Solana（Sol）證明其治理模型可以適應變化。 MESA提案提供縮放率選項的範圍

索拉納（Solana）升至前十名的加密貨幣是由其速度，開發人員活動以及不斷增長的Defi和NFT生態系統驅動的。但是它的旅程並非沒有顛簸。網絡中斷，與通貨膨脹有關的治理辯論

Solana’s (SOL) journey to a top-10 cryptocurrency has been driven by its speed, developer activity, and growing DeFi and NFT ecosystems. But its travels haven’t been without bumps in the road.

Solana（SOL）進入前十名加密貨幣的旅程是由其速度，開發人員活動以及不斷增長的Defi和NFT生態系統驅動的。但是它的旅行並沒有在路上沒有顛簸。

Earlier this year, a massive vote to decrease Solana’s inflation ultimately failed to meet the approval threshold despite a record-breaking turnout. Now, Galaxy Digital is proposing an alternative: a new voting mechanism called Multiple Election Stake-Weight Aggregation (MESA).

今年早些時候，儘管有創紀錄的投票率，但降低索拉納通貨膨脹率的大規模投票最終未能達到批准門檻。現在，Galaxy Digital提出了一種替代方案：一種稱為多次選舉股份重點（MESA）的新投票機制。

Instead of voting on a single inflation rate, validators could select from a spectrum of options, including 15%, 17.5%, 20%, with the network adopting the weighted average of all votes cast.

驗證者可以從一系列選項中選擇，包括15％，17.5％，20％，而不是對單個通貨膨脹率進行投票，而網絡採用所有投票的加權平均值。

“Sometimes, the questions facing communities involve ranges of acceptable outcomes, not simply binary choices,” said Alex Thorn, Head of Firmwide Research at Galaxy Digital in a statement. “Where possible, the MESA approach may bring more efficiency, transparency, and democracy to proof-of-stake protocol governance.”

“有時候，社區面臨的問題涉及可接受的結果，而不僅僅是二進制選擇，” Galaxy Digital在一份聲明中的牢固研究負責人亞歷克斯·索恩（Alex Thorn）說。 “在可能的情況下，MESA方法可能會為驗證協議治理帶來更高的效率，透明度和民主。”

To better understand what MESA means for Solana’s tokenomics, governance structure, and network sustainability, Galaxy research analyst Zack Pokorny shared his perspectives in the following Q&A.

為了更好地了解MESA對Solana的令牌，治理結構和網絡可持續性的意義，Galaxy Research分析師Zack Pokorny在以下問答中分享了他的觀點。

crypto.news: In the context of Solana, what is the primary difference between this proposal and SIMD-228? To help me understand better, could you elaborate on the key differences in terms of how inflation rates and emission curves are structured in both proposals? Specifically, how do the mechanisms for adjusting these rates differ between the two, and what impact might those differences have on Solana’s long-term governance and network security? Additionally, what role does community input play in each, and how might that affect the predictability of the network’s economic model?

crypto.news：在Solana的背景下，該提案與SIMD-228之間的主要區別是什麼？為了幫助我更好地理解，您能否詳細說明在這兩個建議中構成通貨膨脹率和排放曲線的主要差異？具體而言，調整這些速率的機制在兩者之間有何不同？這些差異對Solana的長期治理和網絡安全有何影響？此外，社區輸入在每個角色中都發揮了什麼作用，這將如何影響網絡經濟模型的可預測性？

Zack Pokorny: In the aftermath of SIMD-228, it was clear that the community broadly agreed on the proposal’s intention of reducing SOL inflation, but disagreed on the parameters of the change – for example, the amount of inflation at each stake rate – as these factors impact everyone on the network differently. As a result, there could theoretically be an infinite number of desirable parameter combinations. The current governance framework of YES / NO / ABSTAIN is not conducive to the network reaching agreement on a change in this setting – at least efficiently – as it only lets voters completely agree with the change, disagree with the change (which can stem from even a micro detail of the proposal), or take no stance. Instead, MESA offers a way for all voters to disagree on the precise details of a proposal, while agreeing on its broad intention as everyone’s opinion is baked into the outcome.

Zack Pokorny：在SIMD-228之後，很明顯，社區廣泛同意該提案減少SOL通貨膨脹的意圖，但不同意變化的參數，例如，這些因素在每個款項上的通貨膨脹率都對網絡上的每個人的影響都不同。結果，從理論上講，可能存在無限數量的理想參數組合。是 /否 /棄權的當前治理框架不利於在這種情況下達成變更的網絡達成共識，至少可以有效地有效，因為它只能使選民完全同意變更，不同意變化（這甚至可能源於提案的微觀細節），或不採取任何立場。取而代之的是，MESA為所有選民提供了一種方式，可以在提案的確切細節上不同意，同時同意其廣泛意圖，因為每個人的意見都融入了結果。

crypto.news: How would this proposal maintain predictability in network governance while accommodating diverse validator preferences? Specifically, could you explain how the voting mechanism allows for flexibility, yet ensures stability and consistency in decision-making? In addition, how does the proposal balance the influence of validators with varying levels of stake, and what safeguards are in place to prevent governance fragmentation or instability? Lastly, how might this flexible system adapt to changes in the network over time, and what impact could it have on long-term sustainability and security?

Crypto.news：該提案如何在適應各種驗證者偏好的同時保持網絡治理的可預測性？具體來說，您能解釋一下投票機制如何允許靈活性，但可以確保決策的穩定性和一致性？此外，該提案如何平衡具有不同股份水平的驗證者的影響，以及可以防止治理分裂或不穩定的哪些保障？最後，這種靈活的系統如何隨著時間的推移而適應網絡的變化，以及它對長期可持續性和安全性有什麼影響？

ZP: In plain terms, MESA is an alternative approach to reaching outcomes in governance. How it changes SOL: not all governance decisions are black and white – MESA allows for a spectrum of opinions to be expressed, all contributing to consensus around a shared goal.

ZP：從簡單的角度來看，MESA是達到治理結果的另一種方法。它如何改變溶膠：並非所有的治理決策都是黑白的 - 梅薩允許表達一系列意見，所有這些都圍繞著共同的目標達成共識。

crypto.news: What is the significance of using a spectrum of deflation rates (e.g., YES-15%, YES-17.5%, YES-20%) in the voting system? Specifically, how does this approach allow validators to express their preferences more flexibly compared to a single, fixed inflation rate?

Crypto.news：在投票系統中使用一系列通縮率（例如，是15％，是17.5％，YES-20％）的意義是什麼？具體而言，與單個固定通貨膨脹率相比，這種方法如何使驗證者更靈活地表達其偏好？

How does offering multiple options for deflation rates help balance the needs for network security, inflation control, and validator incentives? Could it help mitigate potential risks or conflicts that might arise if only one rate was proposed?

提供多種選擇率的多種選擇有助於平衡網絡安全，通貨膨脹控制和驗證者激勵措施的需求？如果僅提出一個率，它是否可以幫助減輕可能出現的潛在風險或衝突？

ZP: This is entirely up to the community, and there is no predetermined path or timeline for any governance proposal.

ZP：這完全取決於社區，並且沒有任何治理建議的預定路徑或時間表。