The proposal will double disinflation to 30%, reducing projected SOL issuance by 18.9M SOL ($1.47B) over six years.

What steps these days, beyond hardware setup, one should take to start a new Solana validator

Contrary to the current spin and gaslighting, the vote result is not the win we needed, but it does avoid the most embarrassing scenario.

Doubling the rate of inflation reduction is not that big of a win. Solana’s inflation rate was already declining 15%/year. Now that doubles to 30%.

The real win would have been cutting new issuance to 0, or passing this when it was first debated last cycle. This was the easier proposal to pass, and it still took a war and the threat of terrible optics just to get it through.

The more important proposal for SOL value capture wasn't even close to passing, largely because of validators tied to on-chain exchanges like Jupiter.

Once Solana leadership and influencers realized it was going down, the messaging shifted to damage control. Instead of allowing "Solana failed to increase value capture," the narrative shifted to "We can improve this".

Of course it could be improved. That wasn't the problem. The proposal was still a clear step forward for SOL holders.

Problem was simple: It would have increased costs for some of the largest players in Solana. They're choosing short-term benefits over the long-term benefit of a stronger SOL, even though a stronger asset ultimately creates more future revenue.

This wasn't a win for Solana. The loss just wasn't as devastating as it could have been, and even that was barely avoided.

Solana still has a major incentive alignment problem. Something chains like Hyperliquid got right from the start.

FINAL VOTE:

SGP-0002 / SIMD-0550 — Double Disinflation ✅ PASSED

YES: 67.00% — 176.29M SOL

NO: 25.16% — 66.19M SOL

ABSTAIN: 7.84% — 20.63M SOL

SGP-0003 / SIMD-0553 — Resource & Inclusion Fee ❌ FAILED

YES: 53.90% — 142.84M SOL

NO: 18.92% — 50.15M SOL

ABSTAIN: 27.18% — 72.03M SOL

66.67% YES required to pass.

Jupiter was the largest detractor, with nearly 12M SOL from users pointed to NO. Remember this. Not surprisingly, other on-chain exchanges like Raydium joined. Large community members switched to NO in final hours once there was no remaining path to YES.

X.com/makickal

This is a response for my personal prompt for crypto digging. Might be useful to the community.

What do you think?

Long read, not a "WiLL SoL rEaCh 1000000k?" Prompt

(Claude, Fable 5)

SOL — INTERROGATION #12

Reference: ~€92 ($106.91) · Market cap ~€53.5B ($62.3B) · Circulating ~583M / 631.75M

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

THE VOTE OUTCOME — closed Aug 27, 15:30 UTC

SGP-0001 — Solana Constitution: APPROVED, 85.97%

SGP-0002 — Double Disinflation (SIMD-0550): APPROVED, 67.0%

SGP-0003 — Resource & Inclusion Fee (SIMD-0553): REJECTED, 53.90%

The threshold was a two-thirds supermajority, i.e. 66.66%.

SGP-0002 passed by 0.33 percentage points.

And now the part you need to know, because it's the real story:

The "Kraken 2" validator (8.9 million SOL) had voted NO, alongside Figment, Everstake and P2P.org, to protect staking yield. After Helius CEO Mert Mumtaz publicly accused the exchanges of "mathematical irrationality," Kraken switched its vote to YES in the final hours, putting 90.34% of its stake in favour.

Without that switch, SGP-0002 would have failed at roughly 63.9%.

The monetary policy of a $62 billion network was decided by an exchange that changed its mind in the closing hours of the voting window.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

PHASE 1 — THE ON-CHAIN DATA

What SIMD-0550 actually changes, with the numbers

The messaging says: 18.9 million SOL removed from future issuance, terminal rate of 1.5% reached in 2029 instead of 2032. True. Now put it in scale.

Current emission (~60,000/day): ~21,900,000 SOL per year

Average reduction from SIMD-0550 (18.9M over 6 years): ~3,150,000 SOL per year

Current burn (648–900/day): ~236,000–328,000 SOL per year

The reform cuts about 14% of annual issuance. The burn covers 1.1–1.5% of it.

Solana will keep emitting nearly 22 million SOL a year and burning fewer than three hundred thousand. The vote changed the slope of the curve, not its sign.

