Solana’s community is still wrestling with how to manage token emissions. It’s a bit like trying to steer a speedboat – you tweak one thing, and something else wobbles. The latest attempt to find smoother waters comes from Galaxy Research, proposing a new voting system called MESA, or Multiple Election Stake-Weight Aggregation. It’s a mouthful, admittedly, but the idea is simple enough: instead of a straight yes or no, validators can express *how much* they want to deflate the SOL token supply.
- Galaxy Research proposes MESA, a new voting system for Solana that allows validators to express the degree to which they want to deflate the SOL token supply, moving beyond simple yes/no votes.
- MESA aims to provide a more nuanced approach to deflation, allowing validators to indicate their comfort level with different deflation rates, but some worry about potential gaming of the system.
- Anatoly Yakovenko suggests using the median stake-weighted vote instead of a weighted average to mitigate the impact of extreme values and find a more stable, representative outcome.
The previous vote, SIMD-228, was a bit of a mess. Record turnout, lots of passion, but ultimately, no agreement. It felt like everyone agreed something needed to change with inflation, but nobody could agree *on* what that change should be. Galaxy’s proposal aims to fix that. Think of it like ordering pizza – instead of just saying “yes, pizza” or “no, pizza,” you get to specify toppings, crust thickness, and even how many slices you want. It’s about nuance, and recognizing that not everyone sees things the same way.
A Different Approach to Deflation
MESA doesn’t mess with the existing disinflationary curve, which already reduces SOL’s inflation rate by 15% annually, aiming for a target of 1.5%. Currently, Solana’s inflation sits at 4.6%, with about 64.7% of the total supply staked. This is important. MESA isn’t about a radical overhaul; it’s about fine-tuning. It’s about letting validators say, “Okay, I’m comfortable with a slightly steeper deflation rate, but not *that* steep.” It’s a more granular approach, and potentially, a more effective one.
But not everyone is thrilled. Max Resnick, lead economist at Anza, worries MESA could create a voting headache. He asks a fair question: if you want a 25% deflation rate, how do you vote to actually *get* that? The risk, he points out, is that people will game the system, voting for extreme options to pull the average in their preferred direction. It’s a bit like a tug-of-war where everyone tries to anticipate the other side’s moves. Resnick still favors a dynamic, market-based approach like SIMD-228, arguing it’s more secure in bad times and less costly in good times. A static curve, he suggests, feels…well, static.
Anatoly Yakovenko, Solana Labs co-founder, offered a simpler tweak: use the median stake-weighted vote instead of a weighted average. It’s a subtle difference, but potentially significant. The median, after all, is less susceptible to being skewed by extreme values. It’s a bit like finding the middle ground – a more stable and representative outcome.
The core issue, as Resnick points out, isn’t necessarily the voting mechanism itself, but the fact that yes/no votes force people into opposing camps. It turns a discussion about optimal tokenomics into a battle for “winning.” And nobody wins in a battle, especially not Solana. A broader range of options, even with its own potential complications, might just be the key to unlocking a more productive conversation. It’s a reminder that sometimes, the best solution isn’t about finding the *right* answer, but about finding a way to talk about the question without shouting.
Picking median stake weighted instead of weighted average. https://t.co/wJq9wJqJ9w
https://twitter.com/solanafoundation/status/1912934258534171048
