Common mistakes with Immutable X’s zkEVM gas fee estimation

The EIP-1559 volatility problem

The congestion mechanism uses EIP-1559 with a standard target of half the block limit. I see how this target creates massive volatility when users flood the network with transactions. During the recent surge of 200,000 failed transactions, the demand for block space exceeded the predicted supply. The sub-$0.01 to a few cents IMX fee range might not hold during peak activity. The actual gas cost depends on the demand and activity at the time. I find the pressure complicates estimation. The network attempts to regulate the fee market, but the sheer volume of the Guild of Guardians launch has overwhelmed the standard adjustments. Users attempting to mint NFTs or trade in-game items often find their transactions stuck in the mempool. This happens because the EIP-1559 target of 50% block limit capacity cannot react fast enough to a sudden, massive influx of orders.

IMX throughput and estimation errors

Developers often forget that Immutable zkEVM uses IMX as the native gas token. I observe that the network maintains 100+ TPS sustained throughput, but this does not prevent price spikes. The protocol expects block times of about 2 seconds. I see that the fee estimation logic fails when the network attempts to balance the block size against the EIP-1559 target while thousands of users attempt to mint and trade assets at the same time. I suggest you avoid setting low gas limits when the mempool fills up. The current surge in activity makes the historical fee data irrelevant for anyone trying to clear a transaction during this launch. The IMX token follows the ERC-20 standard, and its utility for gas makes it susceptible to the same volatility seen in other Ethereum-based assets. I find that relying on the previous fee models from the 2025 transition is a mistake. The massive scale of the ecosystem, which includes partners like MetalCore and Shardbound, means that even small errors in estimation lead to huge numbers of failed operations. I also note that the platform maintains a 2% fee on all primary and secondary sales. This adds to the total cost of on-chain interactions during high demand. Considering how the 14-day reward cycle for IMX staking might be affected by these fees is necessary if trades cannot clear.

Technical disconnects in scaling

The transition to zkEVM aimed to support more complex smart contracts and improve compatibility with Ethereum tools. This goal is difficult to reach when congestion overwhelms the network. I believe the issue stems from a misunderstanding of how EIP-1559 handles sudden volume. The move to the zkEVM ecosystem was intended to provide faster transactions and broader compatibility, but the current congestion shows that capacity is not infinite. Users who stake IMX must also hold their tokens on layer-1 or layer-2 throughout the 14-day cycle to remain eligible for rewards.

The congestion mechanism targets half the block limit to manage transaction flow. If the September 2025 data is used, predictions will fail. The sub-$0.01 fee level was a baseline for a different era of traffic. How can developers build reliable estimation tools that account for such extreme, sudden spikes in user activity? I recommend monitoring the block explorer to see the latest average gas cost before sending any high-priority transactions. Checking the current demand for IMX helps ensure there is enough to cover the increased costs. Checking if staking requirements, such as voting on a governance proposal in the past 30 days, were met helps maintain engagement. Checking platform engagement, including whether an NFT was held or a trade was completed within the past 30 days, helps maintain account activity.