One perspective suggests that native asset transactions should incur lower costs, arguing for a fee structure where numerous simple transactions do not end up being more expensive than fewer complex ones, even if they occupy the same block size. This view opposes the idea of making such transactions marginally more expensive.

The counterargument points out that reducing the subsidy for block space would inadvertently increase the cost of transactions due to unchanged demand, thus affecting the price of witness bytes and consequently raising the expense for native economic transactions. Furthermore, the correspondence emphasizes that transaction costs are closely tied to the creation of new outputs, implying that a high number of transactions leading to the creation of many new outputs should naturally be more costly than a single transaction with complex scripting but fewer outputs.

An alternative is presented, which involves adjusting the fees without disproportionately benefiting from the SegWit discount, a change that could be accomplished using a previously provided formula. This approach appears to aim at removing an unbalanced advantage without adversely impacting typical Bitcoin users. The email also references BitVM, which might be negatively affected by this change, suggesting a willingness to overlook certain applications for the sake of a broader adjustment to transaction costs within the Bitcoin network.