Talk:Solana (blockchain platform)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Solana is a security

The SEC has determined Solana is a security. Should this be included in the article?

Example source [1] Very Average Editor (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's relevant. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph. Grayfell (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The SEC alleges it is a security. Coinbase says not. That's what the court case concerns - is it a security? It will take years to settle. -- GreenC 15:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is the SEC complaint. In it, they make the case that Solana is a security, and thus should be regulated by the SEC. This case has not been ruled on yet, and may take years before a judgement is made. Until then, the SEC is only making an allegation (legal complaint), it is an attempt to regulate crypto via the SEC (versus some other method). The SEC doesn't win every case and there is no guarantee the SEC will prevail in its attempt to be the regulator of crypto. -- GreenC 17:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Solana's status as a security has been an obvious issue for years, and the article already mentioned this before the suit. The SEC is hardly the first to notice this, and while nobody can predict the future, The European Union and many other countries and international groups also recognize this issue. This means that even if the SEC loses their case (eventually) it won't be the end of the issue.

I cannot find any context for why this Solana's refutation is encyclopedically significant. Not even the sources about Solana's claims provide any context or even indicate a basic rationale. It just seems like they are saying 'nuh uh' which isn't helpful to readers. It's not like they haven't had multiple years to see this coming, so if they have something of substance to say, and sources report that, we can add it to the article, but I don't see any benefit to padding-out the article with WP:MANDY without provide useful information to readers. Grayfell (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The lawsuit was just filed and it takes time to put together a response based on the charges laid out in the complaint. Coinbase lawyers will do so then it make the press. In the mean time we can certain say Coinbase refutes the SECs allegations. When there are legal allegations against someone it's NPOV to say the other party denies the allegations. The SEC is saying they have the legal authority to regulate cryptocurrencies. This is a new thing: "A turf war continues, between the SEC and another federal regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), over which agency has the power to oversee these assets. Gensler believes most cryptocurrencies are securities, and as such, current laws give his agency the power to regulate them. That's something that crypto companies have fought tooth and nail. By design, crypto is supposed to operate outside of the traditional financial system. If the SEC prevails in the courts, it could potentially force crypto companies to register with the SEC, which would be a sea change." Everything the SEC is doing here is new, an "allegation" and "claim", there other players involved here that disagree with the SEC. It really needs to be presented this way not taken for granted the SEC has the authority to regulate. There is a three-way struggle between the SEC, CFTC and crypto companies. -- GreenC 18:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the Reuters source, perhaps the best phrasing is something along the lines of "the SEC has identified Solana a security and initiated efforts to regulate it as such". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That's better, though as worded and without context, it still seems to imply the SEC is correct in two ways: the SEC has the authority to regulate crypto, and crypto is a security. Both issues are not settled. I don't see why we can't say "alleged" and "claimed" etc.. other sources uses these words (eg. Fortune: "the Securities and Exchange Commission claimed that SOL and at least 12 other tokens are unregistered securities"). Simply change "identified" to "claimed", because claimed implies contested. I would also change "efforts" to "legal efforts", not to be confused with enforcement efforts, since the SEC is an enforcement agency of existing law. -- GreenC 19:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think this is case where both theories should get equal weight per WP:GEVAL. The SEC has already been winning (Kik Interactive) and/or settling (BlockFi) cases in favor of their definition of a security. That said, Pbritti's wording works fine for me. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti's wording is fine. Anything more would likely be excessive without better sources, at least for this particular article.

"By design, crypto is supposed to operate outside of the traditional financial system" -Another way of saying that is that Crypto is designed to circumvent financial regulation. This is the core of the SEC's case, but the SEC is hardly alone in recognizing that this is a big problem. Whether or not that is a new thing is subjective, but the unregistered security issue has been an major concern for as long as credible experts have been paying attention. To imply, even indirectly, that Gensler's recent push was unprecedented or unsupported would be to ignore that history. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like we (Wikipedia) are taking the position of the SEC as likely to prevail. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV. Otherwise we would present it as an alleged and claimed, just as reliable sources such as Fortune and others rightly do. -- GreenC 22:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't know if the SEC will prevail, nor how this will-play out anywhere else. We are stating the position of the SEC in neutral terms. The SEC is a reliable source for its own position, and for US security law in general. Neither Coinbase nor Solana are broadly reliable, and their own positions are patently obvious, so including this would require at least some additional context. If this were a BLP issue, I would agree that more cautious wording would be appropriate, but this isn't a BLP. The risk by including this kind of thing is 'death by a thousand paper-cuts'. These kinds of softening details add up to make articles less neutral by implying things which no source ever explicitly says. If Solana wants to actually make a case that they are not a security, (or conversely if they hypothetically agreed with the SEC) we should summarize the sources for that. We shouldn't bend-over backwards to include something so vague and generic without context, as this ends up being public relations. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I have too hazy a memory to recall the specific essay but there's historic precedent for not including phrases like "X denies Y's claims" on the grounds of "well, of course X would say that." ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The SEC is a reliable source for its own position, but not an automatic reliable source about US securities law when there is a lawsuit involved — its decisions can and have been reversed in court. Perhaps "SEC argued" rather than "identified" could ameliorate concerns over NPOV. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The SEC is reliable for information about US security law. The article isn't directly saying that Solana objectively is and always will be a security, it is saying that the SEC has identified/defined/categorized/etc. it as a security and is acting accordingly. Of course it could turn out to be a mis-identification, but that's true for pretty much anything a reliable source says about any topic. If we're going to cast doubt on this, we would need an actual source to cast doubt on this for us. So far, the only thing Coinbase and Solana are saying is "no, it's not a security", but this is nothing. If (or when) sources explain it in more detail we absolutely should reevaluate, but I think preemptively casting doubt on the SEC, without any actual explanation of that doubt, would be unhelpful to readers in this situation. Grayfell (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The SEC has not "identified" it as a security. It is arguing in a lawsuit that it is a security. There is a difference. Saying "identified" gives it some authority which is does not currently have. The SEC may have that opinion, it is alleged by the SEC, but it is far from settled truth, the SEC does not have the legal authority to say cryptocurrencies are securities. That is why the lawsuit exists, to give it that authority. -- GreenC 16:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The SEC has identified Solana as a security. Whether or not it has correctly identified it as a security is a separate question. The SEC has authority over its own position, and that position is that it has identified Solana (and the rest) as securities. Stating this in simple terms will not mislead readers into thinking this is a settled matter, since the article already mentions that this is a lawsuit. Grayfell (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Question about infobox style

Hi there -- I'm Chris and I'm here in an official capacity as an employee of the Solana Foundation to hopefully work constructively with Wikipedia editors, mend some bridges, and offer suggestions for this article. To start with, I want to clearly disclose my conflict of interest with the Solana Foundation, the Solana blockchain, and the broader Solana ecosystem. As I've mentioned on my user page: I'm aware that other people have attempted to edit Wikipedia for the benefit of Solana and the Solana ecosystem in the past, and I want to assure the Wikipedia community that Solana Foundation is now completely committed to following all of Wikipedia's rules for conflict of interest. I'll be the *only* representative for Solana Foundation on Wikipedia from now on and I'll make sure to use Talk pages and not edit any Solana-related articles.

My first suggestion/question is about the infobox style in use on this page. I was curious: Would it be possible to change the template to Template:Infobox distributed computing project? The existing template is used for cryptocurrency pages and since Solana is first and foremost a blockchain platform, the distributed computing project template seems a better fit.

If that template could be used, then I'll come back with a prepared version with all of the relevant info. If not, I have some suggestions for additions and corrections to the existing infobox. Please let me know what you think. CK at Solana Foundation (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I for one have no problem with that since blockchain is used for many things besides crypto and the article is titled "blockchain platform". Other blockchains use that template, including Ethereum, Tron (cryptocurrency), Terra (blockchain). -- GreenC 21:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• I oppose this on the grounds that Solana is primarily known for SOL, with much of the article devoted to coverage of the native cryptocurrency. However, if more sources and content demonstrated that Solana's blockchain is discussed regularly in a manner separate from Solana, I could be convinced that we should match Ethereum's precedent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback, GreenC and Pbritti. Here are a few recent sources in which Solana is primarily discussed as a blockchain platform rather than as a type of cryptocurrency:

  • "How Solana is integrating ChatGPT to simplify Web3 for users" | AdAge (May 24, 2023)
  • "Can Solana be the Solution to the Blockchain Scalability Problem?" | IEEE (July 21, 2022)
  • "Solana launches $100M investment and grant fund for South Korean web3 startups" | TechCrunch (June 7, 2022)
  • Understanding Cybersecurity Management in Decentralized Finance | Springer International Publishing (January 9, 2023)

  The SOL token is obviously an important component of the Solana network used to track work done on Solana, but I hope these sources demonstrate that the blockchain's overall functionality exceeds the trading of a single token, which is why media coverage (including the CNBC piece currently cited throughout this Wikipedia article) so often compare Solana to Ethereum, another blockchain platform.

  Please let me know what you think. I’m not trying to be overly pedantic, but I wanted to explain my thinking and provide a few examples of coverage in what appear to be reliable outlets. If editors prefer the current infobox, that's completely fine. CK at Solana Foundation (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I also oppose. There is no consensus, so I am declining this request.

All of those sources you have cited emphasize that Solana is a blockchain specifically and not a general distributed computing platform. This is the main defining trait per these sources, and per every other source I am aware of. Blurring the lines to conflate blockchains with distributed computing in general is inappropriate and would be excessively confusing to readers.

For any future requests, please much more brief. We are not paid to read what you are paid to write. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

New infobox request

A new request, re: changes to the existing infobox. Would editors be amenable to:

Development category

• REMOVE Solana Foundation from the Developer(s) parameter; foundation is not involved at all in development.
• ADD the following parameters and information:
  • Development Status: Active
  • Source Model: Open source

Ledger category

• ADD the following parameters and information:
  • Block time: 400 milliseconds
  • Ledger start: Mar 16, 2020

I have a COI and will be posting requests on the Talk page, not making direct edits. Please let me know what you think. CK at Solana Foundation (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@CK at Solana Foundation Pinging GreenC, Pbritti, Grayfell for their input on this. Regards,  Spintendo  23:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Per #Clarification needed regarding the distinction between Solana blockchain platform and Solana Labs company as well as #Number of developers, this claim from Solana that "is not involved at all in development" is disputed, and now you have made it demonstrably false. As part of this foundation, you are attempting to curate and disseminate details of this project via Wikipedia. This is, in fact, part of the development process. "Developers" are not exclusively those who actively type code with their own fingers, software development is, as you surely must know, a much more complicated process than that, and documentation is a vital part of that process.

As for being "open source", per #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023 this is also trivia. Again, this appears to be an attempt to paint this as something other than what it is.

The "block time" issue has likewise been discussed to death. As I've said before, adding free-floating factoids like this which sound impressive mislead readers into thinking they are vitally important to understanding the topic, but sources absolutely do not support that level of attention, nor would the infobox be capable of providing sufficient context.

By convention a link to the block explorer is provided as a convenience to readers, but as these are neither reliable nor independent sources, this convention likely would not hold up to scrutiny. Just because an infobox can support some bit of trivia doesn't mean it must support that. You will need much better sources for this. Since the block explorer this isn't a reliable source for establishing due weight, I do not accept that it is a reliable source for any specific detail, at least not without a better source indicating why it is important.. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's kind of weird to suggest an edit-request to update the Infobox on Wikipedia, is the same as being a developer of the cryptocurrency. Sometimes we rely on the expertise of others to improve Wikipedia. One could also look at it like the Foundation is trying to separate itself from the Crypto so they are trying to update the documentation to make that distinction clear(er), on behalf of the Foundation. No Crypto developer status needed. Since no one here seems able to conclude what the separation of the Foundation and Currency actually is, it's become impossible to get anything done when these distinctions are being made. All I know is someone who works for the Foundation says they don't do Crypto development. -- GreenC 15:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We've seen some attempts to draw this distinction on the talk page before - it seems to be some sort of tactic to disassociate from reported lawsuits. I haven't been able to find any sourcing that supports this separation, and the foundation is involved in development by any reasonable definition (they run github repositories for example). MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a recurring pattern with cryptocurrencies, especially those involved in DAOs and DeFi. I would say that when someone who works for the Solana Foundation says they don't do crypto development, that falls under WP:MANDY. We need sources which are both reliable and WP:IS to explain what any of that means before we can accept it. I would also say that having the ability to update the documentation to emphasize this supposed distinction is indeed part of the development process. They having at least some authority over this project's development, and whether or not they directly exercise that authority doesn't entirely matter. That doesn't mean they are "developers" by every definition of the word, but letting them pick-and-choose which definitions to use and when would be excessively promotional. Grayfell (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I checked the Solana github per MrOllie's comment. At least one of the three executive directors of the foundation has made substantial contributions to the Solana source code. This is public information. That person's public gihub profile says "Executive Director @ Solana Foundation", lists "Solana" as their sole workplace, lists "solana.com" as their website, and provides no other relevant information about themselves. Their name is also one of eight names listed on the foundation's website. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate all the replies here. To explain myself, after editors on this page signaled a preference to keep the existing cryptocurrency infobox, I reviewed other Wikipedia articles using the same template (e.g., Polygon, Cardano, Avalanche) to see if there were parameters on those pages that would make sense to include here. I understand that just because a particular parameter (or section, claim, etc.) is present elsewhere doesn't mean it should be here as well. But I had expected some standardization in infoboxes using the same template. My intent was to propose fair, straightforward, non-controversial updates, as that seemed to be a good way to introduce myself to editors here.

I am trying to be brief as possible with my requests, but I will provide additional context here due to the negativity I’m receiving. I understand the negativity, but I’m trying to be fair with my requests:

• Developer parameter: Editors indicate they want to keep the Solana Foundation in the developer category. Ok. There are also other editors and contributors to the baselevel Solana network, such as Jito Labs, Jump Crypto, Mango Labs, and Syndica. Should any of these be added?
• Development Status parameter: This seems straightforward and informs whether or not developers are active in updating the software. This is a "suggested" parameter for the cryptocurrency infobox. Out of my changes above, I didn't spot an objection to this: Can it be added?
• Source Model parameter: This is another "suggested" parameter for the cryptocurrency infobox. I understand that not every suggested parameter needs to be included, but this seemed a straightforward designation per the Wikipedia definition of the term. Solana is an open-source platform, licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
• Block time parameter: Another suggested infobox parameter for this template. The 400 milliseconds information is commonly mentioned in news coverage and is reflected in real time here as slot times.
• Ledger start parameter: Another suggested parameter for this template, and one that's present in the infoboxes for Polygon, Ethereum, and Algorand.

Please let me know if these explanations make sense. Would it be advisable to reach out to WikiProject Cryptocurrency for some additional opinions? CK at Solana Foundation (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, There is no consensus for these changes. I don't think this editor does understand "the negativity". The claim that the [Solana Foundation] is not involved at all in development is objectively false, misleading, and promotional. Ignoring these kinds of things and trying to change the article to be more flattering anyway, via the addition of vapid, context-free trivia, is exactly why COI editing is so often harmful and such a time-sink. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Infobox update and minor History corrections

Hi editors, I'm Megan and I'm an employee of the Solana Foundation, taking over from Chris who has moved on from the Foundation. Following his lead, I've registered this account to disclose my conflict of interest with Solana and make requests for review.

It looks like there were a couple of points from Chris's last request that weren't opposed, or that editors didn't respond to after his final follow-up, so I wanted to re-offer those for consideration:

• Developer parameter: If Solana Foundation is kept in the developer category could some of the other editors and contributors to the baselevel Solana network, such as Jito Labs, Jump Crypto, Mango Labs, and Syndica be added?
• Development Status parameter: There did not seem to be any objection above to adding this parameter and noting that the status is "Active". Per Chris's post, this seems straightforward and informs whether or not developers are active in updating the software. This is a "suggested" parameter for the cryptocurrency infobox. Can it be added?
• Source Model parameter: Per Chris's post, this is another "suggested" parameter for the cryptocurrency infobox. While not every suggested parameter has to be included, this seems a straightforward designation based on the Wikipedia definition of the term. Solana is an open-source platform, licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Could this possibly be added?

Additionally, there are a couple of simple corrections for the History that would make the text more accurate and reduce confusion in this article between the blockchain itself and the organizations that support it:

• Change: "The company stated that the hack was caused by digital wallet software from Slope Finance." to "Solana Foundation stated that the hack was caused by digital wallet software from Slope Finance."
  • Explanation: Per the cited source, it was not Solana Labs that made this statement, it was the foundation: "The exploit affected users of a digital crypto wallet made by Slope Finance, according to a tweet sent Wednesday afternoon by Solana Status, a Twitter account managed by the Solana Foundation."
• Change: "In April 2023, Solana began selling the Solana Saga," to "In April 2023, Solana Mobile, a subsidiary of Solana Labs, began selling the Solana Saga"
  • Explanation: The current cited source, TechCrunch is vague about which organization launched the phone but this additional source from Fortune can be added which provides more context, discussing Solana Mobile and noting that it is a subsidiary of Solana Labs.

There is also some confusion of Solana vs. Solana Labs and Solana Foundation in the paragraph about the lawsuit, but that paragraph is more complex so it might be best to discuss separately.

Appreciate any time editors can spare to review these requested changes. Megan at Solana Foundation (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply 30-AUG-2023

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. Y The statement regarding the Solana Foundation's claim re: Slope Finance was clarified.
2. Y The statement regarding Solana Mobile selling the Solana Saga was clarified, with the confirming Fortune reference added to the article.
3. N Changes to the infobox were not made, because a detailed description of the Wikimarkup to be used in the infobox was not provided with the request.

Regards,  Spintendo  00:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the changes to the infobox do not have consensus, per above. Context-free promotional details are not appropriate to this or any other article. It will not help readers to understand this topic to mention "Jito Labs", "Jump Crypto", or similar, especially without context, and that context would need to be provided by reliable, independent sources in the body before being added to the infobox. Yet again, Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Spintendo for your assistance here and Grayfell for your feedback. I'm encouraged that we can work together to correct inaccuracies like this and I can drop the infobox requests entirely. One thing, though: the current wording about Solana Mobile is still slightly wrong. Can we clarify that, per the cited source, Solana Mobile is a subsidiary of Solana Labs? Solana is, of course, not an organization and thus does not have subsidiaries. Thank you both again! Megan at Solana Foundation (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

History correction follow-up and new addition

Hi editors, it's Megan from Solana Foundation with another request.

First, I wanted to nudge about the slight fix needed to the sentence about Solana Saga. It looks like User:Spintendo mostly corrected the details but had added "Solana Mobile, a subsidiary of Solana" rather than "Solana Mobile, a subsidiary of Solana Labs". I think it was just an error in copying over the information. Can this be corrected? Here's the full suggested text again:

• Change: "Solana Mobile, a subsidiary of Solana," to "Solana Mobile, a subsidiary of Solana Labs"
  • Explanation: This cited source from Fortune confirms Solana Mobile is a subsidiary of Solana Labs. (Solana Labs is the company, Solana is the blockchain.)

Next, I have one suggested addition based on recent news coverage of Solana's integration into Visa to enable settlement of stablecoin payments:

• Add to History: "In September 2023, Visa announced it had added support for the Solana blockchain to send payments in USD Coin (USDC), a stablecoin, to some merchants. Visa, Worldpay and Nuvei agreed to use Solana to send and receive payments in USDC, providing the option for payments to be sent or received in USDC rather than fiat currency via bank wire."
  • Explanation: This announcement received a lot of coverage and I believe it is a major event to include in the History.

Appreciate the time and attention from editors to review these requested changes. Megan at Solana Foundation (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done I shortened the addition to make it less repetitive. I also went down a rabbit hole trying to figure out which Worldpay to wikilink to. STEMinfo (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for making these updates, User:STEMinfo. It looks like you found the right Worldpay, so thank you for digging into that. Megan at Solana Foundation (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Write more good thing about Solana please, people seems underestimated the coin potential to overtake ETH and btc

Write more good thing about Solana please, people seems underestimated the coin potential to overtake ETH and btc(Not market manipulation purpose but just tell the truth)also please create a Chinese version for this article to let the big Chinese market to know the potential of this coin 45.64.241.212 (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV and Wikipedia's policies against advertising, such a request is unlikely to result in any specific changes. However, if you believe that the article is overly negative while ignoring reliable sourcing that might portray Solana in a better light, please provide additional sourcing that we could use to remedy the issue. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Then just create Chinese version for the article 45.64.241.212 (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Refer to https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1742667277470758717&wfr=spider&for=pc for Chinese version 45.64.241.212 (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to request a translation. If you are volunteering to translate, first take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (zh:Wikipedia:利益衝突). Then see Wikipedia:Translate us. Every Wikipedia project has different guidelines and expectations, but no Wikipedia project should be used for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not promotion, this is adding language to make it avaliable of people of more country 45.64.241.212 (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Write more good thing about Solana please" is promotion. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No just write in neutral tone to tell its truth 45.64.241.212 (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)