All transactions are presumed to pay a non-zero fee, and the concept is elucidated with the help of diagrams. The first scenario depicts a transaction A (TxA) with zero fees and an anchor holding 1000 sats leading to transaction B (TxB), which has a fee of 1100 sats and a size of 200. This situation is then contrasted with an induced Replace-by-Fee (RBF) against a 65-byte OP_RETURN transaction, which is meant to simulate a pure burn of 1000 sats. Despite TxC having higher total fees compared to TxA, it is shown that this does not dominate the pure burn and would be rejected in a diagram check.

Moreover, another proposed spend from TxA to TxB with a fee of 1400 sats (and the same size of 200) is illustrated. In this case, the resulting diagram indicates that this transaction would be accepted. The diagrams serve as a means to verify transactions according to the fee structure and size, determining their validity within the proposed system. It is implied that there is no incremental relay check for cases considered as "pure burn," which suggests that such transactions would inherently be accepted without additional verification steps.