Evaluate Solana's new proposal SIMD-0228, what does it mean for SOL validators?
Original Author: David Grid, Partner at FinalityCap
Original Translation: zhouzhou, BlockBeats
Editor's Note: This article discusses the impact of Solana's SIMD-0228 proposal on validator profitability. It estimates the number of Solana validators and their profitability in different scenarios, including changes in inflation, fees, MEV, and other factors. The model also analyzes validator profitability and suggests that Solana could lose a significant number of validators if income decreases.
The following is the original content (reorganized for better readability):
The solana SIMD-0228 has sparked a lot of discussion, but I haven't seen much data on its impact, so I built a model.
After the implementation of SIMD-0228, Solana could lose an additional 50 to 250 validators under different revenue adjustment scenarios.


But first, why did I build this model? Because I believe the direction of this proposal is right, but I am very concerned that supporters pushing it forward may think that data is irrelevant.

Here is the link to the model. There is no single correct answer here, and I believe many aspects can be improved, and the assumptions can be further scrutinized. But this is a starting point, and I welcome community feedback.

What is the goal of this model?
It aims to estimate the number of validators that can remain profitable in various Solana fee/price decline scenarios under the current and proposed SIMD-0228 inflation rates.
The model starts from the current staking and FDV supply, using the current staking reward rate and the reward rate provided by the SIMD-0228 calculator. Anyone can replicate this model and adjust the staking rate for stress testing.
Next, it analyzed the assumption of network fees. I used the 2024 actual fees provided by Blockworks as a starting point and adjusted it down by 20%, 50%, and 80% respectively (voting fees remained unchanged). The model then calculated the burned portion to derive the final validator fee.

The staking distribution data is from Solana Beach, and the model takes the average stake amount in each validator ranking range, assuming that the distribution remains unchanged in all scenarios. However, I believe that under SIMD-0228, staking may become more concentrated.
Then, the model uses the average stake share to estimate the typical validator's SOL fee and inflation reward within that range.

Subsequently, the model analyzed validators within each range with actual non-0% and non-100% commission rates (validators with 100% commission may be private validators) to estimate the optimistic scenario impact of SIMD-0228. It assumes that validators receive commissions from delegators through the following three aspects:
1. Inflation Reward: The model uses the actual average commission per validator group provided by Solana Beach (excluding validators with 0% or 100% commission).
2. Transaction Fees (Voting Fee, Base Fee, Priority Fee): The model assumes 100% goes to the validator.
3. Jito MEV Tips: The model assumes that validators receive 10% of MEV profits.
Are these data completely accurate? No. But they are based on discussions with validators. I highly welcome further community feedback.
One more thing to note: The reduction in the inflation rate by SIMD-0228 may indirectly affect fee allocation. After the inflation reduction, delegators may further compress validator fees and MEV profit shares to compensate for the revenue decrease. Therefore, I believe that validator profitability may have more downside risk than shown in the model.

The commission rate directly affects the SOL income that validator operators receive from various sources (inflation rewards, transaction fees, MEV).

Next, the model takes various SOL price (USD) assumptions and, using the same fee scenario as before, calculates the USD value of the validator's income from various sources. Please note the data at the bottom, where the change in the percentage of inflation rewards in total income is compared between the current inflation curve and SIMD-0228. This illustrates how the importance of inflation is heightened under different scenarios.

Next, the model estimates the annual cost of running a Solana validator to be approximately $85,000.
The fixed cost comes from the validator's infrastructure, with them running two servers along with bandwidth, resulting in monthly costs between $1,500 and $2,000. The model also estimates the variable voting cost based on different SOL prices and current transaction fees.
Currently, the community is discussing adjusting the voting fee to help reduce costs for small validators. You can adjust different levels of the voting fee in the model to observe its impact.

