mapmap

@mert oreoU2P8bN6jkk3jbaiVxYnG1dCXcYxwhwyK9jSybcp

i am going to regret this but need some CAs for something I'm vibecoding (I will not be buying anything, just looking at the data)

@pokerchessman @C255Josh yes, this one is only about unrefined and refined ORE

@C255Josh Miner Power represents the total unclaimed ORE held by all miners. It measures the difference between daily minted ORE and claimed ORE. So, I don’t think it’s looking at staked ORE. @cunmap7218 can confirm - he built the site

wdyt happens when miner takeover happens? The ORE supply is being systematically absorbed by die hard believers. One round at a time. Every minute of the day. All day. Every day. Relentless accumulation. Once miners take over, even small buys will ricochet price skywards.

The Solana validator count has fallen to sub-800, down from ~2,500 at its peak. That is a ~70% drop. Some KOLs have argued this is simply “zombie” validators being flushed out by @SolanaFndn. That is partly true, and the cleanup IS healthy. But it only explains part of what is happening. Speaking from first-hand experience running an independent validator, and from conversations with other genuine small operators, it is becoming increasingly impossible to operate a validator profitably. Many small validators are actively considering shutting down (including us). Not due to lack of belief in Solana, but because the economics no longer work. At this point, the only justification left is altruism. Loving the network and caring about decentralization is not a sustainable business model. Without aligned incentives, decentralization is fighting against gravity. Here is the structural problem today: 1) Large validators can sustainably charge 0% fees. Small validators cannot. With limited stake, zero fees simply do not cover operating costs. 2) Stakers rationally prefer large validators. 0% fees mean higher yields. There is no incentive to delegate elsewhere. 3) Even matching 0% fees does not solve it for small validators. Large operators have dominant visibility, established reputations, and direct access to large stakers. Competing on fees alone is a losing battle. 4) Historically, small validators survived via stake pools and foundation matching. Both mechanisms are weakening. 5) Stake pools are increasingly monetising validators. Fees charged to validators will likely rise to the point where the incremental revenue from pooled stake trends toward zero. The economics increasingly favor the pool operators, not the validators. 6) Foundation matching for smaller operators has been cut by ~50%. This was the only meaningful source of net revenue for many independent validators. That lifeline has been materially reduced. 7) Under current conditions, even “successful” small validators are losing money. Run the numbers. Participation in multiple stake pools no longer guarantees sustainability. We started validating to support decentralisation. But without economic viability, decentralisation becomes charity. If @solana does not address validator economics, stake will continue consolidating into a small number of large operators. That outcome weakens the network over time. A possible solution: Disincentivize excessive stake concentration. Either cap the amount of stake a single validator can attract, or introduce diminishing returns beyond certain thresholds. This would force redistribution toward smaller, performant validators. To prevent circumvention, validators effectively controlled by a single entity should be grouped and treated as a combined stake cluster. Naturally, large operators will resist this. Nobody volunteers to give up market share. But for Solana’s long-term health, something like this needs to be on the table. Please @calilyliu @toly @jacobvcreech And @mert you have a large validator but you also have a big voice in the space so I hope you can see the balance required.

@Lothaen always be mining

Are you still getting wrecked in the trenches? It's time to enter the mines. No VCs. No unlocks. Fair distribution. Mine from any device. Community first. Always Be Mining ⛏️

@kamino_liq when $ORE on lending

While $ORE holders were in the mines this week, liquidity providers struck gold ORE-SOL is currently earning liquidity providers 196.84% APY, with a 2.10% ROI for the week, and over $320K fees earned to date Here's the breakdown ⤵️

gmORE. 2026 will be a pivotal year for ORE -- the world's only *usable* non-sovereign digital SoV, born on @solana.

@pokerchessman make sure to get 1 ORE through mining to join the overhaul

ORE miners are methodically eating supply up. Tick Tock. And these mfers are true believers, they don’t sell. When supply shock hits later this year, the price pumps will be parabolic. Yeah, this is financial advice. Get one ORE before you can’t. (h/t @cunmap7218)

On it.

1/ Two years ago, we set out to build a full node that could verify Solana Mainnet on modest hardware and home internet, making decentralization accessible. Today we're releasing the Alpha version of Mithril, our Solana full node client in @golang, and it can do exactly that.

$stORE is now live on Kamino Swap! @OREsupply's LST automatically compounds staking yields into into the token price, with stORE appreciating vs ORE over time Currently yielding at ~14% APY via ORE protocol fees and buybacks Trade it on Kamino with Zero Fees and Zero Bias

Just moved stORE and ORE above ZEC. Gotta respect the $1.8M shielded stORE/ORE in Privacy Cash.

@mert @satsbased there's a native store of value on the internet capital markets mr baldman

@satsbased beautiful hat

kevin: what is your thesis on hyperliquid? mert: "I think they're two pmf's in crypto. one is store of value or store of wealth which are bitcoin and zcash and another one is internet capital markets which is internet trading which are solana and hyperliquid." @mert @kevinwshpod

Own at least one $ORE

@dchapman @MaelstromFund @CryptoHayes let's stOre

This ( $ORE on Solana ) is a great candidate for the privacy SoV asset you mentioned @MaelstromFund is looking for in your essay today @CryptoHayes

@chainyoda it's not revenue meta that's bad, it's the token

Revenue meta is the most value destroying philosophy to have hit crypto since memecoins. It was designed by solana marketing consultants to make solana look better than ethereum but it hurt all the coins, including revenue coins, and forced everyone to do onlyfinance

@0xINFRA ye buyback is doing great for @OREsupply too

We have now gone from “buybacks are great” to “buybacks don’t work” Have we you considered the following: - your token is just overvalued - buybacks don’t offset issuance (unlocks) - Expected buybacks are on future revenue, revenue is reflexive - discount assigned for “off switch” risk, which appears to be a warranted concern given the timeline Yes, a lot of work can be done to improving the system, reducing reflexivity, and increasing token holder protections But the “we spent X amount and price still went down!” argument is missing the forest through the trees @raydium will continue to buyback $RAY

@JoePompliano this is what they meant by InfoFi

A newly created Polymarket account invested over $30,000 yesterday in Maduro's exit. The US then took Maduro into custody overnight, and the trader profited $400,000 in less than 24 hours. Insider trading is not only allowed on prediction markets; it's encouraged.

ORE has partnered with PrivacyCash (@theprivacycash) to rollout an official shielded pool on Solana. Private transfers are now live! Encrypt your ORE, on Solana. 🧵

Support @solana decentralization and earn compounding rewards for doing it. That’s what IndieSOL is.