I love this proposal. I am not sure if this Left Curve 228 is proposed as a joke, but I think it's the best proposal out there so far.

It is extremely simple, it is predictable (one of the main criticisms on SIMD 0228), easy to understand for everyone and lowers inflation (which is the main goal for now imo). Passing this one lowers the cost of current inflation, makes room for further longer-term economic research and can still open the door for a more advanced and dynamic/market-driven proposal.

The original SIMD-0228 had a lot of moving parts and was in part scary to vote on (and easy to oppose) for that reason.

🛑 ✋

im going to say some things and i would emplore you not to allow your brain to delve into “idk bitcoin is just a fluke theres no logic behind it because vibes Solana is different we are special snowflakes”

1 - assumption that Solana is overpaying for security AGAIN, we just went through this. prove it. by how much?

2 - assumption that inflation is bad, AGAIN. prove it. Bitcoin had several order of magnitudes higher inflation, security budget. Ethereum tried exactly what we are doing, became “deflationary ultrasound money” and WENT DOWN, it is the worst performing major crypto asset.

3 - assumption that we can make changes to monetary policy and it result in good outcomes, let alone the ones we are trying to achieve. prove it.

4 - how the hell are we supposed to keep up with and meaningfully process or discuss these things if theres a new one every week

5 - have we considered that the entire reason bitcoin outperforms the greatest currency powering the greatest economy on earth despite having no consumptive utility or incentive to hoard (no staking), much higher inflation AND security budget than the US Dollar (let alone pathetic little Solana) is precisely because a committee of well-meaning autists playing central banker arent constantly fiddling with the monetary policy, isnt that kind of the entire premise of bitcoin, that these types of activities will inevitably always lead to the perpetual devaluation of a currency. why are we deluding ourselves into thinking we can play God with economics and democracy at the same time and it end well?

6 - solanas emission schedule might not be perfect but its set in motion since genesis and outperforming the US freaking dollar how about we leave it alone and continue having a valuable network

7 - we intend to have 100T in assets around the globe on Solana but want to pay $200M in security? please show your work and explain your logic

TLDR: Jerome Powell cant get it right, you expect we will? who cares what we propose nor what any of us provide as feedback, lets get over ourselves and leave Solana monetary policy ALONE. SIMD DZ: LETS AGREE TO LEAVE IT ALONE

gud

There should be a transition period of at least 2 years to gradually shift from a 15% to a 30% decrease, ensuring stability and predictability. A constant decrease over this period would help mitigate potential shocks to staking incentives and overall network security. If things start to break, adjustments can be assessed and implemented in time.

That's the way to do it. Reduces inflation; preserves predictability

This is simple and low risk.

I do think we will need a dynamic emissions model at some point though - perhaps when terminal inflation rate is reached. That way we can attempt to protect the upper and lower bounds of how much SOL is staked (more importantly the lower bound). Although preferably a model that's not highly political for no particular reason.

I agree with this proposal. Solana's current inflation rate at 4.661% annually is substantial, and reducing it by 30% every 180 epochs could effectively balance security costs while managing inflation better. This adjustment seems prudent given the dynamic nature of blockchain economics. It would be beneficial to monitor its impact closely to ensure stability and competitiveness in the long term.

In the civilized world, this is called plagiarism.

When a small validator suggests this during 228 discussions, they prefer to ignore him - like, “Bro, your peanut brain can’t comprehend why our complex formula, devised by a hired economist, is better than the current untested linear one”. I wonder why? Because they paid for it?

And now, when there wasn’t enough voting power to push through 228, other ways are being sought…

https://x.com/kdipep/status/1897722476940976183

I'm not opposed to this, and would vote yes if it was this or nothing. However, if given the option, I would prefer 15% every 90 epochs. It's less jumpy, and I think the smoother decrease would help mitigate any potential hazards. I really don't expect there to be any major issues, but if cracks do start to appear, they'll appear more slowly and can be addressed before they cause more severe damage.

We looked into the effects of doubling the disinflation rate internally at Helius around half a year ago. Some charts from back then. A little out of date now, but still might be useful to inform this discussion.

I said this before and I will say it again - I think this approach would be better because it decouples the drastic inflation drop from the migration to a dynamic market-based emissions model.

I think 228 was doing too much.

I agree with this approach, keep it dead simple. Though we were a yes on 228, we were a bit concerned about the added overhead stakers would have when contemplating where to deploy their SOL. As we develop the Sig Validator, we've found that simplicity is important to making protocols easy to understand, which in turn makes it more stable as it eliminates a lot of uncertainty be it technical or economic.

A Holistic Case Against Rapidly Reducing Solana’s Inflation

1. The Premise: Are We Really “Overpaying for Security”? Can we afford to make a major change to see if something breaks, then come back from it?

Unclear Baseline for “Enough Security.”