Then, the model derives the average validator profitability segmented by tier. What does the data tell us?
· The smallest 250 validators are still not profitable but remain online, which may be related to the Solana Foundation's delegation program.
· At the current price and fee levels, validators in the 751-1000 tier may no longer be profitable under SIMD-0228.
· If income decreases by 20%, under SIMD-0228, the Solana network could lose an additional 250 validators (validators in the 501-750 tier), who should have been profitable under other circumstances.
· Similarly, validators in the 501-750 tier may continue to remain profitable/online under the current model until their income drops by -50%.
· In the scenario where income drops by 80%, only the top 250 validator tier of Solana may remain profitable under SIMD-0228, while the top 500 validators may still be profitable if inflation remains unchanged.

The model analyzed the network's potential validator count under optimistic and pessimistic scenarios by validating profitability level.
· The pessimistic scenario assumes all non-profitable validators leave the network.
· The optimistic scenario assumes only validators with non 0% and 100% commission leave the network.

How Many Validators Should Solana Have?
I don't know the answer. This question is left for the community to decide. I hope this model can help everyone think about SIMD-0228's impact through data rather than intuition.
What Is My Opinion on SIMD-0228?
Right now, I might be neutral. I was previously against it mainly because I felt that not enough analysis had been done to understand its impact. What could make me support it?
Lowering voting fees before implementing SIMD-0228
Adding an adjustment factor targeting not only the staking rate but also the validator count
You may also like

Morning Report | BitMine increased its holdings by 126,971 ETH last week; trader Eugene announced his exit from the crypto market

Wang Chuan: How can one not feel anxious after the neighbor Old Wang made thirty times profit by investing in storage stocks? (Seven) - A quarter-century cycle

Cryptocurrency CEXs are flocking to sell US stocks, and traditional brokerages are facing an "uninvited guest."

$75 billion in foreign capital has fled, and South Korean retail investors have absorbed it all using leverage

Japan’s Three Megabanks Plan Joint Stablecoin Issuance in Fiscal 2026
MUFG, SMBC, and Mizuho reportedly plan to jointly issue fiat-pegged stablecoins in fiscal 2026, signaling Japan’s growing push into bank-led digital payment infrastructure.

Humanity Discloses H Token Dual-Chain Attack Details, With Losses on Ethereum and BSC Exceeding $36 Million
Humanity said the H token attack across Ethereum and BSC caused more than $36 million in losses after leaked ProxyAdmin keys enabled malicious contract upgrades and token minting.

White House Discusses CLARITY Act With Law Enforcement Ahead of Senate Vote
The White House discussed the CLARITY Act with law enforcement ahead of a Senate vote, focusing on illicit finance risks and developer protections.

Bitcoin Trading Guide 2026: Strategies for Experienced Traders

What Is XAUT and PAXG? Why Tokenized Gold Is Booming in 2026

Will the SpaceX IPO Hurt Bitcoin? Here's What Traders Are Watching

Foreign selling in the South Korean stock market accelerates, with cumulative net sales reportedly reaching $75 billion this year
On June 9, The Kobeissi Letter, citing Goldman Sachs data, reported that global investors are selling South Korean stocks at an unusually rapid pace. In the latest trading session, foreign investors sold about $801 million worth of Kospi constituent stocks again; total foreign outflows last week reached about $10 billion, and the market has been in net foreign selling on nearly every trading day over the past month. According to the data cited in the report, foreign investors have sold about $75 billion worth of South Korean stocks so far this year. Meanwhile, South Korean retail and institutional investors together recorded roughly $69 billion in net buying over the same period, suggesting that the market’s main buying support has come from domestic capital rather than returning overseas funds. The information currently disclosed still mainly comes from The Kobeissi Letter’s retelling and Goldman Sachs data summaries, while public details on the statistical period and the specific definition of “selling” remain relatively limited.

Fortune Warns of Strategy’s Financing Structure Risks as Bitcoin Premium Narrows
Fortune warned that Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury model faces growing financing risks as MSTR’s net asset premium narrows and preferred stock dividend pressure increases.

Ferrari Challenge Le Mans: Carl Moon to Dominate in WEEX Livery

Sahara AI Responds to SAHARA’s Sharp Drop: No Contract or Product Security Issues Found, Internal Investigation Underway
Sahara AI responded to SAHARA’s 60% price drop, saying no token contract or product security issues have been found and an internal investigation is underway.

