Solana Voters Back Supply Cut as SOL Burn Plan Trails

Solana’s first onchain governance votes are testing two plans to slow growth in the supply of SOL. A proposal to accelerate the annual reduction in new token issuance has 68.77% support, narrowly above the two-thirds threshold, while a separate fee-burn proposal has 62.72% support and is falling short. The constitution proposal is passing easily with 95.35% support and 0.22% opposition.

The burn measure would increase daily SOL destroyed through transaction fees from roughly 650 to an estimated 7,500–9,000 SOL. At prices cited this week, the upper end is worth about $800,000 per day, but that remains well below the roughly 60,000 SOL Solana currently creates each day to reward network operators.

Why it matters

The issuance proposal would reduce the rate at which new SOL is created by 30% each year instead of 15%, bringing the minimum annual issuance rate of 1.5% forward to around 2029 from 2032. Over six years, that change could result in roughly 18.9 million fewer SOL being created, reducing dilution for existing holders if implemented.

The votes establish Solana’s first formal onchain process for major network decisions. Operators and stakers can participate, with votes weighted by stake. A proposal needs one-third of network stake to participate and two-thirds of participating stake to approve. Abstentions count toward quorum but not approval, making the large 20.75% abstention share on the burn proposal a central obstacle.

Solana Company, the Nasdaq-listed SOL treasury firm trading as HSDT, said it backed the constitution but opposed the supply proposals, arguing that institutions need predictable economic rules for multi-year planning. All three votes have cleared quorum, but an approved proposal would only mandate further technical work. The required changes would still need to be written and implemented separately.

Market impact

The immediate signal is mixed. Narrow passage of the issuance measure shows support for slowing dilution, but the burn proposal’s 62.72% result indicates that a materially more aggressive fee mechanism lacks sufficient backing.