The belief that Solana is “overpaying” presupposes we can precisely measure how much security is required. Yet security on a proof-of-stake blockchain depends on more than just the inflation rate: validator distribution, network participation, total value at stake, and broader market conditions all matter. We lack a simple formula that says 4.661% inflation is overkill while 3% is just right. We are operating under an unfounded assumption that all inflation is bad.

Undefined Risk Mitigation May Become a One-Way Door (i.e. irreversible decision)

By reducing inflation, we could unwind a massive economic web and limit future capital inflows (e.g., new validators or participants attracted by staking yields). Are we assuming if something "breaks" and we correct it, that it will all simply come back? Over time, the absence of these early incentives might hamper the network’s ability to scale effectively.

Early Incentives Still Serve a Purpose.

Early-stage inflation was designed to jump-start validator participation, foster healthy decentralization, and build momentum, correct? How do we know "now" is the right time to undo that? We are seemingly under the assumption that the outcomes will be good and the bootstrapped aspects of the network will remain. If Solana aims to one day handle trillions of dollars in value, ensuring even more robust security and widespread validator engagement in these foundational years might even justify some level of “overpaying.”

2. Potential Downsides of an Accelerated Inflation Cut

Risks to Validator Incentives & Decentralization

• Validator Exodus or Consolidation: By reducing rewards faster, smaller or less-capitalized validators could be driven away, leaving a more centralized group of well-funded operators with even higher concentration of wealth. That undercuts the decentralized ethos—and might actually reduce security if the network ends up with fewer active validators.

• Security Budget Shortfalls: Today’s inflation helps ensure enough stake is committed. Slashing that budget prematurely risks a scenario where the cost to undermine the network falls, just as adoption is ramping up.

Negative Market and Governance Signals

• Perception of Instability: Cryptomarkets are sensitive to tokenomics changes. An abrupt or frequent overhaul of core economic parameters can appear capricious—dampening confidence among developers, institutional investors, and everyday token holders who expect predictable rules.

• Governance Fatigue: Repeated proposals to lower inflation can overwhelm the community. Instead of a productive debate on technology, adoption, and ecosystem-building, participants end up mired in repeated battles over monetary policy. That can polarize governance and lead to lower engagement over time.

Weakened Traction for Real Adoption

• Distraction from Long-Term Value Creation: Token price is a function of more than just emission rates; real utility—dApps, DeFi, NFTs, enterprise adoption—ultimately drives consumptive growth. Constantly tweaking inflation might send the message that Solana is more focused on short-term yield concerns than on building an indispensable platform.

• Potential Drop in Network Activity: If staking yields become less appealing, some participants may divert their capital elsewhere, reducing overall network usage and limiting the very innovation Solana needs to differentiate itself.

Possible Downward Spiral

• Reduced Rewards → Lower Participation: Cutting inflation abruptly could cause many to unstake, leading to fewer validators and less engaged network participants.

• Lower Participation → Lower Value: Fewer participants can mean diminished security, overshadowing any potential benefit from less dilution. If the network’s perceived health deteriorates, the token price may drop—which ironically undermines the entire rationale for cutting inflation to “protect” value, as it will then be even cheaper to attack the network.

3. The Rebuttal—and Why Caution Still Prevails

Proponents of faster inflation cuts often argue that:

• Solana has matured beyond the bootstrapping phase and no longer needs generous rewards.
• Large, professional validators can handle lower yields without leaving.
• A proactive policy shows Solana can adapt efficiently, and the market appreciates efficient cost management.
• Move fast, the change can be reversed if it truly goes awry.
• Reducing inflation in proof of stake networks is necessary because there is no difficulty adjustment as in proof of work (i.e. inflation is bad).

While these points have merit, the overarching issue is that markets and communities do not operate in a vacuum:

• Predicting Future Conditions Is Difficult. Even if, on paper, validators seem fine with a lower rate, a sudden unexpected shift in market conditions could make the reduced rewards less sustainable and then we will be in a position where we must manually intervene in monetary policy yet again.

• Decentralization at the Margins Matters. Big validators might survive, but losing smaller, diverse operators gradually centralizes the network—contradicting the long-term vision of being a widely distributed, high-throughput blockchain and reducing overall security in general (i.e., easier to bribe/coordinate).

• Governance Credibility. If Solana’s inflation model is seen as subject to constant tinkering, and relentless hacking by committee of "experts" even when other analogous proposals fail, then the trust that underpins healthy community-led governance (and thus the future economic stability of the network) erodes. Once trust is lost, it is much harder to rebuild than it is to protect from the start. This is especially true if we are continuously pushing through the analogue versions of the same exact change any time a proposal fails. Solana needs election seasons—“sorry, you lost, the network rejected this idea, regroup and try again in X years.”

• We've Never Seen a Successful Model If reducing inflation is so necessary for proof-of-stake networks, can we point to examples of cases where the community tinkered with the monetary policy via democratic governance and it resulted in excellent, measurable outcomes? If not, why are we so eager to pursue this policy ourselves?