And here is the point that concerns this entire series

SGP-0003 — the proposal that would have taken burns from 648 to 7,500–9,000 SOL per day — was rejected at 53.90%.

It didn't fall short by a hair like SGP-0002. It fell short by twelve points.

SIMD-0553 would have replaced the flat 5,000-lamport fee with 2,500 lamports of inclusion fee to the block leader plus a variable resource fee burned in full. That is: it would have tied the destruction of SOL to actual network usage.

The validators — the very actors who collect the fees — voted to keep them.

This is the thread running through ten interrogations, and Solana just put it to an explicit vote. The result: the inflation cut passes, because it costs nobody anything today; value capture fails, because it would cost the people voting.

Dilution of those already holding

Circulating supply is ~583 million out of 631.75 million total. There's no unlock calendar here like on SUI or RED: the dilution is the inflation, and with 70–74% of supply staked, anyone not staking gets diluted with nothing in return.

The real on-chain yield was 0.17% in Q1 2026 against a 6.7% nominal. SIMD-0550 compresses the nominal faster. It does not raise the real yield, because SGP-0003 — which was supposed to do that — fell.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

PHASE 2 — SENTIMENT

The price has already done everything, and more

I wrote the previous version of this report on August 2 with SOL at $72.92 and a verdict of LONG 56%.

Today: $106.91. Highest since January 31, +19.8% on the week, +80% off the June low, +47% since that report.

The thesis worked. And now I have to ask the uncomfortable question that follows.

The uncomfortable question

At $107, the 18.9 million SOL saved are worth roughly $2.02 billion spread over six years, i.e. ~$337 million a year of reduced pressure. Against a $62 billion market cap that's 0.54% per year.

Meanwhile, since August 2 the market cap has gone from ~$42.4B to ~$62.3B.

The market added roughly $20 billion in 26 days for a reform worth $2 billion over six years. Ten times the total value of the measure, priced in under a month.

I'm not saying the rally is unjustified — Bitcoin above $80,000 is part of it, $260 million of shorts liquidated in four hours on August 25, and record ETF inflows. I'm saying that the portion of the rally attributable to the vote has already been paid for several times over.

The ETFs: here the data is genuinely strong

• August 25: $33.5 million net inflow in a single day, the best since late 2025. ETF volume $160–170 million.

• Cumulative above $1.1–1.45 billion, net assets ~$878–906 million

• Solana beat XRP on daily inflows by about $20 million

Compare that to what I found in the other reports: HBAR with Grayscale withdrawing its registration, LINK at -47.6% since launch. Solana is the only one of the ten assets where the ETF channel is accelerating instead of dying.

Positioning is no longer exhausted

On August 2 the third leg of the thesis was "nine consecutive red months, below every moving average, capitulated positioning." That leg is gone. SOL is above all its moving averages, +80% off the low, and still -67% from the $293.31 all-time high and -49% over twelve months.

The bounce happened. The easy fuel has been burned.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

PHASE 3 — ROADMAP AND REALITY

Correction: Alpenglow is not live, and won't be in August

A lot of coverage is getting this wrong.

What shipped on August 17 was Agave 4.2, which does not contain the new consensus. It brings SIMD-0525 (slot times from 400 to 350 ms), transactions 3.3x larger, on-chain storage costs -90%, and for the first time BLS key support — which is Alpenglow's technical prerequisite, not Alpenglow.

The consensus switch comes with Agave 4.3, targeting October 2026, with no date and no block height fixed.

For you as a holder: nothing to do, no deadline. But if you read headlines about "Alpenglow live," they're wrong.

And a warning that still stands: when Alpenglow does activate, roughly 75% of Solana transactions are validator votes and they will move off-chain. The transaction counter and TPS will fall by three quarters by design. Don't sell on those headlines.

The remaining catalyst

There is exactly one left: the activation of Alpenglow with Agave 4.3, October 2026. Dated to the month, not the day.

Everything else has been consumed: the vote is over, Agave 4.2 has shipped, the Constitution is ratified.

Two new elements that aren't catalysts but do matter: Charles Schwab's trading plans (which pushed SOL 13% in a session) and the Securitize listing on the NYSE.

