Jump to content

Talk:Solana (blockchain platform)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 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 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[1]

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

  1. ^ "Block". Solana Foundation. Retrieved 18 July 2023.

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. Green tickY The statement regarding the Solana Foundation's claim re: Slope Finance was clarified.
  2. Green tickY The statement regarding Solana Mobile selling the Solana Saga was clarified, with the confirming Fortune reference added to the article.
  3. Red XN 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."[1]
    • 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

  1. ^ Weiss, Ben (5 September 2023). "Visa to send stablecoin USDC over Solana to help pay merchants in crypto". Fortune Crypto. Fortune.

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

Jito Labs now provides access to its Block Engine for any Solana MEV searcher. The Block Engine is integrated with the Jito-Solana validator client to provide searchers the first MEV infrastructure on Solana. Solana can be staked on the Jito Network. https://www.jito.network/ https://www.jito.wtf/blog/ ScanCorrect (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Include Marques Brownlee’s Smartphone Award 2023 Bust of the Year award

I’m requesting to include the information about the Solana Saga winning Bust of the Year from Marques Brownlee’s Smartphone Awards 2023.

Appending to this question as well, should the Solana Saga receive its own Wikipedia page; or should it just be contained within Solana’s page? 209.33.19.39 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If you could provide a source on the award, I'll look into adding it. A link would be sufficient. As to the Saga, it lacks the notability (at present) to warrant its own article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Requesting help adding another outage recently hapend

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

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

The introduction is biased

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

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

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

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

The biased language of this article is apparent, especially when you compare it to other blockchain articles on Wikipedia. Clearus (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hairsplitting about Solana vs Solana Labs vs Solana Foundation has been brought up before, and it's not helpful. We can and should write the article using the common name - 'Solana' and not worry about the branding distinctions the article subject prefers. MrOllie (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This is confusing approach to take, not least because if you don't specify what entity you're talking about then it's unclear if you're talking about Solana the platform, Solana Labs, Solana Foundation or some other thing.
Anyway this doesn't address my first point. The lead actually does specify that it's talking about Solana the platform ("a class action lawsuit was filed against the platform") but in doing so it specifies the wrong thing. The lawsuit was filed against Solana Labs, not the Solana platform ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I expanded the lead a bit in a way that removes 'platform' from that sentence. We should mention what the class action suit is about anyway, and the SEC's activity also merited a mention there. MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Updating the page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagging @Pbritti @Grayfell Hocus00 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Cherry picking a flattering, weaselish quote devoid of context is never going to be appropriate, but especially not in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Greyfell. Whitewashing the article and adding a promotional quote to the lead would not be in keeping with WP:NPOV. And the article is already in Category:Cryptocurrencies. MrOllie (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain how providing history about Anatoly Yakovenko's background at Qualcomm and a picture of Anatoly Yakovenko whitewashes the article or violates WP:NPOV? Hocus00 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, are you saying that the quote that is literally directly attributed to BLOOMBERG is wp:weasel? Your argument doesn't even make sense. Hocus00 (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The complete quote is Hailed for its high speeds and cheap transaction fees, the blockchain previously championed by Sam Bankman-Fried saw the price of its SOL token plummet in the wake of his FTX crypto exchange’s implosion., which reads rather differently. We should not cherry pick part of a sentence. MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
How so? The "high speeds and cheap transaction fees" quote is coming from Bloomberg's point of view, not Sam Bankman-Fried. Also, the FTX bankrupcty and resulting price plummet can be mentioned in the article, but information about the blockchain's tech cannot? That seems to be the real WP:NPOV issue. Hocus00 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
There are literally hundreds or thousands of other WP:RS that talk about Solana's speed and cheap transaction fees. This information is not controversial. It should be added to the article. See, eg:
[2]https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/18/solana-co-founder-sees-potential-for-devs-to-lead-its-network-in-2023/ "Solana’s network can currently execute 3,531 transactions per second (TPS). The TPS measures a network’s speed and scalability while showing the maximum number of transactions the blockchain can carry out — if needed. In comparison, Ethereum averages about 15 TPS."
[3]https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/investing/cryptocurrency/what-is-solana/ "Solana is designed to address two parts of the trilemma: scalability and security. SOL’s proof of history algorithm presents unique security for the network. While the speed with which the Solana platform performs computations allows for increased scalability."
[4]https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/11/03/why-sbfs-favorite-crypto-solana-has-doubled-since-september/?sh=4c03ba2244f7 "Solana’s speed is useful for applications that require frequent low-value transactions, such as gaming and decentralized finance."
Could go on. Or I could appeal if you'd like. Hocus00 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Once again, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy, and you won't get very far "appealing" that basic policy. As I've already mentioned on this talk page in the past, the technical details are only significant in context, and presenting them in isolation ignores that context.
Additionally, if those three are the best examples of the "hundred or thousands" of source about this, then it's unlikely that there are hundreds or thousands of reliable sources talking about this. Picking-and-choosing the most flattering parts of obscure sources is cherry picking.
I will again also remind you to be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Grayfell (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are my edits in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, or WP:COI? I'm getting confused by your gish gallop. Please, very specifically, describe how a sentence in the article for example, repeating the numbers cited in the TechCrunch article, would be a problem. Hocus00 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Feels like we're into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, especially since this is another instance of quoting only part of a sentence. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Q: "I'm sorry, are my edits in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, or WP:COI?"
A: Yes.
You do not get to demand a 'specific' answer to a loaded question. Grayfell (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Raj Gokal is not an original author of Solana