4. What “Success” Truly Looks Like—and Why an Aggressive Approach Endangers It

Challenges to Measuring Success

“Lowering inflation” is an action, not the goal in and of itself. The desired outcomes we hope to achieve with this action remain unclear, and differ depending on who you ask—Is it to reduce dumping? Is it to force innovation and tamp down on the “welfare state”? These are not necessarily compatible with each other and could look wildly different, and that’s assuming we would be able to specifically pinpoint and measure a correlative change at all.

Thus…how do we know if this proposal succeeded, and how do we hope to achieve meaningful and adaptive governance if we cannot establish these details before making massive economic changes? These seem like essential table stakes for making changes to monetary policy:

• What exact timeframe do we allow to determine if lowering inflation was beneficial—weeks, months, or years?
• Which metrics truly define success—token price, total value staked, the distribution of stake, transaction volume, or real-world usage? Without clarity, there’s a risk of chasing ephemeral targets rather than building sustainable adoption.

Robust, Global-Scale Network Security

To secure trillions in assets, Solana must be able to maintain a high bar for security, which includes not just a high stake ratio but also a diverse set of validators scattered across different jurisdictions, hardware configurations, and economic incentives. If paying $1–2B is “too high” and we wish to reduce it even more rapidly on an ongoing basis, how do we eventually justify Solana being the best place to trade those trillions of dollars in assets?

Cutting inflation drastically before alternative revenue streams (e.g., transaction fees, MEV, advanced treasury systems) fully take hold could underfund this crucial infrastructure and make it even harder for them to hit critical mass.

Predictable, Trusted Governance

A credible blockchain economy depends on stable, transparent governance. Repeatedly revisiting fundamental tokenomics can send a message of unpredictability.

We love to move fast, but it may be paramount to implement carefully phased reductions and only when evidence supports them—after thorough vetting and broad consensus. This approach preserves both community harmony and external confidence in Solana’s blueprint.

Alignment with Long-Term Vision

Excessive focus on short-term yield or token price can obscure the bigger objective: widespread adoption and real-world usage. If inflation is cut so sharply that builders, validators, or community members lose motivation or resources, the overall ecosystem could stagnate.

Steady, well-structured evolution of inflation ensures that the community isn’t jarred by shock changes, giving time for the network’s technology, user base, and fee mechanisms to mature in parallel.

5. Concluding Perspective

Ultimately, the push to reduce Solana’s inflation more aggressively is understandable—nobody wants unnecessary dilution if the network truly doesn’t need it. But the argument against a hasty or steep cut boils down to mitigating risk in a complex and still rapidly evolving ecosystem:

Security Remains Paramount

Cutting too much too soon can hollow out the validator set or centralize it in the hands of a few major players. That’s antithetical to Solana’s mission of being robust, open, and decentralized. If we do not have a concrete quantitative answer for both “how,” “how much,” and “why now,” then we are simply not doing all we can to identify and mitigate risks.

Predictability and Trust Drive Adoption

One of the biggest draws for developers, institutions, and token holders is stability in the underlying protocol. This doesn’t simply mean “the amount being reduced under proposal XYZ is predictable.” We must consider the possibility that continual tinkering with inflation in and of itself may undercut the confidence they need to invest, build, and transact.

Longevity Over Quick Fixes

The real key to a higher token price and a thriving network is real utility—successful dApps, vibrant communities, and large-scale enterprise adoption. Adjusting inflation may yield fleeting market signals, but it doesn’t solve fundamental adoption challenges. It’s possible we are trying to use a “SIMD” to solve an adoption problem. Have we considered more robust and decentralized marketing & BD efforts?

Focus on Measured, Data-Driven Changes

If the network is indeed outgrowing the need for current emission rates, prove it systematically: gather data, set clear metrics (e.g., stable or growing stake distribution, robust validator profitability), and then gradually reduce inflation with the long-term consensus of the community. Rushing and making major changes risk severe unintended consequences that could overshadow any short-term benefits.

By taking a more cautious path, Solana can honor the broader aspirations of securing massive amounts of value, fostering truly decentralized participation, and building a stable governance foundation for the long run. Adopting a nuanced, thoroughly researched and justified, well-communicated approach to inflation ensures that every stakeholder—from validators to developers to end users—can confidently back these proposals and participate in the network’s future.

In the end, rapid changes might do more harm than good, especially if they lead to centralization, governance fatigue, or shaken trust. A balanced, incremental stance toward governance and inflation reduction stands a far better chance of preserving—and amplifying—Solana’s momentum toward becoming a global, high-throughput, and truly decentralized platform.

I like this proposal. Perhaps I am left curved. Or perhaps it goes about reducing inflation without introducing unpredictable market dynamics, which ironically markets dislike (even though said markets are the one establishing the desired rate). While I do like market-driven economics, the previous proposal did it drastically and without concern for validator economics (although reducing vote costs SIMD did come out of the debate! Good!). This proposal can achieve the terminal rate quicker, reducing inflation, and validator can be given plenty of time to figure out what their gameplan is.

I also appreciate that the proposal was literally 3 sentences. You can just do simple things.