RWA Hunter

disappointing but not unexpected, Solana users should pay attention certain Solana "stakeholders" have the incentive to "make" money by diluting SOL holders via printing tokens it is of course a false argument and contradicts itself: i) the model assumes away the entire question he fixes solana’s market cap at $100, shows that issuance transfers ownership from non-stakers to stakers and then concludes that more issuance makes stakers richer but fixing market cap assumes that issuance has zero effect on SOL’s aggregate valuation -- the exact question being debated you cannot prove that higher issuance maximizes wealth by assuming away its possible effect on wealth and “non-stakers don’t lose value; they transfer it” is semantics. in his own example, their holdings fall from $40 to $38.10. a clear loss. he later says crypto prices are driven by speculation and narrative, making the contradiction even clearer: it freezes valuation when defending issuance, then invokes variable valuation when dismissing lower issuance “inflation declined while price declined” is not a counterfactual either. price could simply have declined even more under higher issuance. if the arguments here were true, then the rational thing would be to put Solana at 100% inflation lol ii) even granting every assumption, his universal conclusion is mathematically false! using SGP-0002’s official supply paths and its 68% staking assumption --and generously assuming that the same original staked cohort captures every additional emitted SOL, that cohort ends with: - 72.395% of supply under the current curve - 71.659% under double disinflation that is only a 1.03% relative ownership advantage from preserving the current curve thus, if avoiding 18.9 million additional SOL improves Solana’s aggregate valuation by more than roughly 1.03% over six years, voting yes makes even that staked cohort wealthier! his claim that every rational staker must vote no is therefore mathematically incoherent a "rational" staker doesn't maximize the number of tokens but what those tokens are worth. if you disagree, feel free to move to venezuela iii) his definition of a “rational stakeholder” is backwards and we shouldn't rake users Solana is not secured so stake accounts can earn emissions stake accounts are compensated so that a useful network can be secured SOL actively used for transactions, payments, collateral, liquidity, trading inventory and protocol operations cannot simultaneously be native-staked LSTs somewhat mitigate this trade-off, but they do not erase it: they are not universally interchangeable with native SOL and introduce additional integration and liquidity risks these users generate the transactions, fees, MEV and demand that make SOL -- and therefore its stake -- valuable in the first place without them, there is nothing economically valuable left to secure. so how is taking advantage of them rational? stakers themselves also benefit from security because it protects the value of their stake. they are not external contractors providing a service exclusively to non-stakers iv) the “no leaky bucket” section is factually wrong under current US tax rules under current IRS guidance, cash-method US taxpayers include staking rewards in gross income at FMV when they gain dominion and control the IRS does not subtract the portion of those rewards that merely compensates the holder for dilution higher nominal issuance can therefore produce a larger tax liability even when much of the apparent “income” is only maintaining the staker’s ownership share v) SGP-0003 is complementary, not an alternative burning a new resource fee paid by users does not answer whether the protocol should also issue 18.9 million additional SOL to subsidize stakers in fact, “increase genuine fee revenue and reduce unnecessary issuance” is precisely the coherent position vi) SIMD-123 does not increase Solana’s network revenue lol, it allows validators to share existing block revenue with delegators, it changes the distribution of the numerator rather than increasing it so many completely incorrect claims vii) finally, both inflation schedules end at the exact same 1.5% terminal rate anyway! if 1.5% inflation is ultimately insufficient to secure Solana, then the current schedule eventually reaches the exact same supposedly insufficient endpoint. the argument against SGP-0002 would therefore have to be about the transition speed, not some need to preserve higher inflation to earn more tax some validators may rationally prefer a few more years of commission income. they are free to make that short-term argument. but dressing a preference for extracting more value from users as economic rationality is not only unserious it is mathematically and logically incoherent a rational staker maximizes wealth not token count. and a rational stakeholder maximizes long-term value and the activity of the network it secures not the amount to tax its users vote yes on speeding up disinflation and let's bring Solana back