Solana has long been recognised for its emphasis on speed and throughput, but the network is now considering a significant shift in its operational approach.
A proposal known as SIMD-0370, introduced by Jump Crypto’s Firedancer team, aims to remove the fixed compute unit (CU) block limits currently imposed on validators.
Rather than sticking to an artificial ceiling, the network would let validator performance determine how many transactions can be packed into each block. The plan, tied to the upcoming Alpenglow upgrade, could transform Solana’s efficiency. Here is how it works and why it matters.
The Solana Proposal Explained
The current framework places a fixed ceiling on Solana’s block size. At present, each block is capped at 60 million compute units, with a planned increase to 100 million.
This approach ensures a predictable upper bound but has one obvious drawback: it treats all validators as if they have the same capacity. Whether a validator runs on cutting-edge infrastructure or less advanced hardware, the limit remains the same.
The SIMD-0370 proposal challenges this model by asking a simple question: why should network capacity be held back by a number that does not reflect the actual capabilities of validators?
Instead, the proposal suggests that block producers should decide how many transactions to include based on their hardware.
Stronger validators could handle larger blocks, while less capable ones would abstain from voting on those blocks using a skip mechanism that is part of the Alpenglow upgrade.
This design introduces a market-driven dynamic. Validators that invest in more powerful hardware can process oversized blocks and earn greater rewards, while slower validators miss out. Over time, this creates a cycle where participants are encouraged to upgrade their systems.
As hardware performance improves, the network’s throughput rises naturally. Proponents describe this as a “flywheel effect,” where each improvement triggers additional growth across the validator set.
The proposal also addresses the limitations of the existing incentive system. Under the current rules, there is little advantage for operators who can handle more than the fixed cap.
Their additional capacity is wasted because every validator faces the same ceiling. By contrast, SIMD-0370 would reward them with higher revenue for higher performance.
Community reaction has been mixed. Supporters view the removal of the cap as a necessary step towards unlocking Solana’s potential.
Roger Wattenhofer of Anza, one of the key figures behind the Alpenglow upgrade, has expressed his support, saying he has long advocated ditching the compute limit.
Yet he and others have also warned that the change could concentrate power in the hands of a few well-capitalised operators.
Firedancer and the Push Beyond Alpenglow
The proposal’s timing is not accidental. Alpenglow, Solana’s next major upgrade, recently passed governance with near-unanimous support.
It promises to cut block finality times dramatically, from 12.8 seconds to as little as 150 milliseconds. It will also improve network resilience and data efficiency, clearing the path for more ambitious reforms such as SIMD-0370.
Firedancer itself is an independent validator client developed by Jump Crypto. Its purpose is to provide Solana with an additional high-performance implementation, increasing both efficiency and resilience.
The SIMD-0370 proposal reflects Firedancer’s design philosophy: rather than restricting throughput with artificial limits, let hardware performance and validator competition dictate what is possible.
Under the proposed model, validators with stronger setups could pack far more transactions into a single block, pushing throughput higher than ever.
Those with weaker systems would skip oversized blocks but could still process smaller ones. This ensures that the network continues without disruption while maintaining incentives for operators to keep pace.
Critics point out that this system could create a divide. Larger, well-funded validators might scale up rapidly, gaining outsized rewards and potentially sidelining smaller participants.
In the long run, this could lead to centralisation, undermining the broad distribution of validators that has been one of Solana’s strengths.
Still, Firedancer argues that these risks can be managed. The proposal emphasises that the market will balance itself: if there is demand for more capacity, well-resourced validators will supply it.
Meanwhile, smaller validators will still find roles in processing blocks within their reach. The net effect, according to its designers, is a network that adapts to demand rather than being constrained by numbers set in advance.
The idea also has broader implications for how blockchain networks evolve. Many chains, including Ethereum, have chosen to rely on fixed parameters for block size and gas limits.
Solana’s move towards hardware-driven scaling could represent a different path, one that seeks to match throughput directly with technological progress and operator competition.
Another layer of complexity comes from Solana’s wider ecosystem. Jump Crypto has not only been working on Firedancer but also launched Forward Industries, a treasury management firm backed by $1.65 billion in private investment.
This level of involvement signals a deep commitment to shaping Solana’s future direction. If SIMD-0370 becomes part of that trajectory, it could entrench Jump Crypto’s influence even further.
For developers and users, the outcome of this proposal could be decisive. A network with fewer bottlenecks and higher throughput would make Solana more resilient during periods of heavy demand.
It would also strengthen its appeal as a home for high-performance decentralised applications. Yet the challenge of balancing growth with decentralisation remains, and the debate around SIMD-0370 is far from settled.
Conclusion
The SIMD-0370 proposal from Firedancer opens a new chapter in Solana’s ongoing search for performance.
By removing fixed compute unit limits and allowing validator hardware to dictate block capacity, the plan aims to replace arbitrary ceilings with a system that scales according to real demand.
Advocates see it as a logical next step following the Alpenglow upgrade, one that could keep Solana at the forefront of blockchain throughput. Critics raise concerns over centralisation and fairness, but even they acknowledge the potential for solutions.
Whether this proposal succeeds will depend on governance and community consensus, but it highlights once again Solana’s willingness to rethink its design to remain competitive.