Talk:Solana (blockchain platform)/Archive 1

Bogus symbol
The article says the symbol of Solana is two concentric circles. This is false. I will not edit the article because I purchased some of the cryptocurrency. The actual Solana symbol is the stack of parallelograms comprising an S, also shown as the “icon.”.Edison (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: My mistake. The concentric circles seem, in fact, to be the currency symbol. Edison (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

May 2022 cleanup
As of 2021, Solana can handle 50,000 transactions per second, which is faster than the Ethereum blockchain, but still less than the 400,000 transactions seen during the spike.

I moved this off the main page because:
 * It looked like an advert, and
 * The link was 404'd.

Someone can re-add these stats if you can find a better source please! Nickgray (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Disclosure of anonymous edits
Sorry I mistakenly use another unlogged in browser for editing. For full disclosure, the edits by 2a00:79e1:abc:1566:9dbd:28:fc59:5084 are from me. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality sources
Since it has been a recurring issue, Wikipedia articles (including this one) should be mostly based on sources which are reliable, independent, and also secondary. Solana's own website can be used, but it should mostly be used for context, as a way to fill-in details of information supported by better sources. Likewise, corporate blogs, press releases, or pro-crypto churnalism is not reliable and should not be used. Exceptions will be very rare. Grayfell (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Noted re: sites like Jerusalem Post - I didn't realise that was sponsored content. I will also try and get more secondary sources.
 * However Infoworld is one of the oldest still-running print publications in technology and is very frequently cites across all of wikipedia: https://www.google.com/search?q=infoworld+site%3Awikipedia.com Mikemaccana (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Infoworld is widely cited on Wikipedia. However, that doesn't make it reliable. When evaluating a source, the standard used is not precedent, it's the source's "reputation for accuracy and fact checking", and one of the ways this is demonstrated for news outlets is via a demonstrated history of fact-checking, retractions, corrections, and clear policies in support of such. InfoWorld's about page suggests none of that. It's badly written puff which makes the publication appear focused on promotion and buzzwords, not on scholarship or legitimate journalism. The specific article's author doesn't appear to be a topic expert, either. Context matters for all sources. So if this is truly the best source for this information, the article has deeper problems.
 * Coindesk is not generally reliable per many previous discussions on Wikipedia, so a Coindesk announcement for a run-of-the mill NFT promotion is not automatically significant.
 * Per your comments on my talk page, I will remind you that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, so adding positive content supported by flimsy sources to balance out negative content supported by better sources is not appropriate. For one thing, we should use sources to decide what is significant and which isn't, not our own personal opinions. Find reliable, independent sources and use those sources to explain to Wikipedia's readers why specific information is encyclopedically significant. If reliable sources don't consider it important, do not use your own experience to decide it must be important anyway, as this is original research, which is outside of Wikipedia's scope.
 * Further, since this is a recurring problems for cryptocurrency articles specifically, be mindful of editing with a conflict of interest. Grayfell (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * > demonstrated history of fact-checking, retractions, corrections, and clear policies in support of such
 * Does CNBC have this? If not would you support removing the Melania Trump section, which you kept? Mikemaccana (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have some specific reason to dispute that source, present it, either here or at WP:RSN. Grayfell (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am simply using your own standard, CNBC about page https://www.cnbc.com/about/ does not show a demonstrated history of fact-checking, retractions, corrections, and clear policies in support of such. I don't think CNBC is a better source than InfoWorld, and it's concerning you would remove one rather than the other (as well as the other issues I raised on your talk page). Mikemaccana (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I do build on Solana, I have added the COI as you requested. Can you please respond to the NPOV issues I originally bought up in your user page, moved below per your request? Mikemaccana (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The InfoWorld source seems very flimsy for reasons I've already explained. In this context this specific InfoWorld source reads like a puff-piece. CNBC's about page is vastly more credible than InfoWorld's, and for all its many, many problems, CNBC has a clear history of issuing retractions and corrections and it likewise it has historically had some of the strictest rules in the industry about how journalists handle conflicts of interest. That history has eroded, unfortunately, but it's still miles ahead of InfoWorld in this context.
 * So if you want to make the case that InfoWorld is of a similar quality, the burden is on you to show that. Like I said, either here or at WP:RSN.
 * Thank you for declaring your COI, sincerely. I appreciate that, since too many editors ignore this or lie about it, and it never ends well for anyone. Since you have a declared conflict of interest, please propose changes to this talk page instead of editing directly. Per Conflict of interest: COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV re: recent edits from Greyfell
This is specific to Grayfell however that user prefers all discussion regarding their recent edits to happen on this page (I originally tried to bring this is up on their user page). Greyfell is aware the conversation was started on their user page as it was specific to their edits, and user has not provided any justification for why they prefer discussion to be moved here, however I have done so. Note the discussion above this was created by Greyfell after the concerns about their recent edits were raised to them via their user talk page.

> Thanks for removing primary references. However it seems very odd to remove, say, information on the Shaq and Brave partnerships but keep references to Melania Trump using Solana, or replace a reference to a security issue on a specific Solana wallet application to be the much more vague 'the Solana ecosystem had been targeted by hackers', as you did in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=1131876867&oldid=1131876267. Before 2023 the Solana Wikipedia page is mainly edits by people that wish to discredit the chain - hence 'Melania Trump' being the most notable item on the page. I have recently added items that more more positive, but kept the referenced negative information. Removing only the positive information is against NPOV.

> I appreciate press releases are not considered reliable for general events, would you consider a press release from a company as a reliable reference to the modified wording "(company) announced (announcement)"? Eg it's a primary source, and a secondary source would be ideal, however an announcement is clearly evidence of a company announcing something.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaccana (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For clarity, I started the talk page section above several days ago, specifically to build consensus for this article. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the discussions used to build consensus, and any future editors should know where to look to find that record. They should not have to poke around any individual editor's talk page just to find find these things. Therefor this is the place to discuss it so that others can find and respond as needed. Frankly, I thought this would be obvious. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware you started the talk page section above, which discusses quality of sources, several days ago. That however is not the matter I raised to you on your personal page, which was NPOV edits.
 * As I have mentioned previously, I specifically raised an issue on your personal page to raise the NPOV issues with your personal edits, as many other people have done on your personal page. After moving the issue here you still have yet to respond to any of the NPOV issues mentioned. Mikemaccana (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * PS while my concern for scrutinizing only newer, more positive content remains (and I do wonder why the Eth intro includes it's notable features, but the Solana intro mentioning it's notable features is considered advertising), I think your most recent edit re: the Sollet hack (making it not 'an attach on Solana infrastructure') was reasonable and accurate. Thank you. Mikemaccana (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You specifically said "Note the discussion above this was created by Greyfell after the concerns about their recent edits were raised to them via their user talk page." I started the above section prior to your posting on my talk page. The point was specifically to avoid having to discuss these issues anywhere else. Partly so I wouldn't have to repeat myself yet again.
 * I have addressed the NPOV issue, above, which is why I want to consolidate this discussion in a single place: I will remind you that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, so adding positive content supported by flimsy sources to balance out negative content supported by better sources is not appropriate. For one thing, we should use sources to decide what is significant and which isn't, not our own personal opinions. Find reliable, independent sources and use those sources to explain to Wikipedia's readers why specific information is encyclopedically significant. If reliable sources don't consider it important, do not use your own experience to decide it must be important anyway, as this is original research, which is outside of Wikipedia's scope. To expand on this slightly regarding press releases, Wikipedia uses reliable sources to decide what information is important. So why, per reliable sources is this information important to the topic? Press releases exist to promote some piece of information to the public, and are not by themselves good at indicating what information is important and what isn't. They are so prolific that they are often copy/pasted from templates, or recently sometimes just written by AI. There is little fact-checking, nor retractions or similar, as the "release" format doesn't accommodate that kind of thing.
 * If something is encyclopedically significant, almost by definition, a reliable independent source will indicate why it is important and we can evaluate whether or not a press release is useful for additional details on a case-by-case basis. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * > I started the above section prior to your posting on my talk page. The point was specifically to avoid having to discuss these issues anywhere else
 * Yes. I am aware of this as I have mentioned previously. You did not start a talk section covering the topic of your NPOV edits. You started a section about a separate topic. As I have mentioned previously.
 * > I will remind you that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy
 * Yes. I am aware of this as I have mentioned previously. However my concern, as I have mentioned previously, is that the page was it stood before recent edits was mainly filled with exclusively negative content - Wikipedia it not a platform for advocating *against* ideas either. I was careful, in my own additions, to not remove negative content. You have not been as careful, in your edits, to scrutinise both positive and negative content. Mikemaccana (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To restate my point another way, it is not up to either of us, as individuals, to categorize information into "positive" and "negative". If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the article was too negative in some way, and this is the POV issue you've mentioned. My response to that POV is decided by WP:RS, WP:IS, etc., not editors. So the above section is about the POV issue. These are not two separate issues, they are the same issue. It is up to reliable sources to decide what information belongs and what doesn't.
 * So even if some individual editors believe this information is too negative, the solution isn't to add bad sources to balance it out. NPOV doesn't mean we add both sides regardless of reliability. For one thing, it is simplistic to assume that there are only two sides. For another, who gets to decide where those lines are drawn? For a third, why would you assume that both sides must be treated equally?
 * NPOV means we summarize issues according to reliable sources, in proportion to due weight. If most reliable sources are "negative", then the article should reflect that. It is a mistake (at best) to act as if the article must include more flattering content just because it also includes some unflattering content. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

To repeat what I said in January: Wikipedia articles (including this one) should be mostly based on sources which are reliable, independent, and also secondary. Press releases are not sufficient for routine information. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Grayfell is 100% right about this. We should not be using press releases. A good rule of thumb is that a Wikipedia article should be covering what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject, we should not be concerned with what the article subject has to say about itself. It is also important to note that WP:NPOV does not mean a balance of the positive and the negative - in fact it specifically says the opposite, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A list of outside discussions about Solana
This Solana page has a strong negative bias against Solana. I would like to add a list of outside discussions (podcasts) so that readers can get a perspective of Solana independent of the negative biases of the authors so far. I would like to add a "Media" heading and a "Podcasts" subheading and begin the list with the below. Is there a better way of adding this material to the page?

