Fully support this generous iniciative
Using the example of the past while still enriching validators is such a poor example. If anyone mentions a year ago, than they should be talking about removing priority fees all together just like a year ago and not just shifting it to themselves than using a baseless excuse to do so. If prioroty fees didnt exist a year ago, they shouldnt exist for validators plain and simple. If a year ago is a year ago make it exaclty a year ago without changing monetary policy to benefit a small subgroup of the entire solana ecosystem.
The validator conflict of interest is astonishing, especially after validators literally voted themselves the only votes.
This is exactly why voting for one specific thing without addressing the big picture is very detrimental and allows a slippery slope of snowball effects like this exact proposal does.
As mentioned previously, there is absolutely nothing stopping validators from collusion to launch a dozen ore type scripts to shove blocks with worthless transactions to increase their rewards as there is literally no drawback or penalty to do so. 50% burn specifically prevents this and adds a cost to this kind of attack.
There is plenty information on priority fee markets and the game theory revolved around them and this proposal directly shows how validators are the bad actors in this scenario that are directly attacking against every solana users holdings.
Changing monetary policy should not be taken lightly in any sense. Especially such as one with such a high level of conflict of interest.
The abstain votes just goes to show no matter how bad the proposal is in all regards, people are going to try to play both sides which negatively impacts the ecosystem. They know the proposal is messed up but honestly who is going to talk bad within their own small niche community when directy affecting the revenue stream of their community.
The previous proposal that allowed only validators to vote was the worse thing to happen to solana for this exact reason. The level of corruption is just beginning with this proposal. Ironically there is still no proof or evidence or consequences of these side deals. So basically for anyone outside looking in this is entirely made up to give validators double revenue. Revenue they did not have a year ago.
The legality aspects of this proposal is being directly ignored as well which is very alarming. Some investors may even consider this a “bait and switch” since all solana value came shortly after priority burn fee was introduced.
I understand the greed and who wouldnt want to double their revenue? But in all honesty this proposal is severely lacking on all fronts and is strictly being pushed for financial gain by the same people it benefits, on top of the previous proposal that gave them all the power to vote. No proposals that have financial benefit for validators should be voted on by only validators. Especially proposals that have no evidence or data and probes absolutely nothing, just hearsay to push an agenda. This is a horrible precedence and makes solana look like nothing but a scam.
2 Likes
I agree with this completely. T-STAKE Systems also voted against this proposal. Eventhough T-STAKE Systems is currently still a low staked (not profitable) validator and the increased incetives would be very welcome, I don’t think this proposal is ready to be voted on (yet). I don’t think it’s in the best interest to Solana users to create more inflation and it’s not clear (to me atleast) how big the current issue of side deals is.
1 Like
we voted against this proposal but let’s be absolutely clear on some things:
- This proposal comes from Anza core engineers, who don’t run staked validators at all and have no financial incentive
- SOL ATH was over half a year BEFORE priority fees were ever introduced and recent rally began over half a year AFTER, so there’s no direct correlation
- The economic impact on net inflation is 0.2%
Validators being the one’s voting makes sense as stakers have delegated their SOL to them, that is why Solana uses delegated proof of stake as a consensus mechanism. The stakers should engage with their validators and inform them of their preferences (and validators should reach out to stakers as well). It is not feasible for over 1 million stake accounts to participate and participation rate would likely be extremely low as most wouldn’t vote for various reasons.
1 Like
The economic impact is still exsistant whether its 0.2% or if its 1% or whatever manipulative ways you want to try to undermine the negative impact to sound favorable. Its like a criminal stating “but i didnt steal a dollar I only stole a penny” the logic trying to downplay obvious facts to push this proposal is absolutely disgusting in nature, its quite obvious that youre missing the point bringing up with the priority fees not existing a year ago and how its like reverting a year ago when it clearly is not since validators were not receiving pririty fees a year ago. Lets not try to hide or dilute the facts here. Every example given to push this agenda has not only been baseless but stated in pure manipulation, noting specifically by you laine in calls and on social media.