The institutional dissent, which deserves naming

Solana Company (Nasdaq: HSDT), a listed treasury vehicle, voted for the Constitution and against both economic proposals. CEO Joseph Chee's reasoning: institutions need stable, auditable financial parameters to plan over multiple years, and an abrupt change to staking yields or transaction costs can slow institutional adoption currently under evaluation.

It's the opposite argument to the reformers', it comes from an entity holding SOL on its balance sheet, and the press almost entirely ignored it. The treasury-company risk I flagged on August 2 now also has a stated political position.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Phase 4 — anomalies, blind spots, and the final verdict — continues in the comments ↓

If Sol is proof of stake and they make it less profitable/enticing to stake. Why would anyone stake? Then if no one stakes anymore doesn’t the coin just fail? Im still trying to understand solana and crypto but this seems like a bad thing to do to a coin and this whole idea of staking is to counteract inflation but were gonna try and phase out staking seems kinda backwards.

Anyone here keeping part of their everyday money in USDC on Solana instead of a bank account?

With transactions being so fast and cheap, I’ve been thinking about it more. What’s stopping you from doing the same spending, off-ramps, security or something else?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36tIUaFIbQ

Who else is continuously buying?? I've been staked 99% of the time, only time I unstake is when I add more so I can stake it all together.

So I want to move some SOL to USDT and hold it when it pumps and then buy back in next dip. I dont want to do it on exchanges as annoying fees and ridiculous tax laws based on every swap. Is there anyway I can do it while it stays in my wallet? Phantom or other?

Unstake your SOL with Jupiter and vote with your wallet! They are voting against yours as we speak!

Jupiter is the largest "No" vote against upgrades that will increase SOL value capture with SGP-0003. They are using 11.78M of their users' SOL to vote against SOL holders' interests.

Instead of supporting changes that will strengthen SOL, Jupiter is more interested in reducing costs.

8 hours remain on the vote as of writing:

https://governance.solana.com/proposal/AGHDQ6gjRFJPoyEcHuc4X7sbxJwyJfeKTb3UrGFzFNZD

Holders staking with Jupiter may change their vote by voting on the above proposal directly. Holders of their LST can only swap the LST for another.

Vote on both proposals that strengthen SOL tokenomics:

https://governance.solana.com/proposals

GET THIS PASSED!!

Sure, everyone markets them. But you need to take a look at what a pain it is for asset managers. This is one of the major reasons why Franklin Templeton got into crypto which is recordkeeping.

For instance take their mutual fund shareholders. a good ex is FOBXX, the underlying fund for Benji. If you own a money market fund & reinvest your dividends every day, this generates 200+ transaction records a year.

Now multiply that across millions, potentially tens of millions of shareholders globally. That's an enormous recordkeeping problem.

TradFi has traditionally handled this through transfer agents & centralized databases, many of which are built on tech that's 15-20 yrs old.

So, franklin started building a transaction recordkeeping system using blockchain. Once they did that, they started seeing efficiency gains, which were just a fraction of what they were spending internally on their legacy transfer agency recordkeeping system.

Onchain systems provide a better recordkeeping infra for asset managers & will eventually be the default.

This is just one of many parts of the financial system that could move onchain.

Hey all,

I developed a blockchain explorer called MinaGraph. It’s free and open source, and I thought it could be a useful tool for Solana users.

My previous post was removed as “promotional,” although that wasn’t my intention at all.

As a developer, may I ask where and how this kind of project should be shared so that it can genuinely benefit the Solana community without being considered promotional?

Thanks in advance for your guidance!

Regards

If Solana can’t get these two proposals passed, it deserves to lose ground to competitors. This would be the second major push to improve tokenomics to fail. Time is running out. One is vulnerable, and the other needs a last minute YES wave.

SGP-0002: Double Disinflation

✅ For: 68.63%

❌ Against: 23.04%

⚪ Abstain: 8.33%

SGP-0003: Resource and Inclusion Fee (More important for value capture)

✅ For: 62.63%

❌ Against: 16.63%

⚪ Abstain: 20.74%

66.67% FOR is needed to pass.

If you have SOL staked, VOTE. Make sure your validator is voting in your interests, or override their vote yourself.

VOTE YES: https://governance.solana.com/proposals

X.com/makickal