A pertinent example of such a scheme is the use of presigned HTLC-X transactions, which are notable for their batchable nature and cost-effectiveness when settled out of band. The core of the argument seems to revolve around whether exogenous fees in smart contracts should be universally opposed.

The notion of decentralization is challenged by the introduction of BYOF schemes, raising questions about the implications on autonomy and control within the network. Despite the advantages of presigned HTLC-X transactions, such as lower costs and increased efficiency due to their ability to be batched, there is an underlying debate regarding the appropriateness of external fees in the context of smart contracts.

This discussion is fueled by the rejection of the premise that all exogenous fees are inherently detrimental. The argument suggests that a blanket opposition to such fees fails to account for the complexities and potential benefits they may bring. For instance, these fees might incentivize certain behaviors or contribute to the sustainability of a system. As the blockchain space continues to evolve, the balance between maintaining decentralization and embracing practical solutions like BYOF becomes increasingly significant. This dialogue reflects the ongoing exploration of how best to structure smart contract fees to support the overarching principles of decentralized systems while also considering practicality and efficiency.