusive, but it can also obscure the materiality of effort.

Hash as an ontological footprint

Beyond gas, the hash is the footprint of the digital being. Each mined or validated block is a testament to existence. The hash is the ontological signature that certifies that something occurred.

In gas chains, the hash is accompanied by economic sacrifice. When gas does not exist, the hash is inscribed at no cost: the ontological footprint becomes lighter and more accessible.

The philosophical question is whether the footprint loses strength without sacrifice. Is digital existence less significant when it does not require payment? Or is it more authentic when freed from economic mediations?

Future of the cost ontology

The future of Web3 is being debated between two models:

1. Sacrifice Model: Gas as a reminder that public truth requires material effort.

2. Model of Free Access: Gasless networks that democratize enrollment and eliminate economic barriers.

Both models have virtues and risks. Sacrifice grants solemnity, but excludes. Free giving includes, but can trivialize. Philosophy must consider how to balance solemnity and inclusion, cost and freedom.

Artists towards the future

• Access policy: what model guarantees a fairer digital citizenship?
• Energy ethics: how to recognize the material cost without imposing economic barriers?
• Aesthetics of Truth: What design grants legitimacy to free registration?
• Ontology of noise: how to distinguish truth from saturation in gasless chains?
• Memory and Archive: how to preserve abundant footprints against costly footprints?
• Digital rituality: can gratuity generate new rituals of belonging?
• Symbolic economy: what value does a signature have when it does not require sacrifice?
• Global citizenship: can free provision create more inclusive communities than gas-charged chains?

Is democratization the future?

Gas and hash are more than technical mechanisms: they are symbols of the ontology of the digital being. Paying to inscribe is to recognize that public truth requires effort. But fee-less networks challenge that logic by offering free access and democratization.

The tension between solemnity and abundance, exclusion and inclusion, cost and freedom will shape the future of Web3. Philosophy must accompany this debate by asking what truth means when it is priceless.

Perhaps the challenge is to create a hybrid ontology: to recognize the material cost of computation while ensuring universal access. A public truth that is solemn without being exclusive; free, without being trivial.

Human beings no longer just pay for the truth: now they can freely register it. The question is whether they will know how to care for that freedom, preserving the dignity of the digital footprint in a world where existing can be as simple as signing… or as complex as bearing the invisible weight of the energy that makes transparency possible.