refunds are of questionable usefulness and have not been shown to be an effective measure to mitigate state growth.
Strongly refuted here
1559 already provides elasticity for the “supply”
To handle peak congestion we will need to be able to sustain >1x throughput for much longer than allowed by 1559, while still amortizing the long-term costs, which are not limited to state growth. There is no reason that bandwidth costs should surge 50x when usage increases 3x for a few hours. Grocers don’t raise their prices in the afternoon; they hire part-time workers.
The elasticity of 1559 is unproven on a congested blockchain, and may not come until PoS due to increased uncle risk under PoW. Consider deferring your judgment about the elasticity provided by 1559 when it wasn’t designed to provide it, but instead to pump the ETH price.
the current plans to mitigate state growth are fully independent from the refund mechanism
If you prefer state rent, I encourage you to live with it for 10 years before forcing it on everyone else. You may find it annoying that the ENS handle you had reserved for 100 years is gone now, the few who have the info you need to prove it back into existence are charging you a fortune for the privilege, and the state size has not actually shrunk because of the stubs. It’s unreasonable to plan around a system that nobody has a good design for, never mind an implementation. State rent is a pie-in-the-sky solution to numb you until we realize state growth is not that bad when we let the miners-soon-stakers who pay for it set hard limits on its growth.
These lead me to my opinion that this introduces significant complexity with minimal benefit.
The complexity is 32 bytes per contract account that stores gas. I don’t recommend storing this attribute on every account by default. The benefit is that this uses significantly less storage for more elasticity than provided in the status quo. If you don’t care about storage you must not run a node.
edit: formatting