Update fip-0100.md

fixed broken link

FIPS/fip-0100.md

@@ -233,9 +233,10 @@ We aimed for a design that is simple to understand and model, and relatively sim
 
 - **Flat Fee vs. Dynamic Fee**: A fixed per-sector fee provides predictability and consistency, while a fluctuating fee based on network congestion, onboarding rate, or other variables better captures value when the network is actively providing a service. We chose a model where the fee is a fixed fraction of a quantity that adjusts to economic conditions. We evaluated the following economic indicators for determining the per-sector fee: Initial Pledge (IP), per-sector Block Reward (BR) and Circulating Supply (CS).
   - The IP-based fee was discarded to avoid complex system dependencies, as changes to IP in future FIPs could unintentionally impact the per-sector fee.
-  - The BR-based fee was discarded because the fee-to-reward ratio did not adjust properly to network growth, leading to high fees even when onboarding demand was low. See [here](https://github.com/filecoin-project/FIPs/blob/irenegia-removeBatchBalancer/resources/fip-replaceBatchBalancer/FIPxxxxAppendix.md) for more details.
+  - The BR-based fee was discarded because the fee-to-reward ratio did not adjust properly to network growth, leading to high fees even when onboarding demand was low. See [here](fip-0100/fip0100Appendix.md) for more details.
   - CS was ultimately chosen because it normalizes fees relative to the Filecoin economy, ensuring both adaptability and predictability.
 
+
 We reached this conclusion through simulation-based analysis, modeling the impact of fees under different network conditions. Specifically, we evaluated multiple input trajectories: 0.5×, 0.75×, 1×, and 2× the current onboarding, renewal, and FIL+ rates. Since both renewals and FIL+ are near 100%, we capped them at their current maximum (see Fig. 1).
 <div align="center"">
   <img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e4ac2327-e1bf-4512-8f7c-cee45a45218b" width="650">