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

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

The introduction states:

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

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

See WP:LEADCITE - the lead section summarizes the rest of the article and citations are not required up there. You can find citations lower down in the article. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You appear to misunderstand WP:LEADCITE:
“Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads”
The lead makes a specific claim that has been contested, hence it needs an inline citation ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The second paragraph of that guideline is also important. MrOllie (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
That quote was from the second
paragraph.
Look, the other references to a “hack” in this article do not claim that the blockchain was hacked, so the claim in the lead is unique in the article and unsupported by citations ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This is repetitive. The lead is a simplification of the body. Since this blockchain cannot exist without wallets, saying that Solana was hacked is not inaccurate, nor even misleading. Quibbling to rephrase this to be as flattering as possible to Solana is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
“X can’t exist without Y, so if an instance of X was hacked then Y was hacked” is just a non sequitur.
The World Wide Web cannot exist without websites, but if Wikipedia was hacked it would be very inaccurate to say “the World Wide Web was subject to a hack”.
If this was a halfway sensible thing to think it would not be a problem to find a source and fix the WP:MINREF violation ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Comparing Solana to the World Wide Web is just silly. Sources treat these hacks as a defining trait of Solana, so the lead mentions them. Sources do not treat Wikipedia as a defining trait of the entire World Wide Web. If English Wikipedia were hacked, it would be perfectly reasonable to say the Wikipedia website was subject to a hack. As for MINREF, as has already been explained to you, this information is already cited. Grayfell (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Calling the argument silly is not a counterargument, it is just hurling insults. In case it is unclear, the point is to show that your argument “X can’t exist without Y, so if an instance of X was hacked then Y was hacked” is faulty.
Your example of English Wikipedia is not a good one. In normal English-language writing, people regularly use "Wikipedia" as shorthand for "English Wikipedia". People do not use "Solana" as a shorthand for "Slope Wallet".
Anyway an example case that merely coheres with a logical claim does not make the argument logically valid. But a counterexample that breaks the argument does make the logic invalid.
Again, what sources are provided that say the Solana blockchain was hacked? I can provide sources that say the issue was not with the blockchain itself - I can even find such a source in this very Wikipedia article. ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay I think it's safe to assume that nobody can provide a source that says the Solana blockchain was hacked ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I for one am happy with the sourcing currently in the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you are happy, but you do not have a source that says the Solana blockchain was hacked ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I get that you disagree with how it is summarized, but the relevant source has been pointed out in this discussion already, and we are not required to satisfy your personal requirements. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Zero sources have been pointed out ReeeeingIntoTheVoid (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solana_(blockchain_platform)/Archive_2&oldid=1249976512"