Talk:Solana (blockchain platform)

This page was proposed for deletion by Xinbenlv (talk · contribs) on 1 December 2021.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solana (blockchain platform) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 180 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Solana (blockchain platform), along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Crypto bros misunderstand how Wikipedia editing works". Protos. 21 May 2024. Archived from the original on 21 May 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2024. [...] In her defense, White noted that her 'potential involvement' in the editing of the Solana Wikipedia page amounted to just one grammatical edit — correcting the miscapitalization of 'non-fungible-token.' [...]

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

CK at Solana Foundation (talk · contribs) has been paid by Solana Foundation. User page conflict of interest statement
Megan at Solana Foundation (talk · contribs) has been paid by Solana Foundation. User page conflict of interest statement

Wiki Education assignment: CAS First-Year Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2022 and 9 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LodFod, Meta02 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: GGLOL1600, Yuhcool.

Inline citation needed for “The blockchain… was subjected to a hack”

The introduction states:

“The blockchain has experienced several major outages, was subjected to a hack”

This claim has already been contested on the talk page, and for the avoidance of doubt you can put me down as someone who objects to the claim, because there have been no events in our timeline that would be accurately described as a hack of the Solana blockchain. Hence per WP:MINREF there needs to be an inline citation for this claim ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEADCITE - the lead section summarizes the rest of the article and citations are not required up there. You can find citations lower down in the article. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand WP:LEADCITE:

“Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads”

The lead makes a specific claim that has been contested, hence it needs an inline citation ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of that guideline is also important. MrOllie (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That quote was from the second

paragraph.

Look, the other references to a “hack” in this article do not claim that the blockchain was hacked, so the claim in the lead is unique in the article and unsupported by citations ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is repetitive. The lead is a simplification of the body. Since this blockchain cannot exist without wallets, saying that Solana was hacked is not inaccurate, nor even misleading. Quibbling to rephrase this to be as flattering as possible to Solana is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“X can’t exist without Y, so if an instance of X was hacked then Y was hacked” is just a non sequitur.

The World Wide Web cannot exist without websites, but if Wikipedia was hacked it would be very inaccurate to say “the World Wide Web was subject to a hack”.

If this was a halfway sensible thing to think it would not be a problem to find a source and fix the WP:MINREF violation ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Solana to the World Wide Web is just silly. Sources treat these hacks as a defining trait of Solana, so the lead mentions them. Sources do not treat Wikipedia as a defining trait of the entire World Wide Web. If English Wikipedia were hacked, it would be perfectly reasonable to say the Wikipedia website was subject to a hack. As for MINREF, as has already been explained to you, this information is already cited. Grayfell (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the argument silly is not a counterargument, it is just hurling insults. In case it is unclear, the point is to show that your argument “X can’t exist without Y, so if an instance of X was hacked then Y was hacked” is faulty.

Your example of English Wikipedia is not a good one. In normal English-language writing, people regularly use "Wikipedia" as shorthand for "English Wikipedia". People do not use "Solana" as a shorthand for "Slope Wallet".

Anyway an example case that merely coheres with a logical claim does not make the argument logically valid. But a counterexample that breaks the argument does make the logic invalid.

Again, what sources are provided that say the Solana blockchain was hacked? I can provide sources that say the issue was not with the blockchain itself - I can even find such a source in this very Wikipedia article. ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think it's safe to assume that nobody can provide a source that says the Solana blockchain was hacked ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am happy with the sourcing currently in the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that you are happy, but you do not have a source that says the Solana blockchain was hacked ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you disagree with how it is summarized, but the relevant source has been pointed out in this discussion already, and we are not required to satisfy your personal requirements. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero sources have been pointed out ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits are filed against legal persons, not blockchain platforms

The lead says "a class action lawsuit was filed against the platform". This doesn't make sense because the platform isn't something you can sue. Which is why the lawsuit was filed against Solana Labs, not the Solana blockchain platform.

On the same note, multiple instances of "Solana" below should be replaced with "Solana Labs":

On 1 July 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed against Solana. The lawsuit accused Solana of selling unregistered securities tokens in the form of Solana from 24 March 2020, onward and that Solana deliberately misled investors concerning the total circulating supply of SOL tokens.

That second sentence is also just a mess but one issue at a time. ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hairsplitting about Solana vs Solana Labs vs Solana Foundation has been brought up before, and it's not helpful. We can and should write the article using the common name - 'Solana' and not worry about the branding distinctions the article subject prefers. MrOllie (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing approach to take, not least because if you don't specify what entity you're talking about then it's unclear if you're talking about Solana the platform, Solana Labs, Solana Foundation or some other thing.

Anyway this doesn't address my first point. The lead actually does specify that it's talking about Solana the platform ("a class action lawsuit was filed against the platform") but in doing so it specifies the wrong thing. The lawsuit was filed against Solana Labs, not the Solana platform ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead a bit in a way that removes 'platform' from that sentence. We should mention what the class action suit is about anyway, and the SEC's activity also merited a mention there. MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the page

This page is in dire need of updating, and all edits I have made to the page have been reverted because I need to gain 'consensus' first (which is not Wikipedia policy). Regardless, I suggest making the following edits to the page:

- Provide additional history about the founding of Solana, and the founder - Add a photograph of the founder for visual aid - Add the cryptocurrency category - Add comparisons about Solana to other blockchains (fast/cheap fees vs. centralized)

All information is supported by WP:RS. Suggested edits are below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=1213607691&oldid=1209233532

Please respond with whether you agree, and if you disagree, why. Thanks.

Hocus00 (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Pbritti @Grayfell Hocus00 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking a flattering, weaselish quote devoid of context is never going to be appropriate, but especially not in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Greyfell. Whitewashing the article and adding a promotional quote to the lead would not be in keeping with WP:NPOV. And the article is already in Category:Cryptocurrencies. MrOllie (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how providing history about Anatoly Yakovenko's background at Qualcomm and a picture of Anatoly Yakovenko whitewashes the article or violates WP:NPOV? Hocus00 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, are you saying that the quote that is literally directly attributed to BLOOMBERG is wp:weasel? Your argument doesn't even make sense. Hocus00 (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The complete quote is Hailed for its high speeds and cheap transaction fees, the blockchain previously championed by Sam Bankman-Fried saw the price of its SOL token plummet in the wake of his FTX crypto exchange’s implosion., which reads rather differently. We should not cherry pick part of a sentence. MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The "high speeds and cheap transaction fees" quote is coming from Bloomberg's point of view, not Sam Bankman-Fried. Also, the FTX bankrupcty and resulting price plummet can be mentioned in the article, but information about the blockchain's tech cannot? That seems to be the real WP:NPOV issue. Hocus00 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally hundreds or thousands of other WP:RS that talk about Solana's speed and cheap transaction fees. This information is not controversial. It should be added to the article. See, eg:

[1]https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/18/solana-co-founder-sees-potential-for-devs-to-lead-its-network-in-2023/ "Solana’s network can currently execute 3,531 transactions per second (TPS). The TPS measures a network’s speed and scalability while showing the maximum number of transactions the blockchain can carry out — if needed. In comparison, Ethereum averages about 15 TPS."

[2]https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/investing/cryptocurrency/what-is-solana/ "Solana is designed to address two parts of the trilemma: scalability and security. SOL’s proof of history algorithm presents unique security for the network. While the speed with which the Solana platform performs computations allows for increased scalability."

[3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/11/03/why-sbfs-favorite-crypto-solana-has-doubled-since-september/?sh=4c03ba2244f7 "Solana’s speed is useful for applications that require frequent low-value transactions, such as gaming and decentralized finance."

Could go on. Or I could appeal if you'd like. Hocus00 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy, and you won't get very far "appealing" that basic policy. As I've already mentioned on this talk page in the past, the technical details are only significant in context, and presenting them in isolation ignores that context.

Additionally, if those three are the best examples of the "hundred or thousands" of source about this, then it's unlikely that there are hundreds or thousands of reliable sources talking about this. Picking-and-choosing the most flattering parts of obscure sources is cherry picking.

I will again also remind you to be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Grayfell (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are my edits in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, or WP:COI? I'm getting confused by your gish gallop. Please, very specifically, describe how a sentence in the article for example, repeating the numbers cited in the TechCrunch article, would be a problem. Hocus00 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like we're into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, especially since this is another instance of quoting only part of a sentence. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q: "I'm sorry, are my edits in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, or WP:COI?"

A: Yes.

You do not get to demand a 'specific' answer to a loaded question. Grayfell (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Gokal is not an original author of Solana

I don't know why the sidebar says that he is. It's not a popular misconception or anything ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Edit

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I work for Solana Foundation and therefore have a conflict of interest. I'd like to propose a change for more impartial editors to weigh against Wikipedia's rules as follows:

Explanation: Appears to be the author's own analysis, as the cited source just includes NFTs in a long list of things smart contracts are crucial to. The Wikipedia page already mentions Solana's role in smart contracts.

Megan at Solana Foundation (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It is mentioned in the source but in different wording, "Much of Solana’s popularity was built around growing interest in NFTs." You linked the wrong source, this is the correct one. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media mention

Not sure if a notable media organization, but it's mentioned here [4] and also there's some discussion about it on Twitter [5]. Merko (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"causing big exchanges to liquidate their holdings" is an odd and likely incorrect thing to say

> On 11 June 2023, Solana dropped nearly 30% in one day after the SEC announced that it would make the case in court that Solana is a financial security, causing big exchanges to liquidate their holdings, including Robinhood which delisted SOL and other tokens named by the SEC in its lawsuit.

The linked sources don't say that any exchanges liquidated their SOL holdings. It's not clear what that is supposed to mean, because exchanges merely custody assets for their users.

Secondly, Robinhood is not even an exchange. ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per one cited source: Users will be able to buy and sell the tokens up until the end of June. However, come then, any existing tokens in a user’s wallet “will be sold for market value.”[6] per the other one ...which cited blockchain data to say wallets tied to Cumberland, Jump Trading and Robinhood had off-loaded a large volume of tokens to exchanges.[7] Crypto exchanges often hold crypto for many reasons. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

refer to my second point:

> Robinhood is not even an exchange.

If the article is to talk about this incident it should say that Robinhood delisted SOL and liquidated its users’ holdings when the deadline passed.

Your second quote also does not say that any exchanges liquidated their SOL holdings ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second source directly refers to it as an exchange: Meanwhile, Robinhood on Friday announced it would delist Solana, Cardano, and Polygon from its exchange as of June 27—another likely blow to their value.[8] Grayfell (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo is wrong to call it an exchange but I take it you're keen on keeping it in there.

Nevertheless it is at best ambiguous and at worst misleading to describe customer funds as "Robinhood's SOL holdings" ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Market value section is not maintained and should be deleted

The price of SOL has gone up a lot since the "Market value" section was last updated. I don't think anybody with edit permissions is particularly inclined to add this information to the article and frankly it's not well-written. I suggest deleting this section. ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable, independent source for this price increase? Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh sure https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-18/slerf-snap-memecoin-mania-drives-solana-toward-all-time-highs ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]