Media

Podcasts

Anatoly Yakovenko: Solana's Endgame In the Midst of Competitive L1 and L2s (March 13, 2023) The Delphi Podcast. https://open.spotify.com/episode/6ox9Zrq4UpcyeVczmXWpzc?si=JucEqd7_RzuNoJ5h_6ifOQ

Building for the Future with Solana's Anatoly Yakovenko (February 1, 2023) Coinbase: Around The Block. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0PPL3s1vVwQ56enNnhD6Qr?si=9LRxLN5YTPaEYo3LDVyGJQ

Solana is Thriving, Here's What Is Driving Adoption | Austin Federa, Solana Foundation(February 2, 2023) The Wolf of All Streets. https://open.spotify.com/episode/3dqTqo3jhvuW9VndalDhEg?si=d10ddb360a9c47c4

Will Solana Make It with Anatoly Yakovenko (February 6, 2023) Bankless. https://open.spotify.com/episode/5JoS7nmdTSk9Sl2wRzVP7d?si=hXlGZI5qSouA7J-O8ysVBg Eugeneprokopenko (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This material should not be added to this page at all per WP:ELNO. As has been explained in the sections above on this talk page, Wikipedia isn't a venue to report what an article subject has to say about itself. It is strange to me that you could consider podcasts interviewing one of Solana's founders as an 'independent perspective'. You seem to be hoping to include a WP:FALSEBALANCE on this article. Wikipedia doesn't do that - it reflects the tone of the truly independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ollie. I think if you read wikipedia articles for other blockchains, like Avalanche, Cardano, etc., you can't deny that the Solana page is a hit piece. As an active guardian of the page, I hope you will take constructive actions to remedy this. Eugeneprokopenko (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Number of developers
The number of developers is meaningless trivia and doesn't belong anywhere in the article, let alone the second sentence. Also, the citation used, developerreport.com, is clearly an unreliable source, as are all self published cryptocurrency sites. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are multiple problems with this content. Lacking consensus, I have removed it again. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie not sure if you missed this, but per the chat I started about the deletion:
 * > Blockchains are developer platforms - it is not 'strange trivia' to mention the popularity of any developer platform, particularly if this is notable information. Mikemaccana (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The methodology used for the study is laid out clearly at https://www.developerreport.com/about. The study is not published by Solana, or myself, or you or anyone else. Mikemaccana (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That the study is not published by 'anyone else' is the problem. It clearly does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements as set out at WP:RS. Even if it did, a random statistic about the number of github accounts that have been used on their project does not belong on the lead section - it is not one of the defining features of the platform. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie what specifically about https://www.developerreport.com/ does not not meet WP:RS? Reading that page shows "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves" - OK, that's fine we can include the report and abide by that.
 * Blockchain platforms are developer platforms, being the second most active developer platform is indeed a notable aspect of any blockchain that can make such a claim. Mikemaccana (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's self-published, as I said. If it is a notable aspect than it will have been noted in reliable, secondary sources. Cite one of those - but not in the article lead. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely do not edit war about this. As you have been notified on your talk page, this page is under general sanctions, and edit warring an unreliable source back in against consensus is a recipe for a block. MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a reliable secondary source as requested: https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/18/solana-co-founder-sees-potential-for-devs-to-lead-its-network-in-2023/
 * A blockchain is a developer platform, so it is notable if Solana has the second largest number of developers, in the same way that it is notable if a city has the second largest population. Aarongillett (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just reporting the founder's claims. We need independent information. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Part of the article is an interview, yes. But the reference to developer count is not from the interview; it is a reference to the independently published developer report. You asked to provide reliable secondary sources that reference this report. Why does this not suffice? Aarongillett (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * - They say they communicate with various ecosystems directly to get "corrected" data... That isn't independent. Further, just read the rest of their methodology. If you understand how git authorship works, which I won't explain here, and you read how they find unique authors you will understand why these numbers are unreliable. You may also notice they don't examine what is changed. Maybe a Readme, maybe adding your wallet address into a fork hoping to fool someone. This "report" is disinterested in code quality, whether code was actually part of the commit, or if someone is just spamming a repo. Very Average Editor (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking the bullmarket price and comparing it to the current price is much moreso a meaningless statistic Nwh5jr (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Electric Capital" developer report is widely considered to be the most reputable and researched yearly report on developer activity on various blockchains.
 * https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/electric-capital-releases-2022-crypto-developer-report-301723401.html
 * Techcrunch also references this report :
 * https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/18/solana-co-founder-sees-potential-for-devs-to-lead-its-network-in-2023/
 * "About 72% of monthly active developers (devs) are working on blockchains that are not part of the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks, according to the 2022 Electric Capital Developer Report, which trawled code commits across open source repositories.
 * Solana saw the highest number of new developers contributing to the ecosystem, with its developer count rising by 83%, the fastest of any major blockchain. Compared to that, Polygon saw a 40% rise in developer count, Cosmos saw 25% and Polkadot saw 2%, the report showed." Nwh5jr (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * the most reputable and researched yearly report on developer activity on various blockchains. Have you ever heard the phrase 'Damned by faint praise'? MrOllie (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We really don't care about press releases, and your opinion about Electric Capital is irrelevant without independent sources. I thought that would've been obvious by now.
 * For TechCrunch, that source establishes that Solana has significantly fewer developers than Ethereum, and that the number of developers is a talking point that the company wishes to advance. Since the majority of the article is just bland quotes from co-founder Raj Gokal, with very little commentary or context from the journalist, I consider this article to be churnalism. Further, it's from an outlet which is, at best, borderline per TECHCRUNCH, and from an author who declares a conflict of interest for cryptocurrencies. This factoid is still very unlikely to belong in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023 - Add Solana Mobile Development section
Request to add a section titled "Solana Mobile Development" - open to alternative titles, to cover the the development of the Solana Saga mobile phone, release of the Solana Mobile Stack (SMS) and associated developments. Specific wording for that section:

"In June 2022, Solana Labs announced the development of a mobile phone, named "Saga", as well as an open-source Solana Mobile Stack and a permissionless dApp store. The phone is built by Osom in partnership with Solana Labs and incorporates a 6.67-inch 120Hz OLED display, 512GB of storage, and 12GB of RAM.  "

The first source is a generally reliable source per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Verge and the other two are unclear but in this circumstance written by a staff reported, reporting on physical events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#TechCrunch

M laine sa (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, we should wait until the phone actually comes out to write about it. - MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks like a cellphone that will have a library installed and not part of a blockchain platform. My cellphone has hundreds of libraries installed, but my phone isn't worth mentioning on the libc article. Very Average Editor (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The phone was one of three parts to that article, the two others being the Solana Mobile Stack, an open source software development kit, which is already out. Per MrOllie then as this is already released that can be written about. The phone is being released in three weeks, I look forward to the above being added in full then.M laine sa (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources at that point, come on back and put in another request. As long as it is related, independent, and reliable, you probably won't have issues. Very Average Editor (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Verge is a reliable source per Wikipedia's own standards, therefore can this section be added with reference to the release of the Solana Mobile Development Stack?M laine sa (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A brief mention in an article that is otherwise about the phone announcement isn't really enough to start a new section. Maybe, maybe a sentence in the history section, but it would be better to just wait for the phone to come out, that will probably generate a burst of new and better coverage. MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say that. MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page being manipulated by editors
A number of people have tried to make changes to this wikipedia page but changes are being reverted by editors. It's likely that the current editors have financial incentive to censor positive information about the Solana blockchain (i.e. a section about technical advantages) and skew the information on the page to emphasize negative information. Other blockchain pages are much more positive despite a lot of negative information that could also be cherrypicked from various sources. Nwh5jr (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * +1 Hydrogenbond007 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict The negative reporting on Solana comes from reliable sources. Unless you can identify the sources being misused–such as the content in the article not matching the statements in the sources–or additional sources that provide positive reporting on Solana, this article is in conformity with our neutrality policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The article isnt neutral at all. It's an absolute joke. Much of the page is taken up by information about a class action lawsuit that is never going to materialize with very little of the page actually about the technical and usage information about the blockchain itself. Literally the entire page is just cherry picked negative information. It's ridiculous Nwh5jr (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:NPOV, particularly WP:FALSEBALANCE. When most sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is the price of the token in the introduction to the article? The token used to be in the cent range in 2020 but the introduction takes the top of the bull market price and compares current price to that. If you're going to do prices how about take the 2020 minimum price and then compare current price to that? Or even better, just dont have price related information in the introduction.
 * But yes, many of the primary sources of information sourced by news outlets are also highly skewed in their reporting. That's what happens when the primary competitor (Ethereum) has large market share and there's financial incentive to FUD competitors. I think the outage information should be present but it's ridiculous how negatively cherry picked the info in this article is. Nwh5jr (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact...
 * So what makes using labeled opinion pieces as factual sources of "fact" on this page ok?
 * Source 13 which references an outage pulls directly from a labeled opinion piece from a source with a stated COI. Why are the editors ok with sources such as these? SlyBadger18 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source; for better or worse, we are reliant what reliable sources say. If reliable sources skew a certain direction, so does Wikipedia. We're not in the business of righting great wrongs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, what Pbritti says. We're following CNBC here. If you don't like how they frame it take it up with them. MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How about we take Solana's initial public listing price of 22 cents and compare it to current price at 22 dollars in the introduction instead of top of the bull market? https://medium.com/coinlist/solanas-launch-auction-sells-out-f9032b65c48b
 * Also, is CNBC used as the major source of information for other technical pages? I.e. the Linux page? CNBC has barely any technical information. Nwh5jr (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot use medium blogs as sources, see WP:RS. CNBC is a major news source. The level of 'technical information' is irrelevant to our sourcing guidelines. MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The "framing" in question is the decision to put price chatter in the intro. CNBC also has articles about the Walmart stock price but that doesn't mean those articles should be used in the Walmart Wikipedia page ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Walmart isnt mostly notable for quickly losing money. Solana isn't notable for anything else it seems. Very Average Editor (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "...mostly notable for quickly losing money." Tell me you have an agenda, without telling me you have an agenda. 2601:447:C901:C973:1C1E:8342:1A8F:E368 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTTWITTER Very Average Editor (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias 2601:447:C901:C973:1C1E:8342:1A8F:E368 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not a fact, that is your subjective opinion. Why are you inserting your personal subjective opinion in your editing? 24.36.194.225 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Single person Blocking edits
Repeated attempts by several users to add more information to the page have been reverted on false basis and threats to take their edit privileges have been given. user named "MrOllie" bans any changes even though most of the information doesn't give a fair image about the blockchain or about its technology. Hydrogenbond007 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You're being reverted by multiple people. Check the history - and stop trying to add unsourced and/or promotional material to the article. This isn't a place to tell the world how great your favorite blockchain is. MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's an appropriate place for you to tell the world how terrible your non-favorite blockchain is. This page is easily one the most biased, negative presentations I have seen in the media. Nwh5jr (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, if that is what the independent sources say, yes. Flat earthers aren't very happy about Flat earth either. MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As someone who has no stake in crypto, I came across this article in the recent changes feed. I have been granted a brief reprieve from some offline matters and decided to take some time to triple check that there wasn't any funny business going on in the article. As someone with no bias for or against Solana, I can say with exceeding confidence that nothing has been reverted on false basis and that this is not among the most biased, negative presentations of a topic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This page should be updated to include some details on the strengths of the Solana platform. It highlights only negative information and includes no valuable information about the technology or strengths. 2001:8003:74D7:1800:E439:4E01:C548:2E23 (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why isn't there a single mention of the underlying tech and the different approach of blockchain architecture compared to EVMs, but just about the falling price and/or outages? There is clearly a strong bias just via headline selection, no? Samends (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because independent sources don't write about it, so per WP:UNDUE neither do we. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * CNBC is a fairly independent source (that's already been used in the current article), how come the points raised here (3:25 - 9:45) (PoH, Parallelization, Block Time, True TPS etc.) aren't even remotely mentioned in the current version of the article? Samends (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That specific video isn't very independent, because it is just rebroadcasting the founders of the project talking (such content and/or interviews aren't considered independent here). Also, the segment is sponsored by crypto.com. If this is recognized as an important point by independent sources, we can surely find something that is truly independent. MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just another quick question for my understanding: how come that the Ethereum wikipedia site allows "blog.ethereum.org", "Ethernodes" and "Ethereum Foundation" as primary sources, but solana can't link to a solely objective fact-stating whitepaper and/or documentation published by the Solana Foundation? Samends (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't edit every page on Wikipedia, you'd have to ask over there. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you should start editing stating aka saying “not from independent souce” use you comman sense man use take your work seriously on the other side .how come you guys get hired lowest level of intellgence i ever saw just by saying single word “ not from independent souce ” cannot be used and yet everyone in wikipedia using the same . Very baised 115.187.48.125 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Barely coherent personal attacks are not going to help anything. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is precedence for using GitHub as a source. For example, GitHub sources are used 28 times here alone: List of cryptocurrencies.
 * I recommend proposing this source: https://github.com/solana-labs/whitepaper KaizenGuru (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The white paper isn't very interesting. In fact, it's embarrassing from a technical standpoint. This is pretty much a clone of other technology, and this copy is mostly notable for it's massive drop in value following a vast number of technical failures. The article appears close to correct based on what reliable sources have to say about the topic.
 * Very Average Editor (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In what way is it copied? It's built from scratch and doesnt use EVM (unlike Matic, Avalanche, Fantom, etc). It's the first mainstream blockchain using parallel processing of transactions which is one of the primary reasons it can process an order of magnitude more transactions per second than other chains. Proof of History is similar to a verifiable delay function and was invented at a similar time in a case of convergent evolution.
 * Also the relative price shown in the introduction is framed in a negatively biased way. The public listing price was $0.22 and it's currently around $20 so how is it not fair to have that instead if we're doing relative price changes? 2601:249:8480:AB90:BC4C:5265:9A96:8413 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. The significance of any of these tedious claims would need to be contextualized by a reliable source, which in this case would also necessarily be an independent source. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How are these "tedious" claims but the claims by "Very average editor" are okay? The article has barely any content on the actual technology behind the blockchain itself... that's what the article should be addressing.
 * Anyway, you've been ignoring my comment on the price. Here on CNBC you can see the price is below $1 in 2020 https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/SOL.CM= . The introduction, much like the rest of the wikipedia seems to purposefully skew everything to be negative. @MrOllie Nwh5jr (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC) — Nwh5jr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A routine price quote is not an independent source, nor is it even a secondary source in this context. Any interpretation of such a source would be original research, which is not appropriate here. If you know of any reliable sources which discuss the "actual technology", propose them. As I said, for these tedious details to be encyclopedically significant, they would have to be contextualized by such sources, and such sources would therefor have to be independent sources. Neither the whitepaper nor the CNBC ticker are particularly useful for this kind of thing. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, sir. I just wanted to express my concern about the repeated reverting of informative changes made to the Solana Wikipedia page. Specifically, I'm concerned about the removal of technical aspects of Solana.
 * I understand that some editors may want to keep negative and biased information about Solana, such as lawsuits, outages, and token price, out of the page. However, I believe that it's essential to present a comprehensive view of Solana, including both its strengths and weaknesses.
 * Blockchain networks are not always about purely speculative tokens. At their core, they are essentially distributed software and network that can have practical applications. Therefore, it's important to include technical aspects in the Solana Wikipedia page.
 * One of the most significant strengths of Solana is its novel Proof of History (PoH) consensus algorithm, which allows for fast and efficient processing of transactions in a distributed system architecture. Solana is the first to ever utilize parallel processing in a distributed systems architecture, which I think deserves to be explained for future Wikipedia readers.
 * To support my claims, I suggest referring to reliable and independent sources such as the Binance report (https://research.binance.com/en/projects/solana) and Messari's reports on Solana (https://messari.io/report/solana-ecosystem-overview, https://messari.io/report/state-of-solana-q4-2022). These reports provide valuable insights into Solana's technology and its ecosystem, and I believe they are reliable sources that can be used to update the Solana Wikipedia page.
 * However, if these sources are not considered reliable, I would appreciate clear guidance on what constitutes a reliable source for updating the Solana Wikipedia page. I am open to using other sources if they are deemed more reliable and independent. My intention is not to promote any particular agenda but to present accurate and up-to-date information about Solana's technology and ecosystem.
 * In conclusion, I urge to consider the technical aspects of Solana and its developer interests when updating the Solana Wikipedia page. Solana is more than just a speculative token; it's a blockchain network with practical applications, and its technical aspects and developer interests should be included in the Wikipedia page like any other technology stacks. Thank you for your consideration. Mjlee221 (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC) — Mjlee221 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See WP:RS for what makes for a reliable source on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community accepts very few self published sources (those exceptions are for notable professors and such who have blogs). Tolerance for that is especially low on blockchain related articles. This holds even if the self published sources are branded as reports from 'Crypto research companies'. I also very much doubt that Binance or Messari would be considered independent given their dependence on Blockchain for their income. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the whitepaper? tell me which blockchain earlier than solana introduced parallel processing or state isolation?
 * if you have read it tell me which virtual machine or bytecode does solana use? Hydrogenbond007 (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC) — Hydrogenbond007 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please read WP:NOTFORUM Very Average Editor (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the quality of the sources in question. Just because you don't like the facts expressed doesn't make it a twitter conversation. 24.36.194.225 (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What is this? You are not a technical peer reviewer to be dismissing technical papers, especially when you provide nothing but vague claims.
 * What exactly is "emabarassing" about the technical whitepaper? 24.36.194.225 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you understand the word technology that it is not invented at once it is developed by using work of others to bring something new.
 * this is how technology evolves
 * fyi if you dont understand anything you should just refer it to another person. 115.187.48.125 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Somehow, in the last few weeks, this article has gone off the rails and now fails to be informative and encyclopedic, with a neutral point of view, as WP:NPOV requires. It has become pretty much a hit piece, with a couple of editors setting standards not applied to sourcing of articles on other cryptocurrencies. The introduction should tell us basic information about the subject, that it is a blockchain using a certain technology, (proof of history), what individuals or organization are behind it, and what distinguishes it from other blockchains, which is relatively high transactions per second and low cost per transaction. Instead, the introduction cherry picks two points in time in 2022, and notes how much its market cap declined between them, without mentioning how much it rose from its initial coin offering in 2020 to the first of those dates, and how much it has risen from the last date mentioned to the present. Then it points out that there have been outages and a lawsuit. This makes the intro, along with the rest of the article, an Unencyclopedic attack piece, benefiting other competing cryptocurrencies. I noted earlier on this talk page that I own a small amount of this as well as other cryptos, so I refrain from editing the article, and instead comment on this talk page. Is there objection to noting here references from reliable sources to source the transactions per second, cost per transaction, originators of the blockchain, and market values earlier and later than the ones emphasized? Edison (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. How did you noticed this now, at the same time as all of the many WP:SPAs who also came to this talk page in the past couple of days? Who tweeted about it?
 * Posting yet another section calling this a "hit piece" doesn't magically transform it into a hit piece. If you have reliable, independent sources, propose them, either here or in one of the multiple other sections on this talk page talking about the same issues. As you should already know, significance is decided by how something is covered in reliable sources first, and by the opinions of individual editors a distant second. So if sources talk about this blockchain/cryptocurrency's connection to FTX or the lawsuits, or the price crash, that is what the article will also talk about.
 * Any discussion of how comparatively fast or comparatively efficient this blockchain is would necessarily also have to use sources to contextualize what task it accomplishes. Otherwise, "comparatively" is misleading at best. It is faster than bitcoin... great, faster at doing what? "transactions" is a non-answer. To be clear, I'm not asking this question myself, I'm saying that readers will want to know this, and answering this as it relates to Solana is not easy and will require reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with Grayfell here. This, sadly, looks like a semi-retired admin coming out of the woodwork to answer the request by the Solana Labs team to perform POV-pushing administrative actions. Very disappointing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They have claimed on wiki to have invested in this crypto - Very Average Editor (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The archive of this page shows I’ve followed it since I edited it in November 2021. I look at it after a couple of weeks and see the sad unencyclopedic and POV mess it has become. Edison (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 27 March 2023‎ (UTC)
 * This is just getting out of hand. Should I raise this on the admin noticeboard and request additional intervention beyond the ANI's page lock? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As the comment you are replying to explained, and you have failed to address, there is a double standard on the "quality of sources" when compared to other articles.
 * Furthermore, the comments justifying the reversions are often backed by subjective opinions of the editors, not any objective issues with the sources. 24.36.194.225 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Copy edit maybe needed
the article has: Solana's total market cap was US$55 billion in January 2022, however by the end of 2022 *this* market cap had fallen in value by 95 percent.

Should it be "the market cap had fallen"? Very Average Editor (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've reorganized the lead. Generally, after the extremely basic details, leads go from general to specific, so I hope this flows better. Calling something a "token" when the accusation is that it was a security seemed strangely euphemistic, so I also adjusted that. Since the sources for the market cap drop are specifically about FTX, I also added that. If we're going to mention the price drop in the lead, we should provide at least some context. The source also doesn't mention a percentage, but does mentions specific numbers. I would personally prefer leaving 'market cap' out of it, since it's an extremely controversial concept for crypto, but since the source really emphasizes it, that doesn't seem likely. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest editing and meatpuppetry
Please be aware that if you own or are otherwise invested in this cryptocurrency you have a conflict of interest for this topic. If you are compensated for editing Wikipedia by anyone, you must disclose this, per WP:DISCLOSE. But even if you are not compensated, you may still have a conflict of interest. You may find Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful.

If the only reason you created an account was to edit this topic, that is a single-purpose account. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, bit it isn't a good thing, either. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy. Instead, our goal summarize reliable sources with a strong preference for independent sources according to due weight. We do this from a neutral point-of-view, but this does not mean that sources are not allowed to form an opinion or imply negative things. Instead, it means we must attempt to summarize sources neutrally regardless of how flattering they are. If most sources are "negative", the article will neutrally summarize those sources. This doesn't transform the article into a "hit piece".

If you were notified of these issues elsewhere, such as via twitter, discord, etc. and are editing to attempt to sway consensus, Wikipedia considers this meatpuppetry. This is not acceptable behavior. Wikipedia isn't decided by vote, and attempting to overwhelm this talk page with complaints will not get the results you are looking for, it will just get you banned. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * People are trying to make this article actually reflect reality, not the subjective views of a handful of editors with double standards for source quality.
 * Editors like @MrOllie are dismissing technical sources based on his personal assessment of the technical contents, as if he was peer reviewing the technicalities. That is NOT normal and contrary to Wiki policies. 24.36.194.225 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply not true. If personal attacks and WP:NOTFORUM violations like this continue, this talk page is probably going to get locked down so new editors cannot comment here any more. No one wants that to happen, so kindly knock it off. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 24.36.194.225, in addition to being a violation of WP:AGF, your response had almost nothing to do with what I said. It's ironic that you would use this to try and lecture experienced editors on Wiki policies. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023
Please have a look at this sentence - it contains erroneous grammar:

" The platform was created by Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation, which have been subject to several outages and a class-action lawsuit regarding the sale of unregistered tokens."

The wording "have been subject to several outages" suggests that S.Labs and S.Foundation had outages. But the outages refer to the platform. Buehs000 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Source clearly states A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solana Labs, a for-profit company working on the development of the Solana blockchain. This means that the outages involved their creation; it is grammatically sound. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How does this source even count as reliable? The Author is literally directly citing a Legal Brief filed by parties against Solana labs with no contributing sources. The source cited is simply regurgitating self-published court complaints as fact. SlyBadger18 (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread is about a single sentence in the lead section, not the overall merit of the section regarding the class action (see WP:LEAD). Acromeno (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's grammatically fine, but factually incorrect. Solana Labs and Solana Foundation have been subject of a lawsuit. Solana (the network) - has had outages. The two facts are causally unrelated and the network is a different thing from the entities. Therefore, the contents of the page would be more correctly summarized as something like:
 * Solana has had several outages, and Solana Labs and Solana Foundation has been subject to a class-action lawsuit regarding the sale of unregistered tokens. Acromeno (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please review our reliable source policy and associated guidelines for a more comprehensive examination of what constitutes reliable sourcings. Solana Labs and their creation are intimately linked; Facebook as a corporation, prior to its rebranding as Meta, could have been appropriately described as suffering outages—despite the outages themselves impacting their product(s) and not necessarily ever aspect of Facebook. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point - the difference is that a decentralized blockchain like Solana is not operated or controlled by individual companies like Solana Labs, just like the BitTorrent network is not the same thing as the authors of open source BitTorrent clients.
 * Unlike Meta, the two Solana entities could disappear overnight and the network would still be operating.
 * ...but now feels like a bad time discussing subtleties :-) I'll check back in a few weeks once all the outside noise has died down. Acromeno (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the first sentence of the first source cited in the 'outages' section: The Solana team announced on Twitter at around 02:00 ET that they were able to restart the network. Sources consider the team and the platform to be so closely linked that sources refer to them interchangeably. Speculation about what would happen to the network if that team disappeared is just that: speculation. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That source is a Yahoo News article syndicated from Business Insider, a "no consensus" source (WP:BI). It has a number of syntax and grammar errors (inconsistent capitalization, random commas, ...), and is clearly not a reliable source in this context.
 * For instance, Bloomberg (a generally reliable source) properly distinguishes between the network, the developers that support it, Solana Foundation and other companies contributing to it: https://archive.ph/jfzJ1 Acromeno (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean the source which says, as its very first sentence, Developers who operate and maintain the Solana blockchain are trying to restart the crypto network after a technical problem triggered an hours-long slowdown over the weekend.? It then mentions that An official Twitter account associated with the blockchain cited an issue during a software upgrade as prompting the need for the restart. Is the operator of Solana's "official twitter account" just guessing, then? Of course not. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The official Twitter account is operated by Solana Foundation, which the article introduces as Solana Foundation, the nonprofit that helps support the blockchain.
 * Financial Times - another generally reliable source reporting on a subject within its particular area of expertise - similarly introduces Solana Labs: Solana Labs, a developer of the Solana blockchain, is backed by big groups in traditional and cryptocurrency markets including[...].
 * So, arguably, reliable sources do recognize a distinction. But I'm also biased because I'm very familiar with the project, so take my opinion with a grain of salt :-) Acromeno (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is some specific wording change to be made, propose it. Otherwise we are in the land of 'Distinction without a difference'. MrOllie (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I propose "Solana has in the past been subject to several outages. Solana Labs and the non-profit Solana Foundation have been subject to a class-action lawsuit regarding the sale of unregistered securities." 240B:251:7C70:C00:1B:E19D:B91C:6428 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I took another look and it seems Grayfell changed the wording a few hours ago, so I don't think any further change is necessary. MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How can a blockchain platform have companies? When you use the phrase "its companies" the possessive pronoun implies something that is not stated in any of the cited sources. It is therefore in correct and should be changed to more accurately align with the source. Please remedy this confusion immediately. 133.6.42.118 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The cited source for the lawsuit mentions both the lab and the foundation. It's not that confusing. Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It actually is. The issue isn't the use of the plural "companies" but the possessive pronoun "its". It could be changed to "companies closely associated with", "companies closely tied to". Please address my original reply. Does Solana the blockchain platform own Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation? 133.6.42.118 (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While not technically correct, I would argue that it is good enough now for the reader to understand and further debate on this point is unconstructive.
 * Also, some advice for the IP users: Create an account, properly declare your conflict of interest, and don't "demand" things from the volunteers that are running Wikipedia in their spare time. Acromeno (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023 - Intro
After this sentence in the intro "Solana is a blockchain platform that was founded in 2020.", I think it would be useful to explain what the Solana blockchain is optimized for.

Can we add this sentence right after: "The blockchain is optimized to provide high throughput, low cost and ease of use."

This is cited from the well respected Forbes publication here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danrunkevicius/2022/01/13/bank-of-america-this-cryptocurrency-not-bitcoin-could-become-the-visa-of-crypto-a-huge-price-prediction-for-solana-and-ethereum ArbVision (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest removing the sentence "The company has been subject to several outages and a class-action lawsuit regarding the sale of unregistered tokens."
 * The article title refers to "blockchain platform" - this is not a company but an open source project, there is no singular company that operates or represents it. That sentence likely refers to Solana Labs Inc, the company that originally created the code, and should belong in a separate Wiki article covering that company. M laine sa (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think for technical aspects or purposes, it would be better to create a separate section (if there is enough material). For example, it may be in order to add a section entitled "Functionality" or something along those lines. I have updated the lead section to take into account your second suggestion. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with my suggestion? Surely talking about the technology in the intro is a lot more important than the price. This isn’t a Wikipedia page for speculation of the asset but rather talking about the technology. ArbVision (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:FORBESCON. Your source is no good. You also seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia: This isn't a page for ' talking about the technology' (WP:NOTSOAP), it is a page to summarize what the best available sources say about the topic. If the best available sources talk about outages and performance in the market, that is what this article will be about as well. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only WP:FORBESCON, but The blockchain is optimized to provide high throughput, low cost and ease of use is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. If you want to make a sustainable adjustment to this article, I highly encourage you to examine WP:FIVEPILLARS or reach out to experienced editors at WP:TEAROOM. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What does is it mean “best available sources”? I’d argue a Forbes article citing a blockchain analyst is a stronger source than some of these price went down sources. I’d change the sentence to “The blockchain is smart contract platform optimized for high throughput and low cost.” To @Pbrittipoint, I adjusted to remove ease of use to adhere to NPOV. I don’t see how you can talk about market cap and price without explaining what the asset even is first.
 * @MrOllieI do think this is a better available source to reflect the topic than the current intro. ArbVision (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * “The blockchain is a smart contract platform optimized for high throughput and low cost.” Edited* ArbVision (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS. Hype pieces from bloggers trying to sell crypto picks are not considered reliable sources. Very Average Editor (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a forbes article, as I just said. Read the links provided, and if you have follow up questions about how Wikipedia works in general you can visit WP:TEAHOUSE. Also, NPOV does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE, nor does it mean added promotional statements to the lead section. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood on the source. Agreed it's not a Forbes editor.
 * This article: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/what-is-solana/#:~:text=Solana%20is%20a%20blockchain%20with,network%2C%20which%20has%20unique%20advantages.
 * The two authors of this article are employed and editors of Forbes itself, not an external contributor.
 * Can we add from this article to the intro:
 * Instead for a second sentence "The blockchain works utilizing a combination of proof-of-history and delegated proof-of-stake.". ArbVision (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Forbes advisor also isn't Forbes, and it isn't any good either, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337 MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/what-to-know-before-investing-in-ethereum-competitor-solana-sol
 * This source also says the same objective truth - understood your point forbes advisor is not good. Thanks for the quick turnaround there.
 * "The blockchain works utilizing a combination of proof-of-history and delegated proof-of-stake." ArbVision (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/what-to-know-before-investing-in-ethereum-competitor-solana-sol.html
 * That url* ArbVision (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just quoting the whitepaper again. MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read the rest of the whitepaper talk and I'm not following why that isn't a credible source. It's a technical paper of the technology. It's because it's written by the founders? It's not a marketing piece, it's a technical paper. Imagine not citing the bitcoin white paper from satoshi because satoshi is biased. Of course if you look at that bitcoin wiki page it is there... but yes... you don't edit that page. But still very confused on how that's not the most prominent piece explaining the technology. ArbVision (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What you are missing is what Wikipedia is. We summarize reliable secondary sources, making Wikipedia a tertiary source. I can read the white paper, interpret it, and summarize it well. But we don't. We let an independent source analyze primary sources, and we summarize that. Imagine this is art and not crypto. We don't describe paintings, we describe what art historians say about those paintings, even if we have art historians as editors. Very Average Editor (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So the CNBC article I mentioned is exactly what you are saying. The author isn't quoting the founder (if so she would've quoted it), she read the primary source and gave her explanation of it. You can even cross-reference her wording vs the whitepaper and you can tell she synthesized it. ArbVision (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the analysis? "..., Yakovenko wrote in the Solana white paper."
 * That is just quoting the white paper. Read the source you sent. Very Average Editor (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Thanks for giving the clarity. Here is a better source. A team at Georgia Institute of Technology published their take on the blockchain and made the same point breaking down the technology.
 * https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2207/2207.05240.pdf ArbVision (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is much closer to acceptable, but due to longstanding consensus, Wikipedia doesn't consider preprint services to be reliable sources. This does seem to be independent and closely related to the topic though. You can check WP:ARXIV for a longer explanation about the problems with that particular source Very Average Editor (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. Instead of linking the ARXIV, I found the origin of the paper in the academic publisher Springe, Cham. This was reviewed and edited by a Louisiana State University Professor Kisung Lee + Liang-Jie Zhang of the Kingdee Software Group.
 * The full citation including the publication is:
 * Li, X., Wang, X., Kong, T., Zheng, J., Luo, M. (2022). From Bitcoin to Solana – Innovating Blockchain Towards Enterprise Applications. In: Lee, K., Zhang, LJ. (eds) Blockchain – ICBC 2021. ICBC 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12991. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96527-3_6
 * Here is a link to the original source: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-96527-3_6#chapter-info ArbVision (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Much, much better. I'll read this one over in the next day or two and maybe use it to start a new section on performance or features. The lead section summarizes the article body, so that needs to come first. MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I parsed through the publication to summarize a section we can call:
 * Technology
 * Solana is a blockchain system that aims to improve the performance of traditional blockchain systems and make it easier to build scalable and user-friendly applications. It introduces a Proof of History mechanism, in addition to Proof of Stake, where a leader node generates a list of pre-arranged transactions with embedded timestamps, allowing for the elimination of the need to synchronize time, thereby saving computing resources. Transactions are broken into batches and sent to nodes, which then share their batch with peers to reconstruct the original collection of transactions. The combination of Proof of History and horizon scaling significantly improves the system's performance.
 * The intro summary to this to put in the first paragraph:
 * Solana is a high-performance blockchain that uses Proof of History and Proof of Stake to enhance scalability and user-friendliness for building applications.
 * All of this is worded based on the language in the peer-reviewed, published, academic article above. I added no additional perspective to the publication. Thanks @MrOllie for working with me on this. ArbVision (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are generally inferior to journal articles, and your summary introduced non-neutral language.

