Solana Verifier Fees: Explanation of Changes to New Base Fee Rules

A few weeks ago, Solana issued meme coins one after another, and the Internet clearly felt the pressure. Wallets have increased priority fees one after another just to squeeze into the trading queue, while verