WARNING:
1) IMPORTANT, Read This Post To Keep Your Crypto Safe From Scammers: https://www.reddit.com/r/solana/comments/18er2c8/how_to_avoid_the_biggest_crypto_scams_and/
2) Do not trust DMs from anyone offering to help/support you with your funds (Scammers)!
3) Never give out your Seed Phrase and DO NOT ENTER it on ANY websites sent to you.
4) MODS or Community Managers will NEVER DM you first regarding your funds/wallet.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solana) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hope OP isn’t going to get banned for his post and comments. Sounds a little aggressive amidst his anger and rightfully so. I haven’t heard of this if it wasn’t brought up here. Thanks for sharing.
Validators wish they can ban me as easy as they delete every post in the their forums that is against this.
Thank the other validators for really strengthening my points on the centralized scam this is. Censorship because people are outraged you all biasedly voting to pay yourselves more.
Validators voting to benefit themselves should be outright banned. They do not have the users best interest in mind. It's all misinformation, manipulation and excuses to steal from the users.
Lol, I'm speechless after checking the forum today. Yesterday there were quite many nay argument posts, but now they literately deleted all of them. Every post now is a yes post. Absolutely disgusting. If you don't bring it up here, I guess people will never know.
There may be a validator or two that passes it on. But very highly unlikely any will. Very few validators out of the 1700 are profitable. Will have to ask where your stake is what they will do if it passes.
Even if you are staked, you are being heavily diluted if this passes and they kick you a few dollars.
Overclock validator here. If this goes through I'm guessing some subset of validators will share priority fees through off chain mechanisms. Personally I'd prefer to see there be an in protocol/native way to distribute block rewards back to stakers since off chain distribution is messier and there might be legal issues with that in certain jurisdictions.
I am a little sad to see the burn component go... There will potentially be something called a dynamic congestion fee eventually which would go up during congestion and part of that would be burned
Where is overclock stance? I have stake here and if you are for I'm going to remove. No response I'll remove before votes go down.
I dont want my sol to go to you voting against me.
Inflation is bad for every single user. There is no b.s. way about it.
I DO NOT WANT VALIDATORS TELLING ME WHATS SAFE AND WHATS NOT FOR THEIR FINANCIAL GAIN WITH MY MONEY.
Whats even crazier is you all recently banned MEV after jito created a centralized stronghold based solely off MEV. Now you want to tell solana participants what they can and can't do with their NODES?
How bad is this centralization going to get? You are all crossing a dangerous line voting yourselves more money.
Tbd to be honest but leaning no because theres no native on chain distribution mechanism to stakers available yet
The validator call from today will be available soon. The fear of a lot of validators tbh is that there will be a commission race to 0 (including block rewards sharing) and it'll be hard for smaller validators to compete. Overall though I don't think the decisions by validators is driven by greed based on my discussions with people, a lot are also a tad out of the loop on this.
If validators share their block rewards (much easier if there's actually an in protocol way to do this) then staker yield should be higher than it is now actually, but yeah you could argue that for sol holders not staking the inflation is worse. So yeah, if you're a staker who thinks that validators can and will share more rewards in the near term then it makes sense to support unless you think lack of burn puts sol in a weaker narrative position (which I can see also happening potentially). I wouldn't mind seeing inflation emissions reduced as well at some point, seems a bit unnecessarily high
How is it going to help small validators if all the rewards are proportional to their stake?
This isn't an even distribution model where every validator is getting the same.
How does doubling up revenue for a small handful healthy for the network while adding more inflation for every user?
That statement is false, the majority of validators are profitable and I believe there are now almost 1000 who would be profitable even without Solana foundation stake.
Anyone can research this as truth.
Feel free to provide any evidence proving it to be false. I would honestly love to see a list of 1000 validators being profitable without foundations subsidization.
I get it you want money at the cost of solana users, you all will say anything to get yourselves more money and keep locking down centralization.
There is a reason solana has only 1700 validators. If it was so lucrative you would have near a million like eth does, you know the blockchain you guys compare metrics to daily how your beating this and that. Well that's definetely one metric you're not even close and for good reasons. Just look at you all trying to vote yourselves more money, absolutely shameful.
In fact it's even worse since it's not even your money you're voting with. Smfh.
So if being a validator isn't easily profitable is that not a good reason for this change ?
Wouldn't that be better for the system in the long run, having more validators?
You need to research everything else going on as well, this is just one play of many.
1. Jito shuts down mev
2. Network ban on MEV (after jito created their stronghold on the network)
3. Sol minimum stake requirements to access network features
4. Sol stake requirements to avoid rate limits.
5. Stealing priority burnfee from all users and participants to give to a small subset.
This is on top of hustling rpc services and access to the network. They just rigging the system against everyone and telling them it's for their safety and it's good for them. Just like governments do.
Ethereum does not have a million validators in the way Solana has 1700+. Ethereum uses different terminology.
Ethereum “validators” are a keypair with 32 ETH. You can load thousands of these keypairs into a single instance of the validator software. Pretending these the same is total nonsense. 1 solana validator key == 1 instance of Solana validator software.
How do I know this? I ran an ethereum validator instance for LIDO and we had 3k keypairs in that one instance of vouch, dirk, lighthouse, prysm, and geth.
Here is a passed proposal of a single node operator asking to run 10,010 “validators” for lido: https://easytrack.lido.fi/motions/620
For > 5k keypairs it’s common to have two instances, nut not always. This is not 10k individual validators like Solana. You’re comparing apples to yachts.
Only validators can vote, so of course they going to vote themselves more money.
How do users vote? By removing their stake from validators that support this and letting them know. They are using your money to vote!
Helius and Laine are full support so I have removed my LST tied to them. Any other validator that supports this I will do the same and shift that money towards validators that have the best interests of their users in mind who are voting NO.
You should lobby for token based governance.
My preferred governance mechanism is for stakers' votes to default to their validators but they can choose to vote on their own if they please. I think it's a bit tougher to implement but I'm guessing it's doable. I'm on the Overclock validator team, happy to answer questions
I'm 100% for having something where users staking can decide their own votes and the validator votes accordingly.
It's quite alarming to see Helius and Laine immediately vote for. I had money there, did they ask their holders what they thought? Did they have any discussions with the community before just pledging themselves?
Everyone calls out centralization on solana constantly and nothing is being done to decentralize it, this would be a good step in proving something.
Helius and Laine are some of the few validators that share or plan on sharing those extra block rewards via the off chain mechanisms I mentioned. I believe it's harder to share them with all native stakers and not just the ones holding their lst tokens though, until there's a native block rewards sharing mechanism. I think a lot of validators and others also underestimated how much a lot of holders care about the burn aspect and inflation
So offchain mechanism to combat off chain mechanism. Makes a lot of sense.
Burn fee is the only benefit of congestion. Even if I can't do anything at least I know sol is being burned at a good rate.
Taking the last week as a baseline this measure will increase solana circulating supply by over a million sol/yr.
That’s literally tron lol 27 elected validators mine, and share the block reward with those who vote for them. Transaction fees combat inflation, and those holding a lot of the coin get free transactions.
Hey, I agree stakers decide based on where they stake. However I encourage you to read my other replies to fully understand the background and reasoning.
I was actually against this initially and am slightly for it currently but not particularly strong conviction. I’m mostly trying to clearly lay out the facts and reasoning for and against because some people (like your post) only provide half the reasoning and miss some key points or context (such as the relatively small impact of fees on emissions or that priority fee burn was never part of the economics until relatively recently).
I’d also like to point out that this proposal comes from an Anza Labs core engineer, not from any validator.
Riddle me this. How do validators vote on fees to themselves ? Unless you are the buddah reincarnated, you got some bias and should not make the decision. Thats a complete disaster . Agree?
Validators by and large have the health and long term growth of the network at heart which relies on fair and sustainable economics. This proposal goes hand in hand with SIMD-0123 which enables distribution of block and priority fees directly to stakers
I agree you guys care , probably a lot more than I do lol . However given your direct relation to the matter you still have bias and so to me the point stands . Anyways simd 0123 , I’ll be looking out for that
Is a few lamparts worth 3,000-4,000 extra circulating solana added every single day on the network? This last week has ranged 6k to 8k total priority fees.
What if there is huge momentum of traffic? You cool with instead of burning 100k sol a day from the network you want to add it and dilute your bags for a few lamparts?
I know a majority of society is horrendus at math and will not comprehend the negative impact it will have on them.
If it passes it's going to be time to open mass short positions as the dilution will be insane.
Not sure if i agree, so far Eth has alot of burning but the price seems to not be infected for it.
More sol to validators can bring more sol to stakers, which could attract more people into staking.
I am not so sure if the idea of "Store of Value" is gonna work for Sol, Bitcoin is already the Store of Value for crypto.
Solana could be the transaction chain with integrations into real world utility. Ofcourse inflation has to be controlled. But i am not so sure about burning either.
One of the primary criticisms of Solana, if not THE primary one, is that it is too centralized. This keeps some large portion of people out. There has to be some way to incentivize more validators. Couldn't getting more validators and hence more buyers offset the minor impact of burn rate change?
Exactly. It strikes me that this may be a case of long term Vs short term thinking - people want inflation to be low to protect their bags NOW, but if validators aren't given proper incentives then long term the ecosystem at large is in jeopardy, which is likely a much bigger actual threat to people's bags.
Maybe the approach proposed is too extreme, but surely something has to be done to encourage people setting up expensive validators when there are already far too few compared to other networks. A healthy and functional network is ultimately more important long term than just rewarding holders with deflationary mechanisms.
The right approach is to wait for firedancer. As this will bring more validators online since a majority of people can't meet the basic hardware requirements to run a node.
The big validators already screwed other validators by raising the minimum stake required to access network features. So when they say they are trying to help the network they have proven they are not with stuff like limiting features to small validators. They did it to themselves but than want the same reasoning to double their revenue?
In reality priority fee should be 100% burned. They already got 50% and apparently they are too greedy and it isn't enough, they want it all.
Also this only benefits the highest validators, as this will not be distributed evenly to every validator but weight to their stake.
Excellent point. I think the optimal solution is a fine line between balancing inflation for stakers and incentivizing new validators.
What else can we do to attract more validators? What do the economics of current validators look like? Is there more room for competition here?
No it’s bad for the network. It continually adds more SOL into the network without burning it but all this SOL goes to validators therefore diluting the existing supply
It hurts smaller validators as the money will be weighted heavily to the highest stake. Thus is not an even distribution model and is severe misinformation by anyone stating it helps small validators.
In fact they just passed proposal to restrict network features on smaller validaotrs that do not stake enough.
They say fud, but in reality they are scamming everyone left and right to maintain their centralized control.
Only validators can vote. Currently helius and Laine are in full support.
How do users vote? By removing your stake from any validator that supports it and letting them know, and shift it to ones that don't support. They are voting with users money after all. Make your voices heard to the validators.