As I mentioned below, any mentions of how much more efficient or faster Solana is than other blockchains would also, necessarily, have to explain what task is accomplished. Otherwise, these comparisons do not make any sense. Perhaps the conference proceeding goes more in to it, but the abstract doesn't address this beyond saying that Solana improves over bitcoin and Ethereum in some specific ways. That barely explains anything at all. Our goal isn't to drop factoids and let readers do their own research, it is to provide context so readers understand the bigger picture. It is almost meaningless to fluff the article with mentions of how Solana is better than its competitors if we don't also mention, per reliable independent sources, what problems it actually solves. For this to be meaningful to readers, there has to be at least a sliver of a connection to the real world. To include these specific improvements without any context would be puffery.

To put it another way, if the goal of Solana is to make it "easier to build scalable and user-friendly applications" than it is not merely competing with bitcoin and Ethereum, it is also competing with C#, Python, MySQL, Amazon, Google, Apple, and a thousand other languages and services. Being "easier to build" still needs context. Limiting comparisons only to other blockchains would be rigging the contest in Solana's favor. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My summary didn't introduce any new language aside from Proof of Stake. You know how I know it didn't? Chat GPT literally summarized it from the copy/paste text I put in. If you just quote the academic journal, it says "Solana is a blockchain system which brings tremendous improvement to the performance of traditional blockchain and makes it possible to build scalable and user-friendly applications for the world."
 * We can adjust summary in the intro to say: "Solana is a high-performance blockchain that uses Proof of History and Proof of Stake to enhance scalability and user-friendliness for building blockchain applications." So we can add the word blockchain to make clear not comparing to traditional databases. ArbVision (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, when you say "abstract doesn't address this beyond saying...", all of the summary comes from the actual journal piece, not just the paragraph abstract. ArbVision (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have access to the peer-reviewed version? We cannot assume that the preprint is the same, changes are often made during the review process. Also, We can't accept copy and pastes or Chat GPT writing here. Please don't paste in anything like that again. MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming they are the same, will you make this addition? If so, I'm happy to buy it for $30 to prove they are the same. ArbVision (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will make some sort of addition, but I will not use your wording. MrOllie (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so if I purchase this - how do I prove they are basically identical? Also, that's barely "my wording", it's Chat GPT which is a less biased summary than anything either of could do ourselves. So curious what are you are going to edit/write. ArbVision (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your comments about ChatGPT being less biased are alarming, to say the least. Sources, including the CEO of OpenAI himself, agree that ChatGPT has a bias problem. Sources don't agree on on where that bias falls, but regardless, using ChatGPT for Wikipedia content is not appropriate or acceptable for a whole host of reasons. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, then read 3.6 in the in journal and tell me where my summary has literally any liberties. Everything said above you can find very specifically in that section. The only part I grabbed from another section was saying Proof of Stake which is earlier in that journal. ArbVision (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, your summary introduced non-neutral language. Meaning that the summary you proposed introduces non-neutral language to the article. As I already explained, multiple times, any mention of Solana's "improvements" must indicate what tasks this blockchain performs better. This summary did not explain to readers why these extremely specific and arcane technical improvements are encyclopedically significant. Lines like "The combination of Proof of History and horizon scaling significantly improves the system's performance." sound vaguely impressive, but they don't explain anything. "significantly improves" compared to what? It's just jargon at that point.
 * Since I have no interest in promoting this cryptocurrency, I expect that the article will provide context instead of free-floating promotion. Can you say the same? Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to tell people to buy Solana or invest in Solana based on this article. This not a fluff piece. It is factual those two technologies lead to a performance increase. 1) To your question compared to what? The article says compared to traditional blockchains like Bitcoin or Ethereum, so we can add that line if you'd like. I figured traditional blockchains would be better than listing out others but fine to add in. 2) To your question about what does it mean performance increasing mean, it means the transaction per second (TPS) is improving which is stated earlier in the publication as well.
 * Even people who have bets on other cryptocurrency or bets against Solana would agree with these statements that proof of stake + history improves performance compared to traditional blockchains is accurate. ArbVision (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if we want to include the actual TPS value of 50,000 transactions per second, this team from Dublin City University and University of Galway, put that claim to the test and "Using the environment outlined in the previous section, an average TPS rates of 30,000 with a max TPS of 79,000 were achieved (see Fig. 1). Thus, we can be satisfied that the environment outlined here can achieve a high TPS rate on the Solana network and is a suitable environment for the experiments proposed below.".
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358047685_Can_Solana's_high_throughput_be_an_enabler_for_IoT ArbVision (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question about whether or not you have a conflict-of-interest. For clarity, I don't have any relevant conflict-of-interest in this or any other cryptocurrency. If you have such a conflict of interest, which seems very likely judging by how you dodged my question, you should carefully read WP:COI.
 * But even setting that aside, you've missed the point of what I'm saying. What do those other, inferior blockchains actually do that Solana does so much better? The answer is not self-evident. I am not disputing that Solana's bells-and-whistles "improve performance" by some metrics, but we need to explain what those metrics actually are. Saying "it's faster" is meaningless, saying "transaction speeds are faster" is only slightly better. We need to explain what this means, and more importantly, we need that context to come from a reliable, independent source. To include these details without that context is promotional, regardless of your stated intentions.
 * As I said, conference proceedings are generally worse than journal articles on Wikipedia. The proceedings of a workshop on blockchain and smart contracts is specifically niche and would benefit from secondary sources for context. The weaker the source, the less useful it is for establishing encyclopedic significance. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have a conflict. I want all blockchains to have Wikipedia pages that are fair and accurate. I've gone through 10 of them and 9 out of 10 of them are fine. This one is not. It's very bizarre to me to highlight a price of a coin in an intro explaining a technology. No other chain has it even though are all down 70%-95% from highs. It's also up thousands of percent from inception which isn't mentioned. So either, every other Wiki page has some bad editors, or this one needs iterations. The founder of Wikipedia said "Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly". If you think this page represents all views, without bias fairly, you may not have enough understanding of the space to properly edit this page.
 * Instead of just complaining about that, I'm trying to focus on what's missing from this page... any information about the actual Solana Blockchain. To say an article written by multiple professors across multiple universities, that was peer reviewed is worse than the Yahoo Finance articles linked in these sources seems off. There is ultimately some subjectivity here of whether it's fair and yes, it may not be the perfect source but I've been reading through all the Wikipedia rules and it looks totally fair to use it still.
 * I also linked a second publication to be very clear about the transaction per second capacity and exactly the TPS that was tested. Both of these sources together articulate that same point. I'm fine appending the precise TPS metrics to the explanation I had. ArbVision (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your affiliation, if any, with the software and blockchain company Stakewiz? ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * None. ArbVision (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if we are going to talk about bias or conflict. "The white paper isn't very interesting. In fact, it's embarrassing from a technical standpoint. This is pretty much a clone of other technology... " from @Very Average Editor is acceptable?
 * Solana currently does more than transactions than every other blockchain which is just a fact - and "it's embarrassing from a technical standpoint", and no other blockchain has had proof of history and it's a "clone of other technology". The most technical people I know who want Ethereum over Solana would disagree with these statements as categorically false. ArbVision (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Having an opinion and having a conflict of interest are different.
 * It is simply not plausible that it was a coincidence that you showed up here, arguing for the addition of promotional details, the same day as a dozen other single-purpose accounts. So merely saying I don't think I have a conflict isn't persuasive. You created this account earlier today, presumably to make these edits. If this isn't your first account, you should review WP:SOCK in addition to WP:COI.
 * Other articles will have other sources and their own histories. If you haven't found other articles which are less flattering than this one, to be blunt, you haven't been looking very hard. Just as one obvious example, SafeMoon includes prices, and it certainly isn't flattering. Also, some of those other article's histories will, unfortunately, involve shilling which has been a lot more subtle, and therefore a lot more successful, than what has been happening here. That's not something for anyone to be proud of.
 * Trying to add obscure primary source to balance out unflattering content is not appropriate, that's just false balance. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read SOCK and COI. I've been interested in the blockchain space for over 10 years and yes, this did get flagged across a number of channels that for whatever reason this particular blockchain had an extreme bias. That's why I'm here. I used to have faith in the Wikipedia process but now less so.
 * If you think SafeMoon is a comparison to Solana, you honestly aren't informed enough about this space to be an editor. Look at Wikis from Bitcoin, Ethereum, Polygon, Cardano, Polkadot...
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1145238593
 * Stuff like this where Solana going down 95% is noteworthy but being up 100% YTD is not? And the explanation is market cap vs. price (which if you know basic finance and how Solana works are tied together).
 * Do you honestly feel this Wikipedia page is in a fair state or do you think it's not, but you need more sources to get it there?
 * If you think talking about the metrics around capacity of technology is trying to be flattering is showing bias, to even categorize that as fluff or flattering is wild - it's just a technical fact and literally the point of the technology.
 * On the Car Wikipedia page, can I say that cars were faster than horses and could go x MPH, or is that too biased and trying to be flattering to cars?
 * I don't think you're being as objective as you think you are and I think I'm giving an honest attempt at bringing much more technical pieces than articles saying a token is up or down over arbitrary time horizons. This topic is called "Solana (blockchain platform") so if I don't know anything about Solana I probably want to understand what this blockchain platform does, how it works, and what are some technical measurements about its capacity. ArbVision (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What you are describing is meat puppetry.
 * I compared SafeMoon (which is a cryptocurrency) to SOL (which is another cryptocurrency). My point is that for both articles, multiple reliable sources mention a trait which is shared between them, which is a remarkable drop in price over a short period of time. If you think I or anyone else needs to be informed in such a way that we make the right comparisons, you've missed the point completely. That's not how this works. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. If reliable sources define any other blockchain by its price in the same way they do Solana and SafeMoon, then those articles should be updated to reflect that, but this talk page isn't the place for that discussion. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asked to do this. I wanted to when I saw the page for the first time. I'm not trying to promote a cause - just want a technically accurate fair Wikipedia page.
 * Can you address my either couple points of 1) why things like the price going down is relevant but the price going back up isn't? 2) also why you are considering technical facts as flattering?
 * I'm fine if this is just a sourcing question, but given your other statements it feels like it's not. ArbVision (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't prove anything, I was only asking because if you knew of a public copy it'd save me a trip to the library. MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this may save you a trip: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358452291_From_Bitcoin_to_Solana_-_Innovating_Blockchain_Towards_Enterprise_Applications ArbVision (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are conference proceedings, though, not a peer reviewed journal article. Acromeno (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are conference proceedings, though, not a peer reviewed journal article. Acromeno (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to improve the introduction
I’d like to improve the introduction paragraph with more information, but the page is currently restricted to editors with over 500 edits (I only have ~200 contributions). The current introduction is missing general information readers might find useful (that it is open source and has smart contract functionality). This general information is included in the introduction of many other blockchain pages, but is missing here (see: Avalanche (blockchain platform), Ethereum, Ethereum Classic, Polkadot (cryptocurrency)).

Current introduction:

Solana is a blockchain platform that was created in 2020 by Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation.

Proposed improvement:

Solana is an open-source blockchain with smart contract functionality that was created in 2020 by Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation.

References:

https://www.investopedia.com/solana-5210472

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/what-is-solana/

https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/financials/cryptocurrency-stocks/solana/

The link to Solana’s open source repository is already in the info box. Aarongillett (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Barring any opposition, this seems like a very nuanced change. I'm uncertain if the first sentence should address the smart contract capability in light of the emphasis placed in these sources, but generally think this is a more comprehensive opening that would better allow those unfamiliar with the topic to at least understand how it compares to other cryptocurrencies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Being a Proof of Stake blockchain may be more important to emphasize than the smart contract capabilities in terms of readers getting a rough idea of what kind of blockchain it is. Acromeno (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Given the recent contentiousness of this page, I only made a very minor, hopefully useful contribution for readers. I agree that including the information that Solana is Proof of Stake is also important, and would be happy to include it as well. Aarongillett (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that Investopedia is very much not considered a reliable source (WP:INVESTOPEDIA), and while Fool.com is not explicitly listed, they offer "Premium Investing Services" so they do not strike me as particularly neutral.
 * Forbes Advisor has advertisments for eToro, but the infobox notes that the content is produced and peer-reviewed by their editorial team rather than "Forbes Contributors". Curious about experienced editor's opinions on this. Acromeno (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Forbes Advisor is sponcon and unusable, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337 MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, darn, hadn't seen that Advisor was also ruled out of RS. Good catch. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Financial Times has a few non-opinion reports on cryptocurrency written by regular editorial staff (https://www.ft.com/matthew-vincent). FT is generally considered reliable and the reports seem to be balanced and neutral and could be a good source regarding the general perception of the blockchain.
 * https://archive.ph/0oAur ("Crypto glossary") for smart contract capabilities: Solana: A blockchain protocol that can handle smart contracts and claims faster speeds and lower transaction costs than ethereum.
 * https://archive.ph/ZLbj3 ("What are digital assets and how does blockchain work?") for general perception of Solana compared to other blockchains: Several technology platform providers facilitate the building of blockchains. According to industry estimates, 60-70 per cent of public blockchains are run on the Ethereum platform. Some believe this could become the preferred provider of technology for a range of decentralised processes. However, newer rival blockchain platforms with greater processing capacity have now sprung up, including Avalanche, Solana and Cardano. Solana has been used as a platform for the sale of new collections of NFTs. Acromeno (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This Economist print article also appears to be a useful source for how the blockchain would be generally introduced to a wider audience (rough performance numbers, Proof of Stake):
 * https://archive.ph/rXkh1 ("The race to dominate the DeFi ecosystem is on"): A growing number of networks, such as Avalanche, Binance Smart Chain, Terra and Solana, now use proof of stake to run blockchains that do the same basic job as Ethereum, but much more quickly and cheaply. Avalanche and Solana, for instance, both process thousands of transactions a second. Acromeno (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Before worrying about the lede, work on the body. The lede is a summary of the body.
 * Before deciding what you want in the article, read a few independent sources, and summarize those. We only care about what independent sources say, we don't want to edit backwards by starting with our ideas of the facts and trying to find sources that agree. We prefer dispassionate editors over true believers. If you think Solana is a big deal, you should probably edit about food or local train stops. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I dunno about that, train enthusiasts can be quite fierce. MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Never get between a train editor and their article on a favorite metro spot. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While I am familiar with the rules (albeit mainly through de), I have a clearly stated conflict of interest - so, providing sources for other editors to pick up is the best I can do to help fix the page.
 * As far as I can tell from WP:LEDE, it is the appropriate place for a broad characterization of the subject: It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies., which these sources provide.
 * That being said, the sources in question are useful beyond that, but I'd rather have someone else without a COI pick them up and propose the actual changes (or directly make the edit).
 * I also left a note on your talk page. Acromeno (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I would love to help improve both article body and lead. Given that I have a COI, do you feel like it would be appropriate for me to propose specific wording, or should I stick to digging up appropriate sources and let uninvolved editors figure out the rest? Acromeno (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Both are OK. As long as you disclose the COI, you can use the edit request template to request specific changes, ideally with sources for additions. WP:COI is a useful primer for your situation Very Average Editor (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Acromeno (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the original proposal, the link to Solana’s open source repository is already in the info box. This is why I considered the small addition to the lead as a useful summary. Let me know if you disagree. Aarongillett (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Links to the repository in the infobox are as a convenience for readers. They are not usable to demonstrate the encyclopedic significance of any specific details, since repositories are WP:PRIMARY and (usually) also WP:UGC. Since repositories are not generally reliable sources, they should only be used, optionally, as a supplement for information that is shown to be useful by WP:IS, or for details which are non-controversial but still useful to a reader (examples include things like founding dates, the city and country of a company, things like that).

The lead, and especially the first paragraph, is a good place to list defining traits. This means things which reliable, independent sources consistently use to define the topic. If you are looking around for sources which include details that you think should be included, you're probably going to find them. Sometimes that's understandable when trying to contextualize some complicated detail, but hunting for sources like that is the wrong approach for the lead. Don't just look at the part of a source which matches what you searched for (especially not unreliable or borderline reliable ones) look at what reliable sources are saying about this topic as a whole and work to summarize that.

I don't like how the Ethereum article uses primary sources, or what details that article chooses to emphasize, but that discussion belongs elsewhere. For this article, do reliable, independent sources consistently define this blockchain by mentioning that it is open source? My understanding is that the majority of encyclopedically significant blockchains are open source. Emphasizing this in the very first sentence is implying that this trait is somehow significant or interesting, which is a form of subtle editorializing. It is not obvious why that would be defiing, since it is the norm for most blockchains worth talking about. It would sort of be like mentioning that a celebrity is right-handed. Even if that celebrity is a baseball player, that doesn't necessarily belong in the very first sentence, right? When we include details like this we're telling readers that they are significant based on our own understanding, but that isn't our goal. Our goal should be to provide context.

Again, I am aware that other blockchain articles include this. As I'm sure everyone here is aware, Wikipedia's coverage of cryptocurrency-related topics is generally pretty bad. The way to improve this isn't to smear the problems equally across all articles, it's to clean-up the problems as we find them. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the majority of encyclopedically significant blockchains are open source.
 * Agreed, the blockchain being open source is definitely not a defining trait. Virtually every blockchain is open source. Might be worth mentioning it somewhere in the article but I'm not sure whether it needs explicit mentioning at all. The infobox already notes the Apache 2 license.
 * I went through the little Financial Times, Bloomberg and Economist reporting I could find and they tend to introduce Solana as either a Proof of Stake blockchain, and/or a smart contract chain (see above for a few examples). Acromeno (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarification needed regarding the distinction between Solana blockchain platform and Solana Labs company
For example: "The company has been subject to several outages and a class-action lawsuit regarding the sale of unregistered tokens."

Right now, the article implies the Solana blockchain platform was subject to outages and a class-action lawsuit regarding the sale of unregistered tokens. However, it's important to note that the outages were related to the Solana blockchain platform itself, while the lawsuit was related to Solana Labs, the company, and its sale of unregistered tokens. It's important to differentiate between the two in order to provide accurate and clear information to readers.

Furthermore, the focus of the article is on Solana, the blockchain platform, and not Solana Labs, the company behind the platform. KaizenGuru (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Also grammatically this does not make sense as no object that is a company or could be construed to be a company has been mentioned. This is a reference to something that hasn’t been stated. 240B:251:7C70:C00:DDA9:FEC1:6AD0:B65C (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Typically, reliable sources do not emphasize the difference between the company and the service a company provides, for obvious reasons. If someone "sues Coca-Cola" it is understood that they are suing the company, not the carbonated beverage, and if someone "is allergic to Coca-Cola", it is understood that they are not allergic to the corporation. We do not assume readers are idiots, so we don't necessarily need to spell this out. As much as Solana might like to pretend otherwise, the company/foundation and the 'platform' are inextricably linked, and most readers will understand this. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Solana" can be ambiguous because it can refer to multiple entities depending on the context.
 * Conflating a company with its products or platforms can lead to misunderstandings, especially when it comes to legal or other issues such as outages. It's not that readers are assumed to be idiots, it's that the information is not clearly presented for readers. For instance the company didn't have an outage it's not a power company, nor was it a company that had an outage at all. The blockchain had the outage. The company had a class-action law suit, but what company? The article isn't an article on the company, it's on the blockchain platform.
 * Forbes makes the distinction in the linked article, without the distinction it would lack clarity, the same applies here. So while it's okay to sometimes to refer to Solana Labs, as "Solana", it's confusing in this context. If Microsoft has a lawsuit for using the name Internet Explorer, the suit isn't against the product, but rather Microsoft as a company. Similarly, the blockchain platform is not a legal entity being sued, it's Solana Labs and the Foundation. Also, it should be removed from the introduction, it's not relevant to introducing the blockchain platform itself.
 * Miller, Rosemarie. "New Lawsuit Alleging That Solana Is A Security Could Have Big Implications For The Crypto Investment Landscape". Forbes. KaizenGuru (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You want us to belive that a company named Solana, which hosts the official Solana blockchain documentation, official cli tools, and has employees begging for people to edit this wiki page is some how not the same thing? Do you think it's random that Solana labs also runs the main Solana girhub repo? Cmon. Very Average Editor (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The goal is to increase clarity of the article. Right now it lacks clarity and provides very little meaningful content. KaizenGuru (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretending Solana blockchain isn't a project of Solana labs isn't helpful. You won't clarify anything by trying to split the topics, they are inextricably linked. Very Average Editor (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is also a project of Jump’s crypto as they are making a second validator client. Implying that Solana Labs is the sole contributor to solana is factually in correct. 126.194.199.115 (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC) — 126.194.199.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * While Solana Labs has contributed significantly to the development and growth of the Solana blockchain ecosystem, it is not accurate to say that the two are inextricably linked.
 * The blockchain platform was founded in 2020, but Solana Labs was founded back in 2017. The Forbes Staff article below specifies Solana Labs as a technology company developing the network. The other Forbes article does the same.
 * This article below can be used as a reference to help write and expand the introduction as it includes information on the blockchain platform as well.
 * Nina Bambysheva. Solana Hits New All-Time High Above $60. Forbes. KaizenGuru (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a bad analogy as the coke company owns coke, both the formula and the rights to the term coka-cola. This is exactly why making the distinction is important. 126.194.199.115 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC) — 126.194.199.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Uninvolved editor here: While I don't agree that there's a ton of ambiguity, I have changed (Special:Diff/1147279271) the lead to The Solana blockchain has been subject to several outages, and Solana companies... in part to reflect the body, which specifies the Solana blockchain in relation to the outages. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  22:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good edit. If you want, there are some other changes the meatpuppets suggested that I don't feel qualified commenting on and think could use a well-tuned outside eye. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The neutrality of the Solana Introduction on Wikipedia
Let's pretend that this was the introduction to the Apple Inc. Wikipedia page:

''"Apple Computer Inc. is a technology company that was founded in 1976. Apple has faced several challenges throughout its history, including product recalls, legal battles, and controversies surrounding working conditions and privacy issues. In recent years, Apple has also faced criticism for its perceived lack of innovation and its reliance on incremental updates to existing products.

''Apple's total market cap reached a high of over $3 trillion in 2021, but the company has also experienced periods of decline in the past. For example, in the 1990s, Apple faced significant financial challenges and was at risk of bankruptcy." 

While I appreciate the value of Wikipedia and its commitment to neutrality, I feel that the Introduction section of the Solana page is unduly negative in its tone. While it may reflect the perspective of independent sources, I believe that this negativity has overshadowed the article's informative aspects. As a reader, I want to see a fair and balanced presentation of the facts, and I don't think that the current Introduction section meets that standard. I hope that Wikipedia editors will take note of this and work to ensure that the article remains neutral in its coverage of Solana. 2A00:801:4AB:9195:210D:B646:20FB:CCBC (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * See all the sections above. We're not Fox News, we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Addition to history section
If we are going to include price information in a prevalent fashion throughout the article. Let's change:

Before: By the end of 2022, Solana had lost more than $50 billion in value since the beginning of the year.

After: By the end of 2022, Solana had lost more than $50 billion in value since the beginning of the year. As of March 15th, 2023, Solana has experienced a surge of over 100% since December 31st, 2022.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/15/bitcoin-btc-price-is-up-50percent-this-year-outperforming-stocks-and-gold.html

It was suggested by an editor to move this from intro to body: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1145238593 ArbVision (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Just going to correct some very minor aspects of the proposed new sentence–"surge" is pretty archetypal WP:PUFFERY–but otherwise thank you for suggesting this edit. Let me know if you have similar proposed edits of a similar calibre. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually ended up placing the information in a different spot in the same section so that that it read more chronologically. The same source and content were used. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense on the puffery, I grabbed the old sentence in the wiki but agreed there. Thanks for adjusting and adding. Appreciate it @Pbritti ArbVision (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This info could be included, but not like this and not with such a flimsy source. I do not think this is due weight. This source barely even mentions Solana, just as a footnote at the end. If this is intended to contrast with the price drop, this is misleading. The drop is quantified by market cap. This "surge" is instead measured by percentage increase over a very convenient time-frame. This selective change in framing implies that Solana has rebounded to its previous high. It really, really has not. Dropping by 95% and then "rebounding" by 100% isn't that impressive just because the digits are close. It even has its own unfortunate euphemism. The ATH was just shy of $260. The high for the past year was over $130. The recent 'surge' mentioned in passing by CNBC was from about $10 to about $20. Ten bucks doesn't make a difference when something is priced in the hundreds, so this only seems impressive because of the steep drop.
 * The way to explain any of this is with better sources that actually discuss this in depth, not in passing. From this source, there is no indication of lasting encyclopedic significance, which makes this supposed rally much different from the price drop, which has multiple sources and at least some sourced context. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved the pricing info together and used common units. Better? MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @MrOllie and @Pbritti.
 * Responding to @Grayfell
 * Coinvent time-frame... it's the most up to date YTD time frame written? I agree it's not central to the article but it's a credible source per Wikipedia. If a person invested Jan 1, 2023 they would be up 100%? Why use down 95% timeframe when it's actually up from the initial 22 cent price? So really it's not down 95%, it's up 9,000%? They are all arbitrary time horizons by that logic, you happened to cherry pick one time-frame which also feels bad to me but close to YTD is generally as relevant a time frame as any. Very confused about the consistency here of logic. ArbVision (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask the people writing the reliable sources why they use particular timeframes, we're not going to override their judgment with our own. MrOllie (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that @MrOllie
 * For @Pbritti
 * If you are ok with 95% down, you surely are ok with up 12,000% which is central to this article below.
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/what-to-know-before-investing-in-ethereum-competitor-solana-sol.html
 * The truth is Solana went up a lot in 2021. It was down a lot in 2022. It is up a lot in 2023. And it is still up a lot since inception.
 * If people are ok incorporating the above CNBC article and articulating the full picture. Feels to be consistent with the perspective with @Pbritti @MrOllie. 1) Credible source 2) Leverage the time frames they found notable ArbVision (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's out of date. We're not going to get into tracking every up and down. We see this 'If you do X you must do Y' reasoning a lot around here. It's never very convincing. MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just trying to understand the logic around some of the editors subjective takes. What’s your out of date threshold? If it’s a notability thing, it surely hits that threshold. ArbVision (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't governed by some hyper-logical rigid system of laws and rules. If that's what you're trying to suss out, you will not be successful. We see this kind of reasoning a lot around here too. See WP:WIKILAWYER. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the market cap is an improvement, but the source is still very flimsy. Flimsy enough that I don't think it belongs at all. March 2023 is has no special significance beyond recentism. The source is from March, about something as of March, but Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia.
 * To put it another way, the sources about Solana's decline are specifically about Solana's decline over a discrete calendar year, and those sources provide context (FTX, mainly). The source about the 'rebound' is about Bitcoin's rebound at the time, with a brief mention of Ether and Solana at the very end.
 * Most articles about companies do not mention these kinds of relatively granular movements in stock price without some specific reason, even though financial outlets will sometimes mention them. The same with real currencies (I don't see anything like this in the Japanese yen article, for example). If the goal of all this meat puppetry is to hold this article to the same standard as other articles, than the inclusion of this flimsy cruft is a step in the wrong direction.
 * The source about Solana being "up 12,000%" in Nov. 2021 is not fantastic, but it's at least mainly about Solana being up at a specific arbitrary time. The CNBC source isn't even that. So yet again, please find better sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Now, all things being equal, the year-long period given for the significant decline in value is also somewhat arbitrary. I think it's totally fine to admit that–especially in things like this–a very temperate measure of recentist coverage is ok. One of the meatpuppets claimed we don't keep up-to-date information on Home Depot's value in the lede; besides that not being true, I think that article is a fair example of a very moderate application of recent coverage. Does it mean we log every reported fluctuation? Absolutely not. But some of the larger values can be added–if the sources are reliable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The source mentions Solana and Etheruem briefly, and is otherwise entirely about bitcoin. Since the substance of the source is about bitcoin, we would also have to contextualize this price increase as it relates to bitcoin (something like "coinciding with a rise in bitcoin and Ethereum, the price of Solana increased in March 2023 to...") To do otherwise is to subtly misrepresent the point the source is trying to make. I don't think including this is helpful to readers, but that context is a more neutral way to summarize the source. Like I said, I would strongly prefer to summarize a more substantial source for this kind of thing.
 * A calendar year is not arbitrary in the way that two and a half months is arbitrary. We have other, more substantial and equally reliable sources for the price at various points, as the meatpuppets have already linked. from Forbes staff in August 2021 is an example. It's not a great source,  but it's at least substantially about the price of Solana, while the CNBC source is not. Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been WP:BOLD and added information from the CNBC article, consolidating it with other information about market cap. Specific mention of market cap in an RS is worthy of inclusion.On a broader note, I'd encourage everyone to assume good faith. That includes us Wikipedia editors regarding meatpuppets. I take it that culturally, the crypto scene operates very differently from us, and while these sorts of tweets are immediate red flags (tip for the newbies: Wikipedians will be the first to admit to you that our project as a whole suffers from serious problems, including bias. One of our least favorite things, though, is when people use off-site mechanisms to try to rally brigades against our "cabal".) and the burden is on "them" to learn our norms, we can't pretend that the norms can be confusing and apparently arbitrary. At the risk of sounding cliché, I think we all need to take deep breath for a moment :) WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  23:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a deep breath? Not every disagreement is a problem, it's just part of the process. I don't agree with Pbritti's edit, but I appreciate their effort and trust that they are acting in good faith, which is why I'm discussing this here. This is the process working as intended. The article is WP:ECP so I don't think a lack of breathing room is the most critical problem.
 * As for the meat puppets, 'assume good faith' doesn't mean 'ignore bad faith'. Brigading and meat-puppetry are not good faith behaviors, and it's best to be honest about that. Some of these meat puppets have started working in good faith, which is nice I guess, but our goal, ultimately, is to neutrally summarize reliable sources into an encyclopedia article. This goal is not met by only whitewashing the article half-way as some sort of compromise. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, not every disagreement is a problem, but this set of disagreements wound up on ANI. The latter part of that reply was more directed at the back and forth with ArbVision generally and was not meant as a criticism of you. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  13:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is heavily biased, it's hard for me to read a factual take of the platform
To describe the blockchain as subject to several outages it's important to make sure the information is up to date, and I noticed that several other blockchain platforms like Polygon, Arbitrum, ZKSync do not have such a statement in the opening paragraph despite them also having outages and controversial news updates. 38.42.0.216 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't have articles for Arbitrum or ZKSync, so it's not clear what you're talking about. If you know of reliable and independent sources for Polygon's outages, please propose them at Talk:Polygon (blockchain). This article is for discussing the Solana article, not those other blockchain platforms. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * After comparing to 5+ alternative blockchains (Ethereum, Tron, Cosmos, Polkadot, Bitcoin), not a single other blockchain has any "negative" events in the introduction. We can go to each separate article and propose they update them or we can better understand why a double standard is applied to this article. Ethereum for example had a widely reported DAO hack (see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-22/attacker-behind-record-2016-crypto-hack-might-have-been-found) however this is not mentioned in the introduction. Please explain why you have elected to apply a different and inconsistent standard to this article? 179.50.15.34 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't our job to "fix" those other articles, but I went through the Ethereum article not too long ago and remove massive amounts of unsourced content that was being used for promotional purposes. Unfortunately, the passion people have for crypto currencies means some articles have rose-colored tints to them that they shouldn't. This article reflects a more even-handed approach, which I hope other editors will mimicked on further articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No other blockchain article refers to the price of the token in the introduction or to outages or to lawsuits. As you insist on maintaining that content it IS your job to justify why this content should remain there where it does not exist on comparable articles. If all blockchain articles included similar content then I understand your position. As literally not a single other one does, it seems that a different standard is being applied here.
 * And as you have been working on the Ethereum page I assume you have proposed to specify the DAO hack on the Ethereum page in the introduction? If not why not? It was a significant event and has citable sources. 179.50.15.34 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Locate the relevant sources and propose the changes on those articles' talk pages. You could also create an account, practice editing in subject matters less contentious, and then make the changes yourself after acquiring the relevant expertise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your (well meaning I hope) deflection however I believe it should have been obvious I was using that as an example to highlight the inconsistency being applied.
 * Again, I'm interested in the Solana article and ensuring it is not an aberration but is inline with countless comparable articles and it currently is not (I have provided evidence of this). Additional evidence includes: it is the only article that talks about token price in the introduction. What is the justification for this? Why is this relevant in the introduction? Which other blockchain article has this? Further, which other company article has this? Does the Netflix article lead with NFLX stock ATH and current price? They don't? Why is that?
 * Please point me to some other examples otherwise your neutrality would appear to be bias. 179.50.15.34 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That some other article also needs fixing doesn't mean that /this/ article can't be fixed. We have limited time and editorial resources and we have to start with something. If you have questions about how Wikipedia operates, you can ask at WP:TEAHOUSE, but no one is required to spend their time compiling lists of examples to satisfy your curiosity. The collection of folks who happen to have edited this particular article are not responsible for every other article on the encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

'Proof of history'
Proof of history is a neologism the Solana project has come up with as part of their marketing efforts. We should not be using the term in this article as though it is common terminology - or indeed means anything to the majority of people. It doesn't. MrOllie (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have been looking for any indication that this is more than jargon for over a year, and have not found it yet. Every mention from a reliable independent source I have seen which mentions this term either doesn't explain what it means at all, or explains in a way that is too vague and too similar to other mechanisms for it to be meaningful. It isn't enough to mention this term, we need to explain, per sources, why it should matter to readers. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Point taken that it may well be a marketing gimmick. Given that PoH appears to be central to Solana's conception of itself (even if it is a marketing gimmick — I have no insight/opinion on that at present), and it does appear in RS, is there a way to mention it with proper contextualization? I'm not opposed to leaving that information out per se, but it does seem odd to leave out given its mention in relevant sources (both independent and not). The fact that such a term is used, even if it is jargon, is still probably relevant for a comprehensive article. Apologies if my previous edits gave a false veneer of legitimacy to a less-than-substantive concept; I blame CNBC. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  13:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the above, I think reference to it in the way one would a product or service is acceptable. It shouldn't feature prominently nor be a definitional aspect of Solana and the associated orgs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Its mention in relevant sources (including CNBC mentions) mostly comes in the context of quotes from its organizations or its investors - that is, marketing or at most one step removed from marketing. We also need to be very careful about attributing Solana's greater transaction rate to this - other sources attribute that to other factors, such as the extremely high hardware requirements for running a Solana node. If we mention this at all, we need to attribute the claims to the place they came from rather than using wikivoice. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 to MrOllie's above comment. That seems like a good way to deal with things. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Curious as to thoughts on this source from InfoWorld. It read as a tad laudatory/credulous to me, but InfoWorld appears to check out as an RS, the writer in question has an established career in tech/software writing (which appears to feature a lot of "Here is all about [insert new obscure technology thing]" articles), and there is no obvious COI. In short, I can't find a reason to exclude it from consideration. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  22:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I previously discussed that source above at, To briefly restate, InfoWorld's about page  suggests more of a focus on promotion and buzzwords than scholarship or legitimate journalism. The specific article's author doesn't appear to be a notable topic expert, either, but does put out a lot of softball fluff. To put it another way, the source might be usable for some items, but it's flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for missing the above. I think judging based on the about page isn't doing the source full justice in this context. There is evidence that it engages in fact-checking and subsequent corrections/retractions. The publication publishes plenty of hard news, even if there are some listicles and even if it's hardly an NYT. Reliability does not require a journalist be a specific subject matter expert. Combined with e.g. this source, which draws on Solana's comms team, there is probably a way to describe proof of history while contextualizing it as something validated mainly by Solana Labs itself, rather than significant external scrutiny. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  01:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the results for me for the 'see corrections' search are from over twenty years ago, with the newest I found being from 2006. A lot has changed since then, especially in online journalism. The source may be usable, but anything beyond a sentence or two seems like it would be undue. I think something else should be found to establish weight, and this could be used for non-controversial details if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Lawyer Kyle Roche who headed the Class Action Lawsuit referenced in article was ejected from law firm in 2022 for malpractice
The class action lawsuit used as a significant source of content in this article was paid for by a competing blockchain (Ava Labs) and later dropped in court after video evidence was presented that the litigator was being paid off to try and come up with things to sue competitors. Google "Kyle Roche" and "Solana" and there are pages of news on this topic. Here is the lawsuit in question:

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2022cv03912/397697 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/roche-freedman-llp-and-schneider-wallace-cottrell-konecky-bring-class-action-lawsuit-against-solana-labs-inc-the-solana-foundation-anatoly-yakovenko-multicoin-capital-management-llc-kyle-samani-and-falconx-llc-for-violation-301581648.html

There are many sources of information regarding the foul play Kyle Roche was involved in which later led to him being ejected from the law firm he was in.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/crypto-cash-and-spies-secret-videos-sink-legal-rising-star

"He also boasted about a bold litigation strategy on behalf of Ava Labs—using investor class-action suits to weigh down their competitors."

"The recordings’ release sparked a quick disavowal from Ava Labs’ CEO and statements from leaders across the crypto space—both about what Roche said and whoever recorded it. “Who’s funding all these hit pieces?” tweeted Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance, one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges.

Roche quickly denied deploying litigation as a weapon to go after Ava Labs’ competitors and vowed to fight efforts to intimidate him and his firm. But the blowback was intense. In court filings, his firm said he had received “threats of violence” in the days after the recordings were released.

Roche Within days, Roche’s partners announced he was barred from participating in any ongoing class action. They called the move an attempt to protect the firm against appearances of impropriety.

That didn’t stifle Roche’s detractors. Lawyers for Bitfinex and Tether, defendants in a class-action suit brought by Roche Freedman, called for the entire firm to be disqualified, claiming the videos raised “grave concerns” about their motivations."

More sources of information: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/crypto-law-firm-roche-freedman-parts-ways-with-founder-after-video-leak-2022-10-19/

https://blockworks.co/news/kyle-roche-moves-to-withdraw-from-multiple-lawsuits

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/09/01/controversial-crypto-lawyer-kyle-roche-pulls-out-of-nexo-binanceus-solana-and-dfinity-lawsuits/ Nwh5jr (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * At a glance, the only ones of these which are from reliable outlets are the Reuters one and the Bloomberg one. The Reuters one doesn't mention "Solana" at all, and the Bloomberg one only does so once, in a quoted headline without any further context on Solana itself.
 * Instead of just dumping sources on this talk page, how do we summarize these existing, reliable sources, as they relate to "Solana" as a topic?
 * I would also mention that "lawyers for Bitfinex and Tether" are not exactly impartial in this situation, and their opinions would definitely need support from quality sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The class action lawsuit was instigated by Kyle Roche who was the subject of controversy for being paid off by Ava labs to try and sue competing blockchain companies -- all that information is present in the main sources. How is it that a class action lawsuit pushed by a controversial lawyer takes up so much space on the page but actual technological content is so hard to post on here? There is also a difference between Solana Labs the company and the actual blockchain as an open source technology.
 * https://www.yahoo.com/video/us-judge-removes-legal-firm-070504476.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAISQGTz-Vo4Jhf6ppmad3kGZdBysomqBAq7q1-zIuGOyvM79joAbWymjpwvWIvlbNpuUkNeCqY5qfOaTVp1vWSb2EzKa_4s83hGzhTTw_o-9RUkl5BluEvL-LAGYeQmhllOQiJ9cSayUWGk6vkAij-NSRqgR3l9UCn4i6KboLVL3
 * "Roche had withdrawn from lawsuits involving Tether, Bitfinex, the Tron Foundation, HDR Global Trading (which operates as BitMEX), Nexo Capital, BAM Trading (which operates as Binance.US), Dfinity, and Solana Labs. Roche also withdrew from a class-action lawsuit against several universities." Nwh5jr (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, say news and academic organizations don't spend much time talking about the internals of mundane technology. Check the Nagios monitoring article, which despite being a tool used by every fortune 500 at one point or another, is bereft of technical detail. Which is fine, because if my non technical neighbor finds the word Nagios, they won't care about the details of push vs pull monitoring, it's threaded scheduler, etc. Academics are busy writing about quantum compute, advances in technology, etc. If this technology is really interesting from an academic standpoint, a reliable source will write about it. It's a matter of time. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why does the Ethereum article go into the design of Ethereum in that case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum 179.50.15.34 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Go ask on that talk page, this isn't the ethereum page. Very Average Editor (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Characteristics section
The name for this section could use some improving. Maybe as a suggestion, "Internal Implementation", or the like. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

New Solana phone released on April 13th 2023
Solana has released a phone called "Saga". Feels like a new section? 5.243.114.117 (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for that, please link it here! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Blockworks, TC, Decrypt, Liliputing. I don't know what WP:RSP says about these specific sites. jp×g 03:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think TechCrunch has been approved for use like this in the past (not my area of expertise so I'm hunting and pecking for consensuses). I think we could mention it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like that phone is a white label of another device made by a company named Solana mobile. Is Solana mobile and Solana blockchain platform the same? Very Average Editor (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a sentence about it. Techcrunch is mixed, per WP:TECHCRUNCH but for a couple of sentences it seems okay here. I cautiously accept Liliputing as usable, too, but to maintain due weight, I don't think a lot more can be said without better sources. Per the two we have, this is a "Solana phone". If reliable sources explains exactly what that means, so be it, but per the Liliputting source, A quick visit to Solana’s hardware page makes it abundantly clear that the Solana ecosystem is the main selling point. That source also mentions the connection to Essential Phones, but as that appears to be the weaker of two weak sources, I'm not sure if or how this should be mentioned. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)