Recently, the Solana community staged an epic drama of infighting
The so-called "inflation revolution" proposal SIMD-0228 ultimately suffered a Waterloo with less than 66.6% support.
What appears to be a technical battle on the surface is, in fact, a naked war of interests among validator classes.
Why did the proposal fail? A complete break between big and small holders
This proposal originally aimed to play with "dynamic inflation adjustment," forcing an increase in staking rates by reducing block rewards. However, MEV income was halved in February (from 550 million in January to 195 million in February), completely undermining the theoretical basis of the proposal. Voting data exposed the harsh reality: among nodes holding over 1 million SOL, 65.8% voted in favor, while over 60% of small nodes with under 500,000 in staking vehemently opposed. In other words, large holders want to achieve "cost reduction and efficiency increase," while small miners struggle on the brink of survival.
Survival crisis of small nodes: losing $17 every day
Looking at the accounts of small and medium nodes is heartbreaking: maintaining a validator node costs $800 just for the server each month, plus staking costs, totaling over $130,000 in investment. According to the new proposal rules, leading nodes can rely on MEV subsidies (the top 125 take 75% of the cake), while small and medium nodes lose $17 every day. Even worse, 90% of nodes have less than 500,000 SOL in staking, and these "blockchain workers" can only survive on block rewards and MEV shares.
The true form of governance democracy: code can't beat human nature
This vote has completely torn apart the "democratic filter" of on-chain governance. Under what seems to be a fair voting mechanism, large holders crush small players with their chips. Ironically, the SIMD-0123 proposal (which mandates automatic distribution of staking rewards) was also cutting into the interests of node operators, yet received 74.91% support due to its implications for delegated user interests. This operation verifies the iron law of the crypto circle: there is no eternal consensus, only eternal interests.
Question: Is Toly's new move reliable? Can the tech approach break the deadlock?
As inflation reform hits a snag, Solana co-founder Toly urgently launched Plan B: doubling throughput by enhancing CU computing units, accelerating annual deflation to 30%. This move seems to cleverly bypass interest games, using technical upgrades to save the country. But anyone with eyes knows that while network efficiency indeed skyrocketed after the Firedancer upgrade, the underlying inflation conflict remains unresolved, and it will eventually explode.
Old-fashioned personal view:
Solana is repeating the mistakes of ETH's POS governance, with the trend of node centralization escalating.
MEV income fluctuations are comparable to cryptocurrency prices; using this as a basis for reform is like holding a casino meeting.
所谓"社区治理"已成持币量比拼，小玩家迟早被挤出牌桌
Without addressing the issue of validator income structure, any technical upgrade is just scratching the surface.
This governance farce has taught all public chains a vivid lesson: when code ideals collide with human greed, no matter how brilliant the technology, it cannot overcome the calculations of interest. If Solana truly wants to become the "Ethereum killer," it must first cure this deadly "governance infighting disease."
Need help? Comment to get support from top teams.
I am old-fashioned, supported by top teams, only serving ambitious madmen (serious inquiries only)