WEEX Deposit/Withdrawal Dynamic Island: Your Asset Status, Always in Sight

Scaling Crypto Derivatives: The Digital Asset Infrastructure Behind High-Volume Trading
In the fast-moving digital asset ecosystem, derivatives platforms face an extreme architectural test. High-leverage futures markets demand more than just standard security—they require absolute operational precision, zero-latency matching engines, and ironclad structural scalability, all while navigating intense market volatility.
As global platforms scale to meet these demands, the industry is shifting away from rigid, monolithic setups toward a more agile, "decoupled" infrastructure philosophy.
The Blueprint for High-Volume Copy TradingFor elite global exchanges like WEEX (founded in 2018), this architectural choice becomes critical when scaling high-volume retail features like social copy trading. When thousands of users automatically mirror the real-time strategies of elite traders simultaneously, it triggers sudden, monumental spikes in concurrent transactional volume.
To prevent execution latency or settlement bottlenecks during these peak volatility events, a platform's primary engine must remain entirely dedicated to risk management, copy-trade synchronization, and order matching.
The Architectural Rule: New-generation platforms must separate front-end user execution engines from heavy backend infrastructural overhead to eliminate operational friction.
By separating these layers, platforms can maintain complete sovereignty over their trading environments and user experiences while strategically aligning with institutional-grade infrastructure ecosystems. This strategic framework allows modern exchanges to leverage advanced Digital Asset Custody infrastructure such as Cobo’s behind the scenes, ensuring that backend wallet management scales elastically alongside trading spikes.
Capitalizing on Market Momentum and 400× LeverageIn a derivatives arena where platforms offer up to 400× leverage on perpetual contracts, capital efficiency and market agility are core business metrics. To capture market momentum, an exchange needs the ability to rapidly expand its asset offerings, supporting everything from legacy crypto assets to sudden, trending altcoins across a massive library of trading pairs.
Adopting a flexible, scalable Wallet-as-a-Service (WaaS) solution such as Cobo’s could completely rewrite the development timeline for high-growth exchanges. Instead of spending months of engineering capital building out custom backend wallet architectures for every new blockchain network, platforms can deploy localized infrastructure in days.
This agility allows platforms to instantly scale their listings to over a thousand trading pairs without compromising security or delaying time-to-market. It mirrors the exact operational advantages seen during high-velocity market events, similar to how advanced wallet infrastructure empowers platforms during sudden asset surges; allowing exchanges to pass that speed and liquidity directly to their global user base.
A Mature Foundation for GrowthThe synergy between trusted infrastructure ecosystems and global trading platforms represents the natural evolution of a maturing crypto market. As WEEX continues to scale its global spot and derivatives offerings for over 6 million users, adopting robust backend paradigms proves that platforms no longer have to compromise between cutting-edge trading velocity and uncompromised structural security.

Get Paid to Onboard? Try WEEX’s New Homepage with Rewards for Registration, Deposit & Trade

WEEX Custom Layout: Build Your Perfect Trading Workspace in Seconds
Morning Report | BitMine increased its holdings by 126,971 ETH last week; trader Eugene announced his exit from the crypto market
Wang Chuan: How can one not feel anxious after the neighbor Old Wang made thirty times profit by investing in storage stocks? (Seven) - A quarter-century cycle
Cryptocurrency CEXs are flocking to sell US stocks, and traditional brokerages are facing an "uninvited guest."
$75 billion in foreign capital has fled, and South Korean retail investors have absorbed it all using leverage
Japan’s Three Megabanks Plan Joint Stablecoin Issuance in Fiscal 2026
MUFG, SMBC, and Mizuho reportedly plan to jointly issue fiat-pegged stablecoins in fiscal 2026, signaling Japan’s growing push into bank-led digital payment infrastructure.
Humanity Discloses H Token Dual-Chain Attack Details, With Losses on Ethereum and BSC Exceeding $36 Million
Humanity said the H token attack across Ethereum and BSC caused more than $36 million in losses after leaked ProxyAdmin keys enabled malicious contract upgrades and token minting.


