Talk:Solana (blockchain platform)

The introduction is biased
Hello, the first paragraph is biased and should be rewritten. It should serve as a general overview and not as an excuse to slander the subject.

There is no reason for it to include the information about the wallet hack in the intro - the precedent is out there: the Ethereum page also doesn't include information about the DAO hack in the first paragraph. Plus, at this moment, the first paragraph suggests that the Solana blockchain was hacked, which is provably false. The Slope wallet was hacked, which has nothing to do with the security of the blockchain itself. That is something completely different and should be corrected.

Moreover, the first paragraph says nothing about the blockchain and intentionally withholds information about the blockchain speeds, energy efficiency, defi, NFTs, partnerships, wallets etc. And again, there is the precedent in the Ethereum article.

Lastly, the market cap information should be stated in one of the following chapters, not the intro. The precedents: Ethereum article, Cardano article, Bitcoin article...

The biased language of this article is apparent, especially when you compare it to other blockchain articles on Wikipedia. Clearus (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide specific phrases you want changed and the alternatives you prefer, as well as specific reliable sources that support those changes. Without all three of those things, it is unlikely that the change you want will be made. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Wikipedia is based on consensus, not precedent. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, and the significance of any particular details, such as the blockchain "partnership" etc., must be supported and contextualized by reliable and independent sources. The info about market cap, for example, is discussed by reliable sources as being defining and significant to this as a topic. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am very well aware that Wikipedia is based on consensus. But the consensus should be on truth, not opinions.
 * I was trying to appeal to common sense and prove that, at this moment, this article is provably biased when compared to other blockchain articles.
 * I would suggest rewriting the firs paragraph: 
 * Solana is a blockchain platform which uses a proof-of-stake mechanism to provide smart contract functionality. Its native cryptocurrency is SOL '', which can be divided into one million smaller units called lamport.[3]
 * Solana was launched in 2020 by Solana Labs, which was founded by Anatoly Yakovenko and Raj Gokal in 2018. The blockchain has experienced several major outages, was subjected to a hack, and a class action lawsuit was filed against the platform.
 * The predominant programming language in the Solana ecosystem is Rust, but C, C++, Python, Solidity and other languages are also supported thanks to JSON RPC API SDK clients.[1][2] In addition to independent developers, Solana Labs and Solana Foundation are also involved in developing the platform.
 * Solana's total market cap was US$55 billion in January 2022. However, by the end of 2022, this had fallen to around $3 billion following the bankruptcy of FTX. Following the general rise of the cryptocurrency market in 2023, its market cap rose to $7 billion. By the mid of november 2023, the market cap was US$24 billion.[4]
 * [1] https://blockchain.oodles.io/blog/solana-blockchain-development/
 * [2] https://metaschool.so/articles/which-programming-language-is-used-in-solana-blockchain/
 * [3] https://docs.solana.com/terminology
 * [4] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/solana/
 * The crossed-out portions of the text may be placed in the appropriate chapters below. Clearus (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead has to summarize the article, and the article summarizes what the reliable, independent sources talk about. We cannot whitewash the lead in this way. compared to other blockchain articles is not the standard we use here. The standard we use is 'compared to the reliable sources that write about Solana'. MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Whitewashing is not the case. The opposite is the case since the article is "blackwashed" and very biased against the very subject.
 * If I understand it correctly, what you suggest is rewriting the whole article so that it is objective and well-sourced, and then the intro can be rewritten too? Clearus (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that the article already is objective and well-sourced, and the intro reflects that. But if you would like to add to the article, present some new sources and proposed text - we generally start by making additions to the body of the article and then handle changes to the lead second. I would note, though, that none of the 4 links you have posted here meet our sourcing requirements (WP:RS). You should be looking for peer-reviewed journals (the best) or major news outlets like reuters, the guardian, etc. (second tier). MrOllie (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Being well-sourced does not mean being unbiased, especially in this case. Eg: the introduction indicates that the blockchain was hacked while the source clearly says it was one of the wallets, not the blockchain. The interpretation is clearly wrong.
 * The original Solana docs are a completely legit source, citing anything else in this particular case is wrong since it refers to the naming lamport itself. Clearus (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't really have a goal of being 'unbiased'. The goal is to precisely reflect the bias of the independent sources. See WP:YESBIAS for more detail. To cite an extreme case, the article on Flat earth would not take some 'unbiased' middle position between people who think the earth is flat and those who think it is round. Wikipedia is also not really interested in what Solana has to say about itself through their documention, we reflect independent sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned several times what's wrong with the interpretation. Are you ignoring it on purpose? Clearus (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you what Wikipedia's content policies are. If you think they're wrong, you can try to get them changed (WP:VPP would be the place to do that), but we're not just going to ignore them for this one article by substituting your view of what's right and wrong for that the sources have written. MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not replying to me at all. I told you several times that the cited sources clearly say something other than what is stated in the first part of this article. Simply put, this page lies and ignores the source it cites. And yet, you still refuse to understand it or address it... Clearus (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was replying to you, by letting you know about the framework you need to work within to successfully make changes to the article. But if you're going to reward my efforts to help with incivility and personal attacks, I'm done here. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There was literally no personal attack. I am trying to explain something you chose not to see. The first paragraph ignores the very source it is based on, and I have been saying that repeatedly, and you still choose not to correct it, and I have no idea why. Right now, the "Solana was hacked" part of the introduction is completely fabricated. Clearus (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There was literally no personal attack. I am trying to explain something you chose not to see. The first paragraph ignores the very source it is based on, and I have been saying that repeatedly, and you still choose not to correct it, and I have no idea why. Right now, the "Solana was hacked" part of the introduction is completely fabricated. Clearus (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, and none of the sources you have proposed are reliable for this content. As for the wallets being hacked vs. the blockchain itself being hacked, to just say 'some wallets were hacked' would be more confusing than informative. We could rephrase it to say that 'thousands of Solana wallets were hacked' or similar, but to remove it completely would be inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It is disputable whether a wallet hack should be a part of the Solana blockchain introduction since it is irrelevant to the blockchain itself. On what merit is it decided what will be included in the first paragraph? Clearus (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Anything can be disputable if you dispute it. The eight million dollar hack is relevant to the platform because reliable, independent sources say it is relevant. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this information should be stated in the article. But on what merit was it decided that it would be included in the first paragraph? Clearus (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors have looked at the body of the article and the reliable sources cited there and have attempted to neutrally summarize them. While not every reliable (independent) source which provides an overview of Solana mentions the hack, many do, so this seems like a plausible candidate for the lead. Likewise, most good sources (even comparatively sympathetic ones) seem to mention the platform's outages. They also treat the FTX bankruptcy as a defining moment for this cryptocurrency, for obvious reasons. I would prefer leaving out 'market cap' info altogether, as I think it is grossly misleading to apply this concept to cryptocurrencies, but since a reliable source uses this as the way to provide context on Solana's price changes, I won't argue for its removal. The point is not to document recent or up-to-the-date price changes, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for that kind of thing. The point is to summarize broad trends so readers can understand the general topic, and this seems sufficient for that purpose. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Grayfell Circling back to this since I agree with this initial post, and you deleted an edit I made clarifying that this was a hack of third party wallet software and not Solana. Saying that Solana has been "subject to a hack" is misleading in the same way it would be misleading to say that Bitcoin had been "subject to a hack" because Ledger was hacked. The article simply is not written correctly. If the underlying Solana protocol/blockchain was hacked, then the current wording would be correct. The text should be updated to state that wallet software associated with Solana had been hacked. It should also not be in the lead because it simply is not that relevant to the underlying blockchain (although I agree it probably is noteworthy enough to be included in the main article itself). Hocus00 (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by sources according to due weight, so your personal evaluation of these events is irreverent. I would also remind you to be aware of Conflict of interest. Stop edit warring to restore promotional content. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Requesting help adding another outage recently hapend
and also on side note the first line under characters is same as first sentence and Eth alternative is also not a characteristic suggest move to history 2A02:A420:72:ED70:F06F:2A4A:B85:56D5 (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * https://fortune.com/crypto/2024/02/07/solana-ethererum-blockchain-outage/
 * On February 6th 2024 Solana network went offline for 5 hours, requiring a system restart. The cause was unknown. The outage was in part due to its centralized system. In 2023 the network went offline for over 24 hours in January cuasing users to sell SOL. In April of 2023 the network went offline for two days caused by excessive memory consumption, requiring a restart.
 * Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX-founder, is known as being a large supporter of Solana. 2A02:A420:72:ED70:F06F:2A4A:B85:56D5 (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Sir, sorry to bother. hope you can help, I don't have extended but think. This is important information to have as network went offline, big event. Thanks for the help! 2A02:A420:5:ACFB:5C15:F97C:3AF9:BF46 (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌. I'm sorry, but the request made here does not make sense. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a whole section about outages... 2A02:A420:6F:2769:C979:15F6:4953:4D68 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The second paragraph of that guideline is also important. MrOllie (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * “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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I for one am happy with the sourcing currently in the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Zero sources have been pointed out ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * 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."
 * 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."
 * 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)
 * 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 Conflict of interest. Grayfell (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Requested Edit
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)
 * 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)

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

"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)


 * 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.” 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. Crypto exchanges often hold crypto for many reasons. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Grayfell (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


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