Solana Vote Approves 100% Priority Fee Allocation to Validators

solana

Solana has passed a proposal known as SIMD-0096, allowing 100% of priority fees to be allocated to network validators. This decision marks a departure from the previous model, where fees were split 50/50 between being burned and rewarding validators.

Solana Approves 100% Priority Fee Allocation

The latest voting has ended with the result of 77% of votes for the proposal, which shows the support from the side of validators. This change is intended to increase the rewards for validators, which are the nodes responsible for the network’s reliability and performance.

In a statement made by Solana Labs Co-Founder, Anatoly Yakovenko, this update could enable stake pools with programmatically frozen tokens to be able to obtain all the tips and priority fees.

For now, it will take several months to adopt this new allocation model as it is not available in the current version of Solana’s Mainnet-Beta software. Subsequent releases, such as 1.17 and 1.18, should include this feature as well as other enhancements such as the SIMD-0123 proposal to further optimize block reward distribution.

As a result, this delay creates a window in which the fee distribution system can be further developed and integrated as proposed in the SIMD-0123.

Community Response and Implications

Priority fees in the Solana network are charged by users that want their transactions to be processed faster, especially during the rush hours. In this way, validators prioritize these transactions to guarantee the proper functioning of the network. 

Prior to this, 50% of these fees were burned, which some deemed as having a deflationary impact on the Solana token (SOL). All priority fees will go to the validators under the new model, which could increase their revenue but at the same time may also raise concerns over more tokens being created and resulting in inflation.

Therefore, the decision has elicited divergent reactions within the Solana community. Some members and validators have raised concerns over inflationary pressures that may result from the transition from burning fees to rewarding them in their entirety to validators.

A validator, Stakewiz, has voiced his opinion regarding the problem of Solana token expansion and its connection with inflation, predicting a 4.6% boost. They have emphasized that the activation should be gradual, and the activation of SIMD-0096 should be done simultaneously with the activation of SIMD-0123 to avoid any adverse financial effects.

On the other hand, there are those in the community who support the change, saying that it will do away with off-chain side deals that are hard to follow, and will make the fee structure more transparent and fair.

Solana Price Trend

Amid this development, the Solana (SOL) price has seen a bullish shift with the price exchanging hands at $170.53, a 5.56% surge from the intra-day low.

Concurrently, SOL’s market capitalization and 24-hour trading volume surged by 5.59% and 9.47% to $76,662,006,334 and $2,633,171,068, respectively.

Read Also: Top 4 Altcoins To Buy As Bitcoin Price Prepares For $100,000 Bull

The post Solana Vote Approves 100% Priority Fee Allocation to Validators appeared first on CoinGape.


Earn more PRC tokens by sharing this post. Copy and paste the URL below and share to friends, when they click and visit Parrot Coin website you earn: https://parrotcoin.net0


PRC Comment Policy

Your comments MUST BE constructive with vivid and clear suggestion relating to the post.

Your comments MUST NOT be less than 5 words.

Do NOT in any way copy/duplicate or transmit another members comment and paste to earn. Members who indulge themselves copying and duplicating comments, their earnings would be wiped out totally as a warning and Account deactivated if the user continue the act.

Parrot Coin does not pay for exclamatory comments Such as hahaha, nice one, wow, congrats, lmao, lol, etc are strictly forbidden and disallowed. Kindly adhere to this rule.

Constructive REPLY to comments is allowed

Leave a Reply