Independent Solana Validators Seek Halt to SFDP Removals

By Elena Vasquez

Twenty validator identities controlled more than one-third of Solana's active stake in the third quarter of 2026, according to Solana's validator-concentration figures. The Layer_33_ collective of independent validators is now asking the Solana Foundation to suspend validator removals under the new SFDP rules.

The group said the rules “threaten decentralization.” The rules cap participation at 100 validators and set a 12-month term, two features the collective presents as risks to Solana's distributed validator base.

What is Layer_33_ asking for?

Layer_33_ wants the Foundation to pause removals rather than allow them to proceed under the new rules. Its request does not identify the validators facing removal, the number of removals, or whether the group seeks a temporary review or a permanent exemption.

SFDP remains undefined in the available material, which also omits the admission criteria, renewal process, and removal schedule. That leaves the program's operating mechanics unspecified despite the collective's claim that the rules threaten decentralization.

If the Foundation grants the request, validator removals would pause under the new rules. No indication establishes whether the pause would be temporary, subject to review, or paired with changes to the participation cap and term.

In practical terms, Layer_33_ is seeking a pause, not a published replacement design.

Why does the group cite a decentralization risk?

For independent validators, the 100-validator cap establishes a hard numerical limit on participation. Layer_33_ links that structure to its decentralization warning, but the collective did not provide an applicant count, selection criteria, or evidence showing which operators would gain or lose access.

The 12-month term creates a defined participation horizon rather than a disclosed path through successive terms. Independent operators must therefore plan around an undisclosed admission and renewal process, with no renewal standard or performance test specified.

The warning identifies a governance risk, but the operational case remains incomplete without the missing selection and renewal details.

What does the stake-concentration figure show?

Solana's concentration figures place roughly 20 validator identities above the one-third active-stake mark in Q3 2026. Put another way, about one in three of Solana's active stake sat with that limited identity group.

However, the figures count validator identities rather than independent operators. One company can operate several validators, so the identity-based measure does not establish how much control belongs to separate companies or operators.

That limitation prevents a direct operator-level conclusion. Several identities may belong to one company, so identity counts can overstate independent participation. The figures do not reveal whether control is concentrated in one operator or spread among unrelated owners.

The one-third figure is a warning signal, not proof that one third of stake sits with one independent owner.

What remains unresolved before the rules operate?

Neither the request nor the concentration data identifies the 20 identities, their operators, the absolute stake amount, or the validators targeted for removal. The available material also does not say how many removals the proposed rules would trigger.

That gap prevents an operator-level reading of the concentration figure and leaves the scale of any planned removals unknown. For validator operators, the immediate questions are entry slots, term renewal, and continuity of participation. For the Solana Foundation, a response would clarify whether removals proceed under the 100-validator cap and 12-month term while the group's request remains unresolved.

No Foundation response, decision deadline, or evidence that removals have already begun appears in the available account. The material also does not establish whether @Layer_33_ speaks for every independent validator, so the collective cannot be treated as the full constituency.

The next testable point is the Foundation's response and whether removals proceed under the 100-validator, 12-month framework; with no decision deadline disclosed, the operating timeline remains unresolved.