Solana（Sol）证明其治理模型可以适应变化。 MESA提案提供缩放率选项的范围

索拉纳（Solana）升至前十名的加密货币是由其速度，开发人员活动以及不断增长的Defi和NFT生态系统驱动的。但是它的旅程并非没有颠簸。网络中断，与通货膨胀有关的治理辩论

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）进入前十名加密货币的旅程是由其速度，开发人员活动以及不断增长的Defi和NFT生态系统驱动的。但是它的旅行并没有在路上没有颠簸。

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).

今年早些时候，尽管有创纪录的投票率，但降低索拉纳通货膨胀率的大规模投票最终未能达到批准门槛。现在，Galaxy Digital提出了一种替代方案：一种称为多次选举股份重点（MESA）的新投票机制。

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.

验证者可以从一系列选项中选择，包括15％，17.5％，20％，而不是对单个通货膨胀率进行投票，而网络采用所有投票的加权平均值。

“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.”

“有时候，社区面临的问题涉及可接受的结果，而不仅仅是二进制选择，” Galaxy Digital在一份声明中的牢固研究负责人亚历克斯·索恩（Alex Thorn）说。 “在可能的情况下，MESA方法可能会为验证协议治理带来更高的效率，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.

为了更好地了解MESA对Solana的令牌，治理结构和网络可持续性的意义，Galaxy Research分析师Zack Pokorny在以下问答中分享了他的观点。

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，该提案与SIMD-228之间的主要区别是什么？为了帮助我更好地理解，您能否详细说明在这两个建议中构成通货膨胀率和排放曲线的主要差异？具体而言，调整这些速率的机制在两者之间有何不同？这些差异对Solana的长期治理和网络安全有何影响？此外，社区输入在每个角色中都发挥了什么作用，这将如何影响网络经济模型的可预测性？

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之后，很明显，社区广泛同意该提案减少SOL通货膨胀的意图，但不同意变化的参数，例如，这些因素在每个款项上的通货膨胀率都对网络上的每个人的影响都不同。结果，从理论上讲，可能存在无限数量的理想参数组合。是 /否 /弃权的当前治理框架不利于在这种情况下达成变更的网络达成共识，至少可以有效地有效，因为它只能使选民完全同意变更，不同意变化（这甚至可能源于提案的微观细节），或不采取任何立场。取而代之的是，MESA为所有选民提供了一种方式，可以在提案的确切细节上不同意，同时同意其广泛意图，因为每个人的意见都融入了结果。

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：该提案如何在适应各种验证者偏好的同时保持网络治理的可预测性？具体来说，您能解释一下投票机制如何允许灵活性，但可以确保决策的稳定性和一致性？此外，该提案如何平衡具有不同股份水平的验证者的影响，以及可以防止治理分裂或不稳定的哪些保障？最后，这种灵活的系统如何随着时间的推移而适应网络的变化，以及它对长期可持续性和安全性有什么影响？

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：从简单的角度来看，MESA是达到治理结果的另一种方法。它如何改变溶胶：并非所有的治理决策都是黑白的 - 梅萨允许表达一系列意见，所有这些都围绕着共同的目标达成共识。

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：在投票系统中使用一系列通缩率（例如，是15％，是17.5％，YES-20％）的意义是什么？具体而言，与单个固定通货膨胀率相比，这种方法如何使验证者更灵活地表达其偏好？

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?

提供多种选择率的多种选择有助于平衡网络安全，通货膨胀控制和验证者激励措施的需求？如果仅提出一个率，它是否可以帮助减轻可能出现的潜在风险或冲突？

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

ZP：这完全取决于社区，并且没有任何治理建议的预定路径或时间表。