ScryveHQ Tipping Roadmap Discussion: Cell‑Model vs. Fiber Micropayments

English
, ,
1

Reference Threads

Hello everyone,

As ScryveHQ continues to evolve, one topic consistently brought up across the previous discussions is how tipping and value‑transfer should work in a CKB‑anchored publishing platform.

Today, Scryve already supports tipping using CKB’s on‑chain Cell Model, which requires each tip to meet the minimum cell‑capacity requirements defined by CKB. This works, but it places natural limits on how small individual tips can be.

Given that, and in light of ongoing ecosystem development, we would like to gather community input on a possible future direction.

image
image3069×2268 357 KB

Should Scryve Explore Fiber for Tipping Using a Custom RGB++ Token?

Questions for the Community

We would appreciate feedback on the following questions:

1. Should Scryve just use CKB for on‑chain tipping?

Simple, direct, but limited by minimum cell capacity.

2. Should Scryve consider using Fiber for tipping via a custom RGB++ token?

3. Would it be better to support existing RGB++ ecosystem assets over Fiber rather than introducing a new token?

4. How important is it that tipping remains native to the Nervos ecosystem (CKB/RGB++) versus relying on cross‑chain assets. FYI, we already support BTC and ETH.

5. Are there any concerns about creating a dedicated token specifically for tipping?

Closing

This is an open discussion, not a proposal.
We want to understand community sentiment before exploring anything further.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the ongoing Scryve discussions.
Your feedback continues to guide the direction of the platform.

## 参考帖（Reference Threads）

大家好，

随着 ScryveHQ 的持续发展，在之前的多次讨论中，一个始终被提及的主题是：
在一个基于 CKB 的出版平台中，小费（tipping）与价值转移应该如何实现？

目前，Scryve 已支持基于 CKB 链上 Cell Model 的打赏方式，而每笔打赏都必须满足 Cell 最小容量要求。虽然这种方式简单直接，但它限制了可实现的小额打赏的灵活性和最低金额。

基于这一点，以及 Nervos 生态的不断发展，我们希望征求社区对未来可能方向的意见。

image
image3024×2268 357 KB

Scryve 是否应该探索使用 Fiber，通过自定义 RGB++ 代币进行打赏？

向社区征求意见

我们希望就以下问题听取社区反馈：

1. Scryve 是否应该继续使用目前的 CKB 链上打赏机制？

方式简单，但受最小 Cell 容量限制。

2. Scryve 是否应该考虑使用 Fiber，通过自定义 RGB++ 代币进行打赏？

3. 是否更应优先支持已存在的 RGB++ 生态资产，而不是创建新的代币？

**4. 对于打赏机制保持 Nervos 原生性（CKB / RGB++）有多重要？

需说明的是，我们目前已经支持 BTC 和 ETH。**

5. 对于专门为打赏创建一个独立代币，社区有哪些担忧或建议？

结语

本帖是开放讨论，并非正式提案。
在进一步探索之前，我们希望了解社区对此方向的整体看法。

感谢所有参与 Scryve 讨论的朋友们，
你们的反馈一直在推动平台的前进方向。

4 Likes
CKB Ecosystem Biweekly Update
2

Thanks for opening this discussion, I think the real question here isn’t “CKB vs Fiber” or “should we issue a token,” but what kind of tipping experience Scryve actually wants to enable.

Using CKB directly on L1 is simple and clean. It keeps everything native and avoids extra complexity. But the minimum cell capacity is a structural feature of CKB, so very small, high-frequency tips aren’t always practical there.

If tipping is meant to be occasional and meaningful in size, L1 might be enough.

If tipping is meant to feel lightweight and interactive (like quick appreciation, comment-level rewards, subscriptions, etc.), then a layer like Fiber becomes more relevant. Fiber was designed for frequent, low-value transfers anchored to CKB, with instant UX and aggregated settlement back to L1, without expanding on-chain state for every small action.

On the token question: I would be cautious about introducing a new asset purely to work around a technical constraint. A new token brings pricing, liquidity, governance, and user complexity. As Fiber supports CKB or existing RGB++ assets, that may already solve the UX problem without adding new economic layers.

So maybe the key clarification is:
Is tipping just a payment tool, or is it meant to become an incentive or governance system? Those are very different directions.

Happy to dive deeper into concrete designs if the community wants to explore it further.

====================

感谢开启这个讨论。我觉得核心问题其实不是“用 CKB 还是 Fiber”，也不是“要不要发新 token”，而是 Scryve 希望打造一种怎样的打赏体验。

直接使用 CKB 在 L1 上打赏是最简单、最干净的方案，也完全原生。但最小 Cell 容量是 CKB 的结构性设计，用来保证链上状态的可持续性，因此天然不太适合非常小额、高频的打赏。

如果打赏是低频、金额相对有意义的行为，那 L1 可能已经足够。

但如果希望打赏是轻量化、互动式的，比如点赞级别的支持、评论奖励、订阅式支持等，那像 Fiber 这样的二层会更适合。Fiber 本身就是为高频、低价值转移设计的，同时仍然锚定在 CKB 上，并且可以最终聚合结算到 L1，避免链上状态膨胀。

关于是否发行新的 token，我会相对谨慎一些。如果只是为了解决技术约束而引入新的资产模型，可能会带来定价、流动性、治理以及用户理解成本等额外复杂性。Fiber 是支持 CKB 或现有 RGB++ 资产的，或许已经能解决体验问题，而不需要再增加新的经济层。

所以关键问题可能是：
打赏只是一个支付工具，还是希望演化为激励机制甚至治理工具？不同目标，对应的架构和资产设计会完全不同。

如果社区有兴趣深入探讨具体模型，我也很乐意继续交流。

4 Likes