Bitcoin Risks Becoming a Settlement Layer With Nothing to Settle: Galaxy Sounds Alarm
Bitcoin’s fee market has entered an unusual phase, raising questions about the fate of the fees and their implications for the network’s economic security. Since the decline in non-monetary activity like Ordinals and Runes in late 2024, on-chain usage has dropped sharply.
The result has been a growing number of blocks that clear at almost no cost to users, which often averages just 1 satoshi per virtual byte or less.
Where Did All the Bitcoin Fees Go?
For those looking to send bitcoin quickly and cheaply, this environment seems ideal. But the same cannot be said for miners, who rely on fees to supplement the shrinking block subsidy after the 2024 halving. The collapse of fee pressure exposes a deeper vulnerability in Bitcoin’s long-term sustainability, according to the latest note shared by Galaxy Digital.
Median daily fees have fallen more than 80% since April 2024, and as of August 2025, nearly 15% of all blocks can be classified as “free blocks.” At the same time, almost half of the blocks in recent months have not reached maximum weight, which revealed an unusually thin mempool and highlighted the absence of competition for blockspace.
The disappearance of fees can be traced to several structural changes. One is the dramatic surge and decline of OP_RETURN transactions, which spiked during the peak of Runes adoption in 2024, and at times accounted for 40-60% of daily activity. Their retreat back to roughly 20% of transactions has released congestion, thereby lowering overall fees. Yet OP_RETURN remains central to debate, especially as Bitcoin Core’s upcoming v30 release could allow larger and multiple OP_RETURN outputs per transaction.
Supporters argue that because these outputs are provably unspendable, they do not increase the burden on the UTXO set. Critics, however, warn that they consume scarce blockspace that could otherwise be used for monetary transactions. This has sparked concerns about spam and sustainability.
Another factor behind weaker fees is the migration of activity away from Bitcoin’s base layer altogether. Spot ETFs now hold around 1.3 million BTC, locking up supply that rarely moves on-chain and thereby reducing transaction demand. At the same time, speculative use cases such as NFTs and meme coins have shifted to faster and cheaper alternatives like Solana, where users find a smoother experience compared to Bitcoin’s relatively constrained environment.
This displacement means that transactions that once competed aggressively for inclusion in blocks are now occurring elsewhere, further undermining fee revenue for miners.
Beyond immediate fee pressures, Galaxy also examined the UTXO set to assess long-term security risks. The analysts found that millions of coins remain in legacy formats such as P2PK and P2PKH, some of which are inherently vulnerable to quantum attacks due to exposed public keys. On the other hand, adoption of P2WPKH has grown to dominate unspent balances, while Taproot continues to gain traction for advanced use cases.
“Settlement Layer Without Settlement”
For now, the lull offers a window of cheap transactions, but the long-term picture is “murkier” as a declining fee market poses serious questions to the network security.
Post 2024, miners are left with 3.125 BTC in block rewards, and miner incentives are increasingly exposed to fluctuations in organic demand. But as BTC activity shifts toward ETFs, custodial platforms, and faster alternative L1s, Galaxy said that the core network risks becoming a “settlement layer without sufficient settlement activity.” As reliance on off-chain “paper Bitcoin” grows and fees dry up, Bitcoin’s long-term security hinges on a level of usage that remains uncertain.
The post Bitcoin Risks Becoming a Settlement Layer With Nothing to Settle: Galaxy Sounds Alarm appeared first on CryptoPotato.
You May Also Like
U.S. Moves Grip on Crypto Regulation Intensifies
The Role of Blockchain in Building Safer Web3 Gaming Ecosystems
- Immutable Ownership of Assets Blockchain records can be manipulated by anyone. If a player owns a sword, skin, or plot of land as an NFT, it is verifiably in their ownership, and it cannot be altered or deleted by the developer or even hacked. This has created a proven track record of ownership, providing control back to the players, unlike any centralised gaming platform where assets can be revoked.
- Decentralized Infrastructure Blockchain networks also have a distributed architecture where game data is stored in a worldwide network of nodes, making them much less susceptible to centralised points of failure and attacks. This decentralised approach makes it exponentially more difficult to hijack systems or even shut off the game’s economy.
- Secure Transactions with Cryptography Whether a player buys an NFT or trades their in-game tokens for other items or tokens, the transactions are enforced by cryptographic algorithms, ensuring secure, verifiable, and irreversible transactions and eliminating the risks of double-spending or fraudulent trades.
- Smart Contract Automation Smart contracts automate the enforcement of game rules and players’ economic exchanges for the developer, eliminating the need for intermediaries or middlemen, and trust for the developer. For example, if a player completes a quest that promises a reward, the smart contract will execute and distribute what was promised.
- Anti-Cheating and Fair Gameplay The naturally transparent nature of blockchain makes it extremely simple for anyone to examine a specific instance of gameplay and verify the economic outcomes from that play. Furthermore, multi-player games that enforce smart contracts on things like loot sharing or win sharing can automate and measure trustlessness and avoid cheating, manipulations, and fraud by developers.
- Cross-Platform Security Many Web3 games feature asset interoperability across platforms. This interoperability is made viable by blockchain, which guarantees ownership is maintained whenever assets transition from one game or marketplace to another, thereby offering protection to players who rely on transfers for security against fraud. Key Security Dangers in Web3 Gaming Although blockchain provides sound first principles of security, the Web3 gaming ecosystem is susceptible to threats. Some of the most serious threats include:
