Anatoly Yakovenko, co-founder of Solana, has called for another attempt to speed up SOL’s deflation process, after a new discussion on GitHub suggested improving Solana’s token through a resource-based core fee that would be fully burned. This discussion brings SOL issuance, fee burn mechanisms, and validation economics back to Solana’s management center after the failed vote on SIMD-0228 last year.
The exchange began with A mail From Solana researcher Alias Dr. Caffey, who wrote, “MSTHDA(FTFT): Get $300 Solana back (first time). Discuss.” “Do it,” Helius CEO Mert Mumtaz replied, while Yakovenko added a simple “+1.” Vibo Norby, Solana’s chief product officer and interim chief marketing officer, responded with an eyes emoji.
SIMD-0547 refocuses on Solana burn mechanics
The discussion opened on May 30 GitHub Share Written by Dr. Caffey titled “Optimizing SOL Tokens via Resource-Based Fundamental Fees.” SIMD-0457 argues that Solana’s current burn is too small to give SOL useful exposure to network activity. “Currently, SOL burning on the network is incredibly small and insignificant,” the post read. “At a throughput of 3,000 TPS, or 259M Tx/day, a base charge burn of 2,500 burns 648 SOL per day. If you isolate this to just non-voters, this will be even smaller.”
The author rejected a small increase in the overall base fee, arguing that it would hit the wrong parts of the network. Retail users and researchers often pay priority fees that are much higher than the basic signing fee, while validators and market makers send large volumes of transactions where the basic fee represents a larger share of the cost. “Therefore, directly and uniformly increasing the base fee would threaten decentralization,” the post said, citing pressure on validator profitability, and would also threaten Solana’s spot market structure by increasing the market maker’s fixed costs.
Instead, the proposal calls for a resource-based base fee that would be completely burned up. Each Solana transaction actually has a cost profile based on compute units, data loaded, write locks, and other variables. The proposed mechanism would charge and burn 0.1 Lamport per cost unit requested, with the author saying this number was chosen to avoid materially increasing costs for market makers, whose oracle updates typically require less than 2,500 cost units.
Examples of the proposal show sharply different effects depending on the type of transaction. Swapping NIS to SOL via OKX will rise from a base fee of 5,000 plus 130,980 priority fee to include 82,432 new burned base fees, an increase of 60%. SOL-to-TRANSCEND transaction via pump Without priority fees, costs would rise by 639%. USDC transaction will go up to 99% via DFlow with a huge priority fee of just 2%, while Zerofi oracle update will go up by 3%.
The draft estimated that, assuming most blocks required between 50 million to 300 million total cost units, the mechanism could burn approximately 1,080 to 6,480 soles per day, with the author’s “hunch” being closer to 2,160 soles per day. This will come on top of the current daily base fee burn of approximately 648 soles, but is still far below the estimated inflation of approximately 60,000 soles per day.
Commentators immediately focused on whether the proposed burn would be large enough to constitute significance. One response argued that the overall estimate needs more rigorous experimental support, while another provided recently requested computing unit data suggesting that current usage could put burning in the range of 1,500 to 1,800 sols per day. Another commentator warned that with Solana’s inflation rate remaining at around 3.8%, the mechanism would contract by only 0.1% at current required units and would need nearly 10 times current demand to get close to a 1% contraction, assuming demand for fees does not diminish.
SIMD-0411 revives Solana’s failed disinflation discussion
Yakovenko’s own response came after the discussion moved to “Make another model to double the rate of contraction,” Yakovenko replied. Helios CEO Mert Mumtaz responded that the ecosystem “already has” one, noting that SIMD-0411.
SIMD-0411 proposes to increase Solana’s inflation deceleration rate from 15% to 30%, and to accelerate the decline in Solana’s issuance while leaving the final inflation rate at 1.5%. Its authors represent the change as pushing Solana to final inflation in 3.1 years, around early 2029, rather than 6.2 years, around early 2032. They estimate a 22.3 million solans reduction in emissions over six years, or a supply reduction of about 3.2% compared to the current path.
The proposal was deliberately simpler than SIMD-0228, which failed in March 2025. SIMD-0228 sought to introduce a market-based emissions model linked to quota sharing, but He did not exceed the two-thirds approval threshold set by Solana. It received around 61.6% support, short of the required 66.67%, despite about 74% of the betting SOL being shared across 910 validators.
The failure was not due to indifference. He – she It reflects the division over who bears the cost of lower emissions. Supporters said Solana was overpaying for security and undermining SOL holders. Opponents, especially small validators, have warned that a sharp reduction in accrued rewards could weaken the economics of validators and put pressure on decentralization. This history now frames the new debate: Solana’s next token push may need to combine lower issuance or higher burn with a reliable answer to validator sustainability.
At press time, SOL was trading at $81.41.
Featured image created with DALL.E, a chart from TradingView.com
Editing process Bitcoinist focuses on providing well-researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We adhere to strict sourcing standards, and every page is carefully reviewed by our team of senior technology experts and experienced editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content to our readers.