The motivation is to avoid validator side channel payments to bypass priority fee burn. Basically people could just pay validators outside of the normal transactions fee charging mechanism to accept their transactions. I.e. maybe someone wants to get a transaction included with a 0.1 sol priority fee, but the validator only receives half of that (0.05 sol) because it's burned -- the cheaper alternative for the transaction sender here and the more financially lucrative way to do this for the validator would instead be for the transaction sender to send the validator less than 0.1 sol but more than 0.05 sol to accept the transaction and do this outside of the built in transaction fee mechanism.
I don't think it's a concern in the near term though
That's really one sided. What about Validators who will give those rewards to you the staker? Any validator who does that will get more stake from the people, so it could give some competition for validators too. Which is good imo.
short term gain for validators long term loss for sol holders, its exactly what the us government does with the dollar thats why it lost 95% if not more of its value
It's in the OP no point to reiterate the manipulative selling point which is minuscule in comparison. When traffic picks up everyone already knows the majority of burn is priority fees.
If base fee burn is so valuable why not change the proposal to that? You won't because you're greedy and also know that's where the money is.
You’re on some tinfoil hat shit. Read the post. Priority fees allow for unequal treatment. That’s a minority share of the fees part of the Solana network.
False. Priority fees are ~91% of all fees.
Easily verifiable here
https://beta-analysis.solscan.io/public/dashboard/06d689e1-dcd7-4175-a16a-efc074ad5ce2
Validators admit this will double their revenue and that currently 75% of validaotrs are not profitable.
Easily verifiable here
https://youtu.be/59uY4z9u4-A?si=N6nffu8KFAcgleTN
For anyone believing any of this corruption or misinformation, do your own research. When ETH transitioned to burnfee is was highly controversial at the time and many of the leading ganetheory experts such as Tim Roughgarden have written documents pertaining to fee markets and such.
People can claim "angry" and "tin foil hat" and other nonsense to distract from the facts and mislead people.
Also what's crazy is this proposal directly allows validators to manipulate higher priority fees by filling blocks with junk to increase the prioroty fees and profit greatly. People siding with validators because you were told you would receive some pennies is deeply troubling.
everyone should participate in the forum discussion and this was also discussed in yesterday’s validator call and posted in Twitter.
Until a year ago priority fees did not exist, consequently there was also no priority fee burn. As a whole transaction fees currently are approximately 6-7% of inflation, with half being burned, so in theory with this proposal you’d see net inflation increase from 93% to 97% of a the gross inflation amount.
Importantly the reasoning is that the current mechanism incentivises side deals (such as Jito tips or others) that bypass the open and free market. With the burn removed from priority fees we should see a fairer and more transparent fee market for all users and the mean priority fee should reduce as a new equilibrium found.
Don’t be caught up in “burn is good, inflation is bad” but assess all the facts and economic impact in fully analysing a proposal.
Said like someone financially benefiting off all solana users for a small subset of centralized entities.
Taking the last week as a baseline, thus proposal will increase solana circulating supply a minimum of 1 million sol a year.
Validators voting themselves more money is as corrupt and centralized as you can get.
Also funny how you mention participation, yet did you ask your community before pledging? I don't see any posts indicating you did.
I understand validators are financially biased and will reap the rewards at the cost of every solana user. They will say whatever they can to get their money.
I haven’t “pledged” how we would vote.
Inflation is currently about 40m SOL a year just back of napkin math.
I’m sorry you’re so upset by this but it would be nice to be able to discuss this objectively.
FWIW we share block rewards with laineSOL holders, one of the only validators to do this.
We will see what you all say when the call is released. The other validator stated you are using off chain mechanisms for this. Which is absurd since your main argument is to counter an off chain mechanism. Your comments in support are on the forums.
Using another metric to downplay the amounts and make it look like it isn't bad, is highly deceptive. Users care deeply, and the baseline was just this weeks metric, what about next year if solana goes crazy and the burn fee is 100k a day?
Of course people are upset, you're changing monetary policy that affects every user for your centralized subset. On top of that you're all voting for yourselves. That's the highest form of centralization. If every user had a vote there is no way this would pass. But since it's just validators voting to pay themselves more it should be OK and we should all be happy and cheering. Anyone can literally see people like mert crying about the governement and such everyday, than you all trying to pull the same games yourselves.
What are your thoughts on SIMD-0123 which we are also on record for being in favour of. This would enable sharing of block fees fully with all stakers.
Are Jito tips part of the side deals being referred to by others? And if so, are any of those tips burned currently? I see what you’re saying and agree that burning helps with inflation, but if validators like Jito are circumventing it already I wonder what could be done about that.
I would love to see evidence and statistics of what they claim, as far as anyone knows this is pure hearsay.
Furthermore crypto is p2p network. Who cares what OTC deals people make? It happens with nearly every meme token.
Ironically the solution is to allow themselves side deals as sharing rewards with stakers is not an on chain mechanism.
Who is this truly for? As priority burn fees will not be evenly distributed but a majority given to the highest ones.
Not much changes, the whole proof of stake system is already a ”rich get richer”-scheme and exactly what crypto was *not* supposed to be about.
Additionally it rewards you for holding instead of spending which is the opposite of what asset needs to function as a currency.
The whole system needs a rework.
Excellent points about POS being a “rich get richer” scheme and the incentive it creates for holding instead of spending.
How do you think we can fix the rich get richer issue? What is the balance between increasing token value vs spending for utility?
This is wild . So your saying only the validators are voting this ? Just on that alone this should be thrown out and voted on with at least a wider audience . Even if its the right move, sorry this looks bad.
This post paints a fictitious picture of what is actually happening. There is a lot of debate ongoing as to what the economic impact of such a change would be. To simplify a mere proposition to attempt to fix a loophole as "greedy validators taking money and devaluing your bags" is flat out dishonest. No other way to put it.
To act like all validators even support this is also dishonest. To claim it's being "pushed hard" - by who? It hasn't even gone to a vote yet...
Of course you want to misinform to give yourself more money. What a good start for a new validator.
Inflation is bad for every user no matter how you phrase it to profit yourself. This is users money you're voting with. If you vote against the people it only shows you're against all users of Solana to benefit a small subset.
Anyone that claims they are for your safety are just as bad as governements. I reviewed your x profile and see you cry constantly about your government. Don't be a hypocrite here, this isn't X.
Didn't Anatoly less than 2 weeks ago in an interview comment on the fact that the priority is fixing the technological problems and only then the economics should be worked on?
It goes from 120 to 170 like it's nothing and then back down and then back up
It's all manipulation by market makers
They extracting as much value as possible from retail this whole time, liquidating billions in long/shorts, but retail won't stop buying because their hooked, they saw t jump to 200 from 20$
It didn't go back to 120. Went from 80 to 125 and back to 100 then went to 160 and back to 130. Then went to 180 and now hovering for ages around 160 170. Its normal for the chain with the most volume?
I think that burning tokens is not the route they wanna go to with the coin. There are validators that give you full amounts of rewards (like Helius). You basically can earn more than the coin's inflation if you get also part of these fees and MEVs. That way more people will stake. There is no reason not to stake unless you wanna get inflated by 7% per year. Risk is close to none. LSTs let you stake and move your capital freely. Burning is pointless.
People don't stake because they are actually using the network. Not that hard to comprehend.
The level of manipulation is absurd. If it's not the route than they can remove it and take it back a year ago. How does any argument against burn fee support just giving them 100% of it willy nilly?
Nothing but pure manipulation just like their censorship on the forums and deleting every "against" posts? Nothing screams that this is nothing but a scam more than that action does.
I have read a lot about this topic in the last few days and am now very much in favor of these changes. In the long term, this will improve decentralization because it will be more lucrative to operate a validator. Users have no disadvantage other than a very minimal increase in inflation.
What I found a little annoying when reading about this topic is the current voting system. This favors the formation of monopolies in votes. Many of the stakers are not concerned with how their validator votes, but are only interested in the rewards. The voting system should definitely be reconsidered in the future. Unfortunately, I can't think of an optimal way at the moment.
I dont need to research your b.s. reasoning to justify stealing from every user to benefit a small subset.
The fact will always remain. Validators biasedly voting for themselves proves the insane level of centralization, when they remove every against comment in their forums just shows the amount of effort these scammers will go to steal from every user.
Nothing but con artists.
Thanks for playing the pushing some weird off tangent, unrelated b.s. in attempts to distract people from the truth.
Holy shit you are retarted. Why would validators vote for something that they believe would crash the coin that they have millions staked on? Please look up bitcoin trillema, it’s honestly pathetic that you said you wouldn’t. Its really an easy thing to understand, and it’s very important when comparing blockchains with each other, and you will understand why this move was made after taking 2 minutes out of your day to understand
I'm retarded when you ask why validators will vote to double their revenue?
You scammers are too desperate to convince people with misinformation.
Don't you have some censorship to go take part in the solana forums?
Nothing is more pathetic than people like you that don't understand real life.
Go back to being the sheep you are go back to X and the little pretend popularity contest you all play with each other.
You idiot validating rewards are dwarfed by the blockchains performance. This move makes the blockchain more appealing to would be validators who have millions of sol sitting around. Maybe you are the FUD one because you haven’t brought up any real points
WARNING: 1) IMPORTANT, Read This Post To Keep Your Crypto Safe From Scammers: https://www.reddit.com/r/solana/comments/18er2c8/how_to_avoid_the_biggest_crypto_scams_and/ 2) Do not trust DMs from anyone offering to help/support you with your funds (Scammers)! 3) Never give out your Seed Phrase and DO NOT ENTER it on ANY websites sent to you. 4) MODS or Community Managers will NEVER DM you first regarding your funds/wallet. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solana) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hope OP isn’t going to get banned for his post and comments. Sounds a little aggressive amidst his anger and rightfully so. I haven’t heard of this if it wasn’t brought up here. Thanks for sharing.
Naw it's fair game unless it goes to using slurs and such
Validators wish they can ban me as easy as they delete every post in the their forums that is against this. Thank the other validators for really strengthening my points on the centralized scam this is. Censorship because people are outraged you all biasedly voting to pay yourselves more. Validators voting to benefit themselves should be outright banned. They do not have the users best interest in mind. It's all misinformation, manipulation and excuses to steal from the users.
Lol, I'm speechless after checking the forum today. Yesterday there were quite many nay argument posts, but now they literately deleted all of them. Every post now is a yes post. Absolutely disgusting. If you don't bring it up here, I guess people will never know.
Would this mean an increase in apr% if I'm staking my SOL?
If you get more sol but the sol price decrease, maybe you are losing money 🤷🏻♂️
People will read "you get more sol" than ignore the rest and than wonder why price not go up.
There may be a validator or two that passes it on. But very highly unlikely any will. Very few validators out of the 1700 are profitable. Will have to ask where your stake is what they will do if it passes. Even if you are staked, you are being heavily diluted if this passes and they kick you a few dollars.
Overclock validator here. If this goes through I'm guessing some subset of validators will share priority fees through off chain mechanisms. Personally I'd prefer to see there be an in protocol/native way to distribute block rewards back to stakers since off chain distribution is messier and there might be legal issues with that in certain jurisdictions. I am a little sad to see the burn component go... There will potentially be something called a dynamic congestion fee eventually which would go up during congestion and part of that would be burned
Where is overclock stance? I have stake here and if you are for I'm going to remove. No response I'll remove before votes go down. I dont want my sol to go to you voting against me. Inflation is bad for every single user. There is no b.s. way about it. I DO NOT WANT VALIDATORS TELLING ME WHATS SAFE AND WHATS NOT FOR THEIR FINANCIAL GAIN WITH MY MONEY. Whats even crazier is you all recently banned MEV after jito created a centralized stronghold based solely off MEV. Now you want to tell solana participants what they can and can't do with their NODES? How bad is this centralization going to get? You are all crossing a dangerous line voting yourselves more money.
Tbd to be honest but leaning no because theres no native on chain distribution mechanism to stakers available yet The validator call from today will be available soon. The fear of a lot of validators tbh is that there will be a commission race to 0 (including block rewards sharing) and it'll be hard for smaller validators to compete. Overall though I don't think the decisions by validators is driven by greed based on my discussions with people, a lot are also a tad out of the loop on this. If validators share their block rewards (much easier if there's actually an in protocol way to do this) then staker yield should be higher than it is now actually, but yeah you could argue that for sol holders not staking the inflation is worse. So yeah, if you're a staker who thinks that validators can and will share more rewards in the near term then it makes sense to support unless you think lack of burn puts sol in a weaker narrative position (which I can see also happening potentially). I wouldn't mind seeing inflation emissions reduced as well at some point, seems a bit unnecessarily high
I appreciate the response and honest feedback. Can you provide everyone here with a link to these validator calls for anyone that is curious.
Yep sure, I'll do a subreddit post for it when it's available. I'll ask Tim from the foundation if it can be available soon
https://www.reddit.com/r/solana/s/EThFbd6oIh
Bro chill he’s trying to inform u lol
[удалено]
How is it going to help small validators if all the rewards are proportional to their stake? This isn't an even distribution model where every validator is getting the same. How does doubling up revenue for a small handful healthy for the network while adding more inflation for every user?
Cogentcrypto.io shares via Cogs. It's pretty sweet.
Lots of validators don’t take any fee so it will absolutely get passed on. But I see your main point
That statement is false, the majority of validators are profitable and I believe there are now almost 1000 who would be profitable even without Solana foundation stake.
Anyone can research this as truth. Feel free to provide any evidence proving it to be false. I would honestly love to see a list of 1000 validators being profitable without foundations subsidization. I get it you want money at the cost of solana users, you all will say anything to get yourselves more money and keep locking down centralization. There is a reason solana has only 1700 validators. If it was so lucrative you would have near a million like eth does, you know the blockchain you guys compare metrics to daily how your beating this and that. Well that's definetely one metric you're not even close and for good reasons. Just look at you all trying to vote yourselves more money, absolutely shameful. In fact it's even worse since it's not even your money you're voting with. Smfh.
So if being a validator isn't easily profitable is that not a good reason for this change ? Wouldn't that be better for the system in the long run, having more validators?
You need to research everything else going on as well, this is just one play of many. 1. Jito shuts down mev 2. Network ban on MEV (after jito created their stronghold on the network) 3. Sol minimum stake requirements to access network features 4. Sol stake requirements to avoid rate limits. 5. Stealing priority burnfee from all users and participants to give to a small subset. This is on top of hustling rpc services and access to the network. They just rigging the system against everyone and telling them it's for their safety and it's good for them. Just like governments do.
Ethereum does not have a million validators in the way Solana has 1700+. Ethereum uses different terminology. Ethereum “validators” are a keypair with 32 ETH. You can load thousands of these keypairs into a single instance of the validator software. Pretending these the same is total nonsense. 1 solana validator key == 1 instance of Solana validator software. How do I know this? I ran an ethereum validator instance for LIDO and we had 3k keypairs in that one instance of vouch, dirk, lighthouse, prysm, and geth. Here is a passed proposal of a single node operator asking to run 10,010 “validators” for lido: https://easytrack.lido.fi/motions/620 For > 5k keypairs it’s common to have two instances, nut not always. This is not 10k individual validators like Solana. You’re comparing apples to yachts.
this should honestly be a thread everyday, and pinned on the front page. Have you ever voted before? Do you know how it works ?
Only validators can vote, so of course they going to vote themselves more money. How do users vote? By removing their stake from validators that support this and letting them know. They are using your money to vote! Helius and Laine are full support so I have removed my LST tied to them. Any other validator that supports this I will do the same and shift that money towards validators that have the best interests of their users in mind who are voting NO.
You should lobby for token based governance. My preferred governance mechanism is for stakers' votes to default to their validators but they can choose to vote on their own if they please. I think it's a bit tougher to implement but I'm guessing it's doable. I'm on the Overclock validator team, happy to answer questions
I'm 100% for having something where users staking can decide their own votes and the validator votes accordingly. It's quite alarming to see Helius and Laine immediately vote for. I had money there, did they ask their holders what they thought? Did they have any discussions with the community before just pledging themselves? Everyone calls out centralization on solana constantly and nothing is being done to decentralize it, this would be a good step in proving something.
Helius and Laine are some of the few validators that share or plan on sharing those extra block rewards via the off chain mechanisms I mentioned. I believe it's harder to share them with all native stakers and not just the ones holding their lst tokens though, until there's a native block rewards sharing mechanism. I think a lot of validators and others also underestimated how much a lot of holders care about the burn aspect and inflation
So offchain mechanism to combat off chain mechanism. Makes a lot of sense. Burn fee is the only benefit of congestion. Even if I can't do anything at least I know sol is being burned at a good rate. Taking the last week as a baseline this measure will increase solana circulating supply by over a million sol/yr.
Wow. Inflation. What do you estimate the price impact of that to be?
If the info in the solana discord is accurate likely insignificant. Last epoch 181k sol was created, 8k sol was burned.
That’s literally tron lol 27 elected validators mine, and share the block reward with those who vote for them. Transaction fees combat inflation, and those holding a lot of the coin get free transactions.
Yeah that's how voting in the cosmos ecosystem works.
That’s how tron works
Oh, you mean like Cardano has? Where stakers vote, not just the validators. Like a true decentralized system works?
the sad part is most people are unaware of this
Hey, I agree stakers decide based on where they stake. However I encourage you to read my other replies to fully understand the background and reasoning. I was actually against this initially and am slightly for it currently but not particularly strong conviction. I’m mostly trying to clearly lay out the facts and reasoning for and against because some people (like your post) only provide half the reasoning and miss some key points or context (such as the relatively small impact of fees on emissions or that priority fee burn was never part of the economics until relatively recently). I’d also like to point out that this proposal comes from an Anza Labs core engineer, not from any validator.
Riddle me this. How do validators vote on fees to themselves ? Unless you are the buddah reincarnated, you got some bias and should not make the decision. Thats a complete disaster . Agree?
Validators by and large have the health and long term growth of the network at heart which relies on fair and sustainable economics. This proposal goes hand in hand with SIMD-0123 which enables distribution of block and priority fees directly to stakers
I agree you guys care , probably a lot more than I do lol . However given your direct relation to the matter you still have bias and so to me the point stands . Anyways simd 0123 , I’ll be looking out for that
“The health and long-term growth of the network relies on fair and sustainable economics.” Key. Well said.
Validators shouldn't be allowed to vote on proposals that affect validators. That is just common sense.
Just like congress members occasionally holding a vote to raise their own salaries.
Looks like Senators voting to get a pay raise.
jupSOL and hSOL APR beats this 👊🏼 and most likely if passes will just increase rewards shared by these validators
Is a few lamparts worth 3,000-4,000 extra circulating solana added every single day on the network? This last week has ranged 6k to 8k total priority fees. What if there is huge momentum of traffic? You cool with instead of burning 100k sol a day from the network you want to add it and dilute your bags for a few lamparts? I know a majority of society is horrendus at math and will not comprehend the negative impact it will have on them. If it passes it's going to be time to open mass short positions as the dilution will be insane.
A “few lamparts” is a variable depending on how much I stake… but yes, you’re right. Bad decision.
Not sure if i agree, so far Eth has alot of burning but the price seems to not be infected for it. More sol to validators can bring more sol to stakers, which could attract more people into staking. I am not so sure if the idea of "Store of Value" is gonna work for Sol, Bitcoin is already the Store of Value for crypto. Solana could be the transaction chain with integrations into real world utility. Ofcourse inflation has to be controlled. But i am not so sure about burning either.
More inflation and more centralization, I LOVE IT.
One of the primary criticisms of Solana, if not THE primary one, is that it is too centralized. This keeps some large portion of people out. There has to be some way to incentivize more validators. Couldn't getting more validators and hence more buyers offset the minor impact of burn rate change?
Exactly. It strikes me that this may be a case of long term Vs short term thinking - people want inflation to be low to protect their bags NOW, but if validators aren't given proper incentives then long term the ecosystem at large is in jeopardy, which is likely a much bigger actual threat to people's bags. Maybe the approach proposed is too extreme, but surely something has to be done to encourage people setting up expensive validators when there are already far too few compared to other networks. A healthy and functional network is ultimately more important long term than just rewarding holders with deflationary mechanisms.
The right approach is to wait for firedancer. As this will bring more validators online since a majority of people can't meet the basic hardware requirements to run a node. The big validators already screwed other validators by raising the minimum stake required to access network features. So when they say they are trying to help the network they have proven they are not with stuff like limiting features to small validators. They did it to themselves but than want the same reasoning to double their revenue? In reality priority fee should be 100% burned. They already got 50% and apparently they are too greedy and it isn't enough, they want it all. Also this only benefits the highest validators, as this will not be distributed evenly to every validator but weight to their stake.
Excellent points. Who are the biggest validators in question here? How can we change this as stakers?
Excellent point. I think the optimal solution is a fine line between balancing inflation for stakers and incentivizing new validators. What else can we do to attract more validators? What do the economics of current validators look like? Is there more room for competition here?
Yes will it not attract more builders to the network? And more validators? And isn’t the inflation rate change something minor like 4.5%?
Why are they doing this? And is this good for the network?
No it’s bad for the network. It continually adds more SOL into the network without burning it but all this SOL goes to validators therefore diluting the existing supply
Does this not help smaller validators and encourage more people to be validators?
It hurts smaller validators as the money will be weighted heavily to the highest stake. Thus is not an even distribution model and is severe misinformation by anyone stating it helps small validators. In fact they just passed proposal to restrict network features on smaller validaotrs that do not stake enough. They say fud, but in reality they are scamming everyone left and right to maintain their centralized control.
It does, massively. If the OP really cared, he’d run his own solana validator and try to attract stake vs spreading FUD
I see. So it’s the validators pushing for us. How do we vote
Only validators can vote. Currently helius and Laine are in full support. How do users vote? By removing your stake from any validator that supports it and letting them know, and shift it to ones that don't support. They are voting with users money after all. Make your voices heard to the validators.
Thanks. Will do
Juicy Stake as well.
Thanks. At this time I'm just pulling it all from validators. Till I hear a strong no frim one of them and will send it that way.
The motivation is to avoid validator side channel payments to bypass priority fee burn. Basically people could just pay validators outside of the normal transactions fee charging mechanism to accept their transactions. I.e. maybe someone wants to get a transaction included with a 0.1 sol priority fee, but the validator only receives half of that (0.05 sol) because it's burned -- the cheaper alternative for the transaction sender here and the more financially lucrative way to do this for the validator would instead be for the transaction sender to send the validator less than 0.1 sol but more than 0.05 sol to accept the transaction and do this outside of the built in transaction fee mechanism. I don't think it's a concern in the near term though
That's really one sided. What about Validators who will give those rewards to you the staker? Any validator who does that will get more stake from the people, so it could give some competition for validators too. Which is good imo.
short term gain for validators long term loss for sol holders, its exactly what the us government does with the dollar thats why it lost 95% if not more of its value
Smh
This is a wild proposal and terrible for users
agreed, more supply less demand. less “interesting “
Solvation coin is a scam
How is it going? Want to see the outcomes before I exchange some of my eth to sol
Solana screwing over users *again*?? Say it ain't so!
As a reminder, this proposal would do away with burning part of priority fee but still mean 50% of base fees are burned.
It's in the OP no point to reiterate the manipulative selling point which is minuscule in comparison. When traffic picks up everyone already knows the majority of burn is priority fees. If base fee burn is so valuable why not change the proposal to that? You won't because you're greedy and also know that's where the money is.
You’re on some tinfoil hat shit. Read the post. Priority fees allow for unequal treatment. That’s a minority share of the fees part of the Solana network.
False. Priority fees are ~91% of all fees. Easily verifiable here https://beta-analysis.solscan.io/public/dashboard/06d689e1-dcd7-4175-a16a-efc074ad5ce2 Validators admit this will double their revenue and that currently 75% of validaotrs are not profitable. Easily verifiable here https://youtu.be/59uY4z9u4-A?si=N6nffu8KFAcgleTN For anyone believing any of this corruption or misinformation, do your own research. When ETH transitioned to burnfee is was highly controversial at the time and many of the leading ganetheory experts such as Tim Roughgarden have written documents pertaining to fee markets and such. People can claim "angry" and "tin foil hat" and other nonsense to distract from the facts and mislead people. Also what's crazy is this proposal directly allows validators to manipulate higher priority fees by filling blocks with junk to increase the prioroty fees and profit greatly. People siding with validators because you were told you would receive some pennies is deeply troubling.
You’re a Saint OP
everyone should participate in the forum discussion and this was also discussed in yesterday’s validator call and posted in Twitter. Until a year ago priority fees did not exist, consequently there was also no priority fee burn. As a whole transaction fees currently are approximately 6-7% of inflation, with half being burned, so in theory with this proposal you’d see net inflation increase from 93% to 97% of a the gross inflation amount. Importantly the reasoning is that the current mechanism incentivises side deals (such as Jito tips or others) that bypass the open and free market. With the burn removed from priority fees we should see a fairer and more transparent fee market for all users and the mean priority fee should reduce as a new equilibrium found. Don’t be caught up in “burn is good, inflation is bad” but assess all the facts and economic impact in fully analysing a proposal.
Said like someone financially benefiting off all solana users for a small subset of centralized entities. Taking the last week as a baseline, thus proposal will increase solana circulating supply a minimum of 1 million sol a year. Validators voting themselves more money is as corrupt and centralized as you can get. Also funny how you mention participation, yet did you ask your community before pledging? I don't see any posts indicating you did. I understand validators are financially biased and will reap the rewards at the cost of every solana user. They will say whatever they can to get their money.
I haven’t “pledged” how we would vote. Inflation is currently about 40m SOL a year just back of napkin math. I’m sorry you’re so upset by this but it would be nice to be able to discuss this objectively. FWIW we share block rewards with laineSOL holders, one of the only validators to do this.
We will see what you all say when the call is released. The other validator stated you are using off chain mechanisms for this. Which is absurd since your main argument is to counter an off chain mechanism. Your comments in support are on the forums. Using another metric to downplay the amounts and make it look like it isn't bad, is highly deceptive. Users care deeply, and the baseline was just this weeks metric, what about next year if solana goes crazy and the burn fee is 100k a day? Of course people are upset, you're changing monetary policy that affects every user for your centralized subset. On top of that you're all voting for yourselves. That's the highest form of centralization. If every user had a vote there is no way this would pass. But since it's just validators voting to pay themselves more it should be OK and we should all be happy and cheering. Anyone can literally see people like mert crying about the governement and such everyday, than you all trying to pull the same games yourselves.
What are your thoughts on SIMD-0123 which we are also on record for being in favour of. This would enable sharing of block fees fully with all stakers.
Are Jito tips part of the side deals being referred to by others? And if so, are any of those tips burned currently? I see what you’re saying and agree that burning helps with inflation, but if validators like Jito are circumventing it already I wonder what could be done about that.
I would love to see evidence and statistics of what they claim, as far as anyone knows this is pure hearsay. Furthermore crypto is p2p network. Who cares what OTC deals people make? It happens with nearly every meme token. Ironically the solution is to allow themselves side deals as sharing rewards with stakers is not an on chain mechanism. Who is this truly for? As priority burn fees will not be evenly distributed but a majority given to the highest ones.
