A very interesting argument! Skeptics believe that @ solana's inflation model feeding validation nodes will only increase the operational threshold and cost of nodes, which is not true decentralization, and point out that becoming a Rollup is the only way out; But @ aeyakovenko's counterattack is very sharp, believing that Solana's inflation is not a cost model, but a redistribution of network value. The underlying message is that every profit earned by the Staker stays within the Solana ecosystem, unlike Ethereum L2's Sequencer, which has to split off chain revenue to the Stack overlay and pay taxes to the L1 mainnet (Burn+DA costs). Moreover, with the recent market downturn, while other ETFs continue to experience net outflows, SOL's futures ETF continues to experience net inflows, perhaps due to the stable staking income of 5-7%, making SOL a deterministic return cryptocurrency asset in the eyes of institutions. As for becoming a Rollup? Toly said that Less Talk More Code indicates attitude. Because Solana initially chose a completely opposite path to Ethereum's modularity, combining the ultimate performance of a monolithic chain with an inflation return model to counter Ethereum's Rollup Centric narrative. From the current dilemma of Ethereum Rollup layer2 in terms of interoperability and value capture, Solana's monolithic model seems to have an advantage, as everything is not yet out of control. But Solana's inflation essence is also dilution, making users passively bear the cost of Staker's profits, requiring the use of sufficiently rich real economic activities within the ecosystem, including gas consumption, DeFi lock-in, and more staking, to hedge. Otherwise, the pressure will be transferred to the secondary market to take over, so Solana's inflation model looks more stable, but it must have sufficient ecological activity to support it.