Solana votes to reward validators with 100% priority fees, community disputes highlight governance issues
Written by: Frank, PANews
Where there is interest, there is conflict, and where there is conflict, there is a world of war.CommunityBehind the passage of a seemingly calm proposal lies an open and covert struggle for interests.
On May 28, Solana ValidatorsCommunityThe Solana Improvement Document (SIMD)-0096 proposal was approved by vote, which sends all transaction priority fees to validators, changing the previous distribution method of 50% destruction fees and 50% rewards to validators, aiming to improve validator income and networkSafetyAlthough the proposal was approved as expected with 77% support, a debate broke out among the validators in the proposal forum.TokenMultiple rounds of battles over economic models, governance loopholes, and insider manipulation.CommunityThe key topics discussed are as well as an in-depth analysis of the potential impacts that may occur if the proposal is passed.
For ecosystem health or validator manipulation?
In fact, according to the information on Github, the plan was proposed as early as December 2023. When it was first proposed, it was mainly a simple discussion by several core developers on Github through messages. From the initial discussion, Tao Zhu, who proposed the plan, did not mention the reason for changing this ratio. Several developers who participated in the discussion almost unanimously agreed with the plan, did relevant tests and changed this function in the new version, allocating the priority fee of 100% to the validator.
As late as March 12, Max Sherwood, co-founder of H2O Nodes, left a message on Github: “Doesn’t such a major economic change require community discussion? The economics of validators will be greatly affected. It can be said that it is at the expense of coin holders, who will see an increase in supply issuance. This does not seem to be a purely technical change. Where does this come from? There needs to be greater awareness of the change and possibly some voting.”
Later, some developers who had participated in the discussion said that this document was a final draft and could be discussed by the community. It was not until May 9 that the Solana validator forum officially proposed this plan and started voting.
After the discussion officially began on the forum, multiple validators questioned the motives of this proposal. One validator, Freedomfighter, said: "This proposal is full of lies and deception, designed to profit the only people who are allowed to vote. I don't care what backdoor it claims to be achieved through, the intention is obvious, greedy people will sacrifice others for their own benefit at all costs. No one even provides data about these related transactions, which are so important that this proposal was made. After reading everyone's thoughts and opinions, I concluded that this is a fake of 100% and a scare tactic designed to get more funds for validators."
Exposing governance limitations, increasing validator rewards or leading to additional SOL issuance
The most skeptical voices about the plan are mainly about SOL Token模型的影响。Solana 的Token采用的时动态的通货膨胀模型。最初的通胀率为 8%，之后每年在此基础上递减 15%。截至目前，Solana 的通胀率约为 5% 左右。而随着通胀的长期发展，最终的通胀率会稳定在 1.5%。有社区成员认为，此前的 50% 的优先费用进行销毁是有效对抗通胀的方式，甚至能够帮助 SOL 代币实现通缩的效果。一旦将 100% 的优先费用给到验证者，则将打破这种平衡，以至于影响数百万 SOL 代币持有者的直接利益。
There are also some people in the community who think that since the amount of priority fees is not large, the impact on inflation is small. However, some people in the opposition voices have also proposed that no matter how big the impact of this plan is on inflation, there should be rigorous data calculations to verify it before voting, rather than voting directly without investigation. According to PANews investigation, Solana's daily total on-chain fee is about 6,000 SOL recently. Once 1,00% is allocated to the validator, the number of SOL added on the chain each year will be about 2 million or more according to this average level. This number accounts for about 0.5% of the current supply.
Validator Laine stated that "the economic impact of net inflation is 0.2%", but did not indicate the specific source of his calculation. His statement was refuted by another member, Freedomfighter: "The economic impact is still there, whether it is 0.2% or 1%, or whatever manipulation you want to try to weaken the negative impact to make it sound favorable. It's like a criminal claiming 'but I didn't steal a dollar, I only stole a penny'. The logic of trying to downplay obvious facts to promote this proposal is absolutely disgusting."
In addition to the inflationary impact on the token economy. The most questioned thing is the limitations of Solana governance exposed by this voting process. In October 2023, the Solana community held a vote on governance rights, and the results showed that 71% people voted for "validators only". In the discussion of this round of proposals, some members said that the biggest beneficiary of this proposal is the validator, and the weight of the vote is also determined by the large validators. Therefore, this is a round of voting in which "a small group of people decide the fate of millions of people." From this starting point, it is not fair to other members of the entire Solana ecosystem. And once this starts, many subsequent proposals are likely to revolve around the interests of validators.
Or it may cause false volume to appear
In the previous 50% destruction plan, since half of the priority fees would be destroyed, it was rare for validators and traders to jointly create false fees. However, as the 100% priority fees will be paid to validators, it is very likely that the above-described validators and traders will collude to create false transactions, which will lead to false transactions being processed first, which is even more detrimental to the balance of network performance.
In addition, some skeptics believe that this distribution mechanism may lead to the phenomenon of "the rich get richer", that is, large nodes will further widen the gap with small nodes because they receive more priority fee rewards, thereby exacerbating the centralization problem of the network.
finalXiaobai Navigation, the proposal was successfully passed amidst many controversies, but PANews also noticed that the votes participating in this round of voting accounted for 51.17%, just over half. In fact, only 38.25% of the total votes voted in favor, and 10.93% voted against. About 49% of votes did not participate in this vote. At present, it is still unknown how much impact the proposal of rewarding 100% of priority fees to validators will have, but judging from the process of community debate, Solana's governance process does have many problems.
In contrast, the Uniswap Foundation is also conducting a similar fee switch vote recently, and the governance process of the Uniswap Foundation has lasted for more than three months, through temperature testing (community discussion), pre-voting, code auditing, on-chain voting and other processes. Perhaps Solana's governance community can learn from Uniswap to ensure that the vital interests of coin holders are not controlled by a few people.
The article comes from the Internet:Solana votes to reward validators with 100% priority fees, community disputes highlight governance issues
James Wynn earned about $25 million during the surge in PEPE tokens, with a principal of only $7,644. Written by: Frank, PANews After experiencing the trust crisis of ELON, James Wynn's shouting effect seems to be ineffective. In recent days, the MONKE coin he waved the flag for has not been realized...
相关文章
