Key Highlights
- Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko suggested that temporarily increasing SOL issuance could be more beneficial than reducing inflation.
- His proposed approach would use newly issued SOL to acquire another company, integrate its revenue into the Solana ecosystem, and subsequently buy and burn SOL.
- The proposal adds to ongoing discussions around SOL issuance, token burns, and the economics of the Solana network.
Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko has suggested that temporarily increasing SOL issuance could be more beneficial than reducing the token’s inflation rate.
In an X post on Saturday, Yakovenko proposed using newly issued SOL to acquire another company, integrate its revenue into the Solana ecosystem, and then use that revenue to buy back and burn SOL.
“The most bullish simd isn’t to lower inflation, it would be to inflate the supply, to acquire another company with sol, and integrate their revenues into a buy/burn,” he wrote.
The suggestion represents a different approach to Solana’s ongoing tokenomics debate, which has largely focused on reducing SOL emissions and increasing the amount of tokens removed from circulation.
Yakovenko’s idea differs from SOL disinflation proposals
Yakovenko’s suggestion contrasts with SIMD-0411 (Solana Improvement Document), a formal proposal focused on accelerating Solana’s existing disinflation schedule.
SIMD-0411 would increase the annual disinflation rate from –15% to –30%, doubling the pace at which inflation declines while leaving the terminal inflation rate unchanged at 1.5%.
Under the proposal’s modeling, Solana would reach the 1.5% terminal rate in 3.1 years (early 2029) instead of the current projection of 6.2 years (early 2032). The proposal estimates that the change would reduce total SOL emissions by approximately 22.3 million tokens over six years, equivalent to about $2.9 billion based on the prices used in its modeling.
The faster disinflation would also reduce nominal staking yields, with the proposal projecting yields of 5.04% in the first year, 3.48% in the second and 2.42% in the third. Its projected effect on validator profitability is relatively limited. The modeling estimates that 10 of 845 validators would move from profitable or breakeven to unprofitable in the first year, increasing to 27 in the second year and 47 in the third.
Unlike Yakovenko’s acquisition-and-burn concept, SIMD-0411 does not introduce a new use for SOL issuance. It focuses solely on accelerating the network’s existing decline in inflation.
Helius CEO questions how the plan would work
The temporary-inflation proposal also prompted a response from Helius CEO Mert Mumtaz.
Mumtaz questioned how validators could coordinate the acquisition and management of a company in a decentralized network, writing: “yeah im sure all the validators can agree on how to run a company together.”
The exchange forms part of ongoing public discussion among network participants regarding token supply management and governance structures. Yakovenko’s post was an idea rather than an announced Solana governance measure, and no formal acquisition or implementation plan was provided.
Yakovenko backs resource-based SOL burns
The latest comments follow another tokenomics discussion involving Yakovenko and SIMD-547. The proposal, published by user @cavemanloverboy, would introduce a resource-based base fee that would be fully burned.
The proposal argues that Solana’s existing burn mechanism has a limited effect on total supply despite the network processing millions of transactions.
Under the current system, about 648 SOL is burned daily through base fees, according to the proposal. SIMD-547 argues that fees could instead be tied more closely to the computational resources consumed by transactions, with the resulting base fee fully removed from circulation.
Yakovenko indicated support for the approach as a means of improving token economics while preserving the network’s low-cost transaction characteristics.
Solana’s tokenomics debate continues
The different proposals point to competing approaches to SOL’s long-term monetary policy.
However, for now, the proposal remains an idea rather than a formal change to Solana’s tokenomics. Its viability would depend on questions around governance, capital allocation, acquisition structure, and whether an acquired company could generate enough revenue to offset the additional SOL issued.
Also Read: Fake DeFiLlama App Removed After Security Test Drains Crypto Wallet