Im not buying into any of the smoke and mirrors. This proposal is full of lies and deciets to enrich the only people allowed to vote. I dont care what backdoor way its claimed to become, the intentions are beyond obvious and its become beyond obvious that greedy people will do and say anything to enrich themselves at the cost of others. No one is even presenting data about these side deals that are so relevant that this proposal was created. After reading everyones thoughts and opinions ive came to the conclusion this is 100% fake and a scare tactic to backdoor more money for validators.
Me and a few other validators are voting no and if this passes we will be leaving solana ecosystem entirely, I know a few of us mean nothing to you all. But we will not stand for this absolutely abomination of a proposal that is fake and serves one purpose only and that is to enrich validators and allow future priority fee manipulation. Its absurd and shocking that with out any information, data, or evidence anyone would vote other than “no” it just proves how shady and corrupt this blockchain is being ran and manipulated by a few. We cant stand by and be silent against people like you laine that instantly came in here in support, than only after negative social media attention you changed your mind, its shows a lot about the nature of whats truly going on here.
You all cant even address the stuffing blocks to artificially raise prioroty fees which is an absolute sick joke after ORE has proven beyond a doubt how easy it is. The boutique style pf is beyond broken on solana and has never even worked. This is how Solana is being ran? By a proposal a 5 yr old can write? Cookie is good. Give me more cookie.
You all can play games and try to find ways to talk yourselves into more money, we are not that hard up for more money like people in support or abstaining on this proposal. Our morals and integrity as people are more valuable. We do not want to align with criminals or theives and this is what this proposal does precisely is prove without a doubt how bad the network currently is. Honestly write a good propisal before even voting on it, not that difficult. But again all you just see more money and thats all that matters.
On another note with you mentioning a previous ATH is another manipulative tactic that really shows your true self. Everyone knows that ATH was before the scandal, and the new ATH and current pricing is after pf were introduced in the network. You sure love to backdoor these false narratives to obfuscate the reality. Anyone can see a chart from when pf were introduced to today and follow the money inflows, no one cares about a previous ATH that came directly from the past scandal. The network was luckily revived and PF burn is a good example for this growth. As stated previously its fine we can exit the network and support another blockchain. We do not want to be part of corruption or what is what we cinsider very closely relating to theft of every solana user.
I’m not even going to argue anymore. I see how the vote is going as expected with this crazy high level centralization.
You all need to quit comparing yourselves to ethereum it’s very sad. It’s honestly not even comparable and this is from a dev that has actively participated in cat herders calls. I’m also not an eth maxi as you would want to scapegoat as our teams develop on numerous blockchains and run nodes for over a decade on multiple chains.
We only have stake validators because the gatekeeping rpc access. Our governance board has emergency voted after seeing today’s onchain vote data to pull the plug on all projects on solana and move developmental focus to other blockchains. We will be closing down all validators.
We gave solana an honest chance but our ethics and morals do not align in the slightest. Enjoy the double revenue.
Could you please elaborate on the specific aspects that you find misaligned with your ethics? From my perspective as a validator, a 0% fee seems unethical, though this largely depends on one’s viewpoint. Most validators operate as businesses nowadays, requiring substantial infrastructure, employing various engineers, and maintaining office spaces, among other expenses.
However, the trend of offering 0% fees to attract stake has become common across many chains. This often results in validators experiencing no profitability, forcing them to cover expenses from previous gains or other business ventures.
Reducing the income of validators pressures them to cut costs on infrastructure, which can inadvertently harm the network.
Here are a few examples of why incentivising validators is a healthy practice:
- A well-compensated validator is likely to invest in high-performing hardware with failover solutions, leading to significantly higher uptime and, consequently, a higher APY. This means stakers will receive more staking rewards.
- If incentivised properly, validators can afford a 24/7 on-call team and a larger workforce, which also contributes to higher uptime and reduced risks of disasters.
Overall we are not viewing this proposal as harmful to the chain in anyway, there will be no disandantage to validators not to stakers if this is accepted. As mentioned by @laine it should have a very little impact on economics - there is a much higher impact from delinquent validators, who probably run the low-spec hardware or/and can’t afford decent team; and I fully agree with that, so not sure why stakers should be concerned.
However, one aspect we are aligned on is the voting process. We would gladly support the implementation of quadratic voting instead of stake-weighted voting. Nonetheless, I believe there are challenges that currently prevent this from being adopted.
Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated here and any users engaging in such will be blocked from further posts
1 Like
I am not certain who you are addressing in this message. Where do you perceive any censorship? We, like yourself, are simply users of this forum and the Solana chain.
Additionally, I am unsure where you have observed “such” centralization. If you examine the voting results, you will see that the vote is currently leaning towards a NO, which aligns with your preference (if I understand correctly).
I did not intend to persuade you regarding the merits or drawbacks of this proposal. My aim was merely to present another perspective. There is no need to be upset, ser. Many validators are financially independent and are not concerned about these changes, regardless of whether fees are 50% burned or even 100%. I simply wanted to highlight that there are also other viewpoints to consider.
2 Likes
I too support the decision to vote against this proposal.
Despite my direct interest in receiving more as a validator right now, I believe that we need to approach such fundamental changes with more care and robust discussion.
The current proposal lacks sufficient evidence and consideration of long-term impacts on Solana’s tokenomics, and it does not address the problem in a meaningful way.
Therefore, I will be voting no.
2 Likes
The amount of effort to lie and misinform is creepy. We do not respect it one bit. There is no honor or integrity here. We saw the centralized entities here censor the forums once social media made this proposal exposed to the public.
If this so called community had any honor or integrity the proposal would have been immediately pulled due to lack of clarity, data and literally everything else. This proposal is a money grab and pure robbery. You can claim whatever you want to feel better about taking from millions of users and holders but the public looking at social media posts regarding this proposal do not agree with you one bit. The validators that went to push their agendas were shut down. You censored users and holders that came here and voiced their concerns and the validators that are suppose to represent them silenced and censored their voices. This is highly unethical and shows the true level of censorship and centralization going on here.
Again no need to respond, it’s very evident not a single one of you will post any data or evidence to anything you claim. We are not ignorant to the crypto space and you are not going to manipulate us into believing this is anything other than a scam proposal that negatively impacts the entire network. The proposal itself is clearly evident how bad things are being done on Solana.
We thought there was real developers here but apparently not. Just con artists running nodes thinking of ways to steal from millions of users and holders.
https://solscan.io/token/simd96Cuw3M5TYAkZ1d71ug4bvVHiqHhhJzsFHHQxgq#holders
Don’t try to lie when everyone can see the evidence from the above link. We know the math and how validators conned the voting structure for their total control. We are not your delgators on crypto twitter who can easily be fooled and lied to.
Maybe you all should learn to become real developers and write real proposals out before rushing some scam vote that only benefits you and negatively impacts every user. You’re all too selfish though and only think of yourselves and nothing will ever change.
Meme casino is propping up solana amd literally everyone knows it’s a degen casino and nothing more. It’s only a matter of time before you all screw it up with more God awful proposals that scream centralization and scam to everyone other than your echo chamber niche community here.
2 Likes
Grossly unfair to all involved. Enough said.
Misinformation to the max.
This is beneficial to the 1802 validators soon to be less
HURTS MILLIONS OF OTHERS.
you are all have no honor, integrity, or respect. Just greedy greedy greedy scammers and pathological liars.
1 Like
LunaNova would like to thank the proposer for their work on this issue. It is sensible to seek to align the incentives of validators with the network’s overall health and security.
Having studied the original post, listened to the views of other validators and read the forum comments the one thing stands out about this proposal is it will have an effect on the network economics. What also stands out is that there is currently no consensus on how well understood this economic effect is and whether it is acceptable!
Consequently we don’t think it makes sense to pass any proposal that modifies network economics until this has been explored more thoroughly. As such we will be voting No, but welcome revisiting this proposal once more work has been done.
2 Likes
This vote has now concluded at the end of epoch 620 with 51.17% of stake participating. The proposal has passed with a YES rate of 77.77%. Full results:
YES | 38.2500% | 140886160475599194
NO | 10.9300% | 40272078263044428
ABSTAIN | 1.9800% | 7302549409816122
YES RATE | 77.7696% | 0
NO RATE | 22.2303% | 0
CAST | 51.1700% | 188460788148459744
SUPPLY | 100.0000% | 368296676892441024
2 Likes
Absolutely! The proposal to allocate 100% of priority fees to validators seems like a solid step towards aligning incentives and enhancing network security. I’ll stay tuned for updates on the voting results and ongoing discussions in the forums.
2 Likes