Solana Company, the Nasdaq-listed validator trading under the ticker HSDT, will support Solana's proposed constitution while opposing two economic proposals that affect token issuance and transaction fees. The firm announced its positions on Aug. 21 in an official release, ahead of on-chain voting on the first three Solana governance proposals, which is expected to begin on Aug. 22.

The company will vote for SGP-0001, known as the Solana Constitution, and reject SGP-0002 and SGP-0003. Management stressed that its objections concern timing rather than the goals of the measures.

The stance was highlighted on X:

🔥 SOLANA TREASURY COMPANY SAYS: NOT NOW Solana Company (HSDT) ủng hộ Solana Constitution (SGP-0001), nhưng phản đối SGP-0002 và SGP-0003 ở thời điểm hiện tại. 🗳️ SGP-0001 → Ủng hộ 📉 SGP-0002 → Phản đối giảm lạm phát nhanh hơn 💸 SGP-0003 → Phản đối chuyển… pic.twitter.com/NCEL4ZC70V

— Brainrot Labs (@Brainrot_Labs), August 21, 2026 (X post)

Why Solana Company Supports SGP-0001

On delegated proof-of-stake networks, voting weight normally sits with the validator that holds a user's delegated tokens. SGP-0001 would introduce a weighted voting process under which SOL token holders can invalidate any votes placed through the validators handling their delegated tokens. According to the company, this arrangement allows financial institutions to take part in governance without ceding their voting power to validator operators. Solana Company itself operates validator infrastructure for institutional firms within the Asia-Pacific region.

Chairman and CEO Joseph Chee said predictability is vital when institutional firms decide to adopt a platform. The company indicated that changing both issuance and fees during the first voting period could hamper institutions' forecasting in the future.

Objection to SGP-0002 and Faster Disinflation

SGP-0002 backs SIMD-0550, which would raise the yearly disinflation rate to 30%, up from 15%, while the terminal inflation rate remains at 1.5%. According to the proposal, the reduction would take two and a half years to complete, compared with five and a half years under the present process, and would result in approximately 18.9 million fewer SOL emitted within six years.

Solana Company noted that it has no objection to reducing issuance in principle. However, institutional investors can include staking yield in their revenues or operating income, meaning a change to the schedule would influence their models. Because staking rewards are paid out of new SOL issuance, the disinflation schedule feeds directly into the yield stakers earn; accelerating it to two and a half years would move that yield toward the 1.5% terminal rate sooner.

The issue is directly material to the firm's own finances. Staking provided $2.512 million of the company's total second-quarter revenue of $2.526 million, according to its earnings release filed with the SEC — more than 99% of the quarter's revenue. As a Nasdaq-listed firm filing with the SEC, Solana Company also gives public-market investors a direct line of sight into how changes to Solana's issuance parameters flow through reported financials. The company also mined and automatically restaked 31,200 SOL during the quarter, while operating expenses and losses from sales of digital assets resulted in a $30.3 million quarterly net loss. Solana Company added that it would review a faster disinflation rate if SOL sees continuous net capital inflow.

Objection to SGP-0003 Over Fee Uncertainty

SGP-0003 supports SIMD-0553, under which a resource fee and an inclusion fee would be applied, with all resource fees burned. Fees would become proportional to the network capacity used by transactions.

According to Galaxy Research, daily burn rates would increase from 650 SOL per day to between 7,500 and 9,000 — a jump of more than tenfold at the low end of the range. The proposal's author later stated that previous projections were "misleading" and issued a range based on the previous month.

Management confirmed that a fixed fee does not take into account the resources spent, but argued that variable fees would be unpredictable for institutional budgeting. The company said it may consider another proposal that includes a fee floor calculable in advance. Because burned fees offset new issuance, a larger burn would also compound the net-supply effect of faster disinflation if both economic proposals were adopted.

Approval Thresholds

Each proposal requires approval from at least 66.67% of the decisive stake. The calculation takes into account votes cast either way but disregards abstentions. Approval would set the policy but would not activate any code. Whether each measure clears that bar once voting opens on Aug. 22 is the first concrete checkpoint for the new governance process.