Why did the Solana community’s SIMD-0228 proposal fail?

The Solana Community SIMD-0228 proposal was not passed because community members have different views on the existing staking model. Some members believe that although the current fixed-rate pledge model is simple and stable, it can give participants clear expectations, and rash adjustments may destroy the ecological balance. In their eyes, the high uncertainty of the dynamic market mechanism will make it difficult for pledgers to plan, leading to withdrawal of funds and affecting network security.

Concerns about the potential risks of the new proposal are also critical. Link the inflation rate to the pledge participation rate. Once the pledge rate fluctuates significantly, the inflation rate will also change drastically. This may cause token prices to be unstable and even disrupt the entire ecosystem. Many members were afraid of this uncontrollable risk and were unwilling to try new mechanisms easily, so they voted against it.

There is also controversy within the community about the timing of adjusting the token issuance model. Some members feel that Solana is in a critical period of development and should first focus on solving problems such as performance optimization and security vulnerabilities. It is too risky to change monetary policy at this time. They are worried that after the new proposal is implemented, they will not be able to see positive results immediately, and instead disperse community resources.

Some members have doubts about whether the new mechanism can achieve its expected goals. Although the proposal aims to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the network economy, from past experience, complex economic models may not be able to operate as expected. The members were afraid of investing a lot of energy to implement the new proposal, but in the end they were in vain, so they were reserved for it.

The different interests of all parties in the Solana ecosystem have also affected the direction of the proposal. Pledgeors, developers, and ordinary investors have their own considerations. Pledgee is worried that profits will be damaged, developers are worried that new mechanisms will increase the difficulty of development, and ordinary investors are afraid that market volatility will intensify. The difficulty in coordinating interests makes it difficult for proposals to gain widespread support.

At the technical level, the difficulty of implementing the new mechanism has also discouraged some members. To achieve a dynamic inflation model linked to the staking participation rate, a large number of modifications are required to the underlying code of the blockchain, which involves complex technical difficulties. Many members are worried that there will be loopholes in the process of technology implementation, which will affect network stability, so they choose to object.

Poor information dissemination and communication are also factors that fail to pass the proposal. During the voting process, some members did not fully understand the details of the proposal and had a vague understanding of its advantages and potential risks. The community failed to effectively convey the core content of the proposal, resulting in some members voting against it based on conservative psychology due to insufficient information.

In the Solana ecosystem, some influential nodes and institutions have reservations about proposals, which to some extent influences the decisions of other members. The attitudes of these nodes and institutions have made many followers doubt the proposal, which has led to an increase in opposition votes.

In addition, uncertainty in the external market environment also interferes with members' judgments. The cryptocurrency market is volatile and members tend to be more conservative when facing internal proposals. They are afraid of the changes brought about by the new proposals and will cause greater risks in an unstable market environment, so they choose to maintain the status quo.

Different members have a biased understanding of Solana's future development direction. Members supporting the proposal believe that the dynamic mechanism is in line with future trends, while opponents feel that the current model is more in line with Solana's development pace. This disagreement of ideas made it difficult for the proposal to obtain sufficient support and ultimately failed to pass.