Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko has called for another attempt to accelerate SOL disinflation, after a new GitHub discussion proposed improving Solana’s tokenomics through a resource-based base fee that would be fully burned. The debate puts SOL issuance, fee burn mechanics and validator economics back at the center of Solana governance after last year’s failed SIMD-0228 vote.
The exchange began with a post from pseudonymous Solana researcher Dr Cavey phd, who wrote, “MSTHDA(FTFT): make SOL $300 again (for the first time). discuss.” Helius CEO Mert Mumtaz replied, “do it,” while Yakovenko added a simple “+1.” Vibhu Norby, Solana Foundation Chief Product Officer and Interim CMO, responded with an eyes emoji.
SIMD-0547 Puts Solana Burn Mechanics Back In Focus
The discussion was opened with a May 30 GitHub post by dr cavey phd under the title “Improving SOL tokenomics via a resource-based base fee.” The SIMD-0457 argues that Solana’s current burn is too small to give SOL meaningful exposure to network activity. “Presently, the SOL burn on the network is incredibly tiny and insignificant,” the post said. “At a throughput of 3000 TPS, or 259M Tx/day, the 2500 base fee burn results in 648 SOL burned per day. If you isolate this to only nonvotes, this is even smaller.”
The author rejected a simple across-the-board base fee increase, arguing it would hit the wrong parts of the network. Retail users and searchers often pay priority fees far above the base signature fee, while validators and market makers send high transaction volumes where the base fee is a larger share of cost. “So, increasing the base fee outright and uniformly would threaten decentralization,” the post said, citing pressure on validator profitability, and would also threaten Solana’s spot market structure by increasing market maker fixed costs.
Instead, the proposal calls for a resource-based base fee that would be entirely burned. Each Solana transaction already has a cost profile based on compute units, data loaded, write locks and other variables. The suggested mechanism would charge and burn 0.1 lamport per cost unit requested, with the author saying the figure was chosen to avoid materially increasing costs for market makers, whose oracle updates typically request fewer than 2,500 cost units.
The proposal’s examples show sharply different effects depending on transaction type. A Shekel-to-SOL swap via OKX would rise from a 5,000 base fee plus 130,980 priority fee to include an additional 82,432 new burned base fee, a 60% increase. A SOL-to-TRANSCEND transaction via Pump with no priority fee would see costs rise 639%. A USDC-to-99% transaction via DFlow with a large priority fee would rise only 2%, while a Zerofi oracle update would rise 3%.
The draft estimated that, assuming most blocks request 50 million to 300 million total cost units, the mechanism could burn roughly 1,080 to 6,480 SOL per day, with the author’s “hunch” closer to 2,160 SOL per day. That would come on top of the current roughly 648 SOL daily base-fee burn, but still sit well below estimated inflation of about 60,000 SOL per day.
Commenters immediately focused on whether the proposed burn would be large enough to matter. One reply argued the aggregate estimate needed tighter empirical support, while another provided recent requested compute-unit data suggesting current usage could put the burn in the 1,500 to 1,800 SOL per day range. Another commenter warned that, with Solana inflation still around 3.8%, the mechanism would deflate only about 0.1% at current requested units and would need roughly 10 times current demand to approach 1% deflation, assuming fee demand did not taper.
SIMD-0411 Revives Solana’s Failed Disinflation Debate
Yakovenko’s own response came after the discussion moved to X. Dr. Cavey later shared a meme saying, “I want you to improve the monetary policy of SOL,” quoting trader Ansem’s view that SOL could lead again with more breakout apps and improved monetary policy. Yakovenko replied: “Make another simd to double the disinflation rate.” Helius CEO Mert Mumtaz answered that the ecosystem “already” has one, pointing to SIMD-0411.
SIMD-0411 proposes increasing Solana’s disinflation rate from 15% to 30%, accelerating the decline in SOL issuance while leaving the terminal inflation rate at 1.5%. Its authors model the change as bringing Solana to terminal inflation in 3.1 years, around early 2029, rather than 6.2 years, around early 2032. They estimate a reduction of 22.3 million SOL in emissions over six years, or about 3.2% lower supply than under the current path.
The proposal is intentionally simpler than SIMD-0228, which failed in March 2025. SIMD-0228 sought to introduce a market-based emissions model tied to staking participation, but it did not clear Solana’s two-thirds approval threshold. It received roughly 61.6% support, short of the 66.67% required, despite participation from about 74% of staked SOL across 910 validators.
The failure was not due to indifference. It reflected a split over who bears the cost of lower emissions. Supporters said Solana was overpaying for security and diluting SOL holders. Opponents, especially smaller validators, warned that a sharp cut to staking rewards could weaken validator economics and pressure decentralization. That history now frames the new debate: Solana’s next tokenomics push may need to combine lower issuance or higher burn with a credible answer for validator sustainability.
At press time, SOL traded at $81.41.