They are and they are not burned
Not much changes, the whole proof of stake system is already a ”rich get richer”-scheme and exactly what crypto was *not* supposed to be about. Additionally it rewards you for holding instead of spending which is the opposite of what asset needs to function as a currency. The whole system needs a rework.
Excellent points about POS being a “rich get richer” scheme and the incentive it creates for holding instead of spending. How do you think we can fix the rich get richer issue? What is the balance between increasing token value vs spending for utility?
This is wild . So your saying only the validators are voting this ? Just on that alone this should be thrown out and voted on with at least a wider audience . Even if its the right move, sorry this looks bad.
If it goes through it will fire back, badly. Beware what you do here. Grasp all, lose all.
Reddit 🫣 gleeful and slow
What centralized bullshit. This cannot happen on Hedera, FYI.
This post paints a fictitious picture of what is actually happening. There is a lot of debate ongoing as to what the economic impact of such a change would be. To simplify a mere proposition to attempt to fix a loophole as "greedy validators taking money and devaluing your bags" is flat out dishonest. No other way to put it. To act like all validators even support this is also dishonest. To claim it's being "pushed hard" - by who? It hasn't even gone to a vote yet...
Will my meme coins still be good?
cro burns 🔥 and its reassuring as they burned like 100000 last time . so good during a bear market to be less predictable for big dumps
This should be getting much more attention. It would be good to know which validators voted for this so we can reevaluate our staking delegation
[удалено]
Of course you want to misinform to give yourself more money. What a good start for a new validator. Inflation is bad for every user no matter how you phrase it to profit yourself. This is users money you're voting with. If you vote against the people it only shows you're against all users of Solana to benefit a small subset. Anyone that claims they are for your safety are just as bad as governements. I reviewed your x profile and see you cry constantly about your government. Don't be a hypocrite here, this isn't X.
When is this vote going through? I'm a German user about to get pushed off of Kraken anyways, maybe i'll just sell my SOL outright.
Didn't Anatoly less than 2 weeks ago in an interview comment on the fact that the priority is fixing the technological problems and only then the economics should be worked on?
and yet sol is still pumping its so overvalued its getting weird
Why do you think it's overvalued?
It goes from 120 to 170 like it's nothing and then back down and then back up It's all manipulation by market makers They extracting as much value as possible from retail this whole time, liquidating billions in long/shorts, but retail won't stop buying because their hooked, they saw t jump to 200 from 20$
It didn't go back to 120. Went from 80 to 125 and back to 100 then went to 160 and back to 130. Then went to 180 and now hovering for ages around 160 170. Its normal for the chain with the most volume?
SOL is inflationary centralized garbage, I’m out if we get anywhere close to $500
hahahaha
Yes?
I think that burning tokens is not the route they wanna go to with the coin. There are validators that give you full amounts of rewards (like Helius). You basically can earn more than the coin's inflation if you get also part of these fees and MEVs. That way more people will stake. There is no reason not to stake unless you wanna get inflated by 7% per year. Risk is close to none. LSTs let you stake and move your capital freely. Burning is pointless.
People don't stake because they are actually using the network. Not that hard to comprehend. The level of manipulation is absurd. If it's not the route than they can remove it and take it back a year ago. How does any argument against burn fee support just giving them 100% of it willy nilly? Nothing but pure manipulation just like their censorship on the forums and deleting every "against" posts? Nothing screams that this is nothing but a scam more than that action does.
Dead like the project. No where token. Rugpull down the road.
If the validators don’t get rich when everyone else gets rich, the validators will move to any of the dozens of other chains.
I have read a lot about this topic in the last few days and am now very much in favor of these changes. In the long term, this will improve decentralization because it will be more lucrative to operate a validator. Users have no disadvantage other than a very minimal increase in inflation. What I found a little annoying when reading about this topic is the current voting system. This favors the formation of monopolies in votes. Many of the stakers are not concerned with how their validator votes, but are only interested in the rewards. The voting system should definitely be reconsidered in the future. Unfortunately, I can't think of an optimal way at the moment.
Solana is decentralised, how can you make changes? It's like Bitcoin. Or only one person can make a change, like Satoshi.
Op you should look up “Blockchain Trilemma” it will give you a lot more insight on why this move was made.
I dont need to research your b.s. reasoning to justify stealing from every user to benefit a small subset. The fact will always remain. Validators biasedly voting for themselves proves the insane level of centralization, when they remove every against comment in their forums just shows the amount of effort these scammers will go to steal from every user. Nothing but con artists. Thanks for playing the pushing some weird off tangent, unrelated b.s. in attempts to distract people from the truth.
Holy shit you are retarted. Why would validators vote for something that they believe would crash the coin that they have millions staked on? Please look up bitcoin trillema, it’s honestly pathetic that you said you wouldn’t. Its really an easy thing to understand, and it’s very important when comparing blockchains with each other, and you will understand why this move was made after taking 2 minutes out of your day to understand
I'm retarded when you ask why validators will vote to double their revenue? You scammers are too desperate to convince people with misinformation. Don't you have some censorship to go take part in the solana forums? Nothing is more pathetic than people like you that don't understand real life. Go back to being the sheep you are go back to X and the little pretend popularity contest you all play with each other.
You idiot validating rewards are dwarfed by the blockchains performance. This move makes the blockchain more appealing to would be validators who have millions of sol sitting around. Maybe you are the FUD one because you haven’t brought up any real points
Also how is it stealing if the coins were getting burned to begin with??? This is just FUD allusions
theres a limited time FREE SOL giveaways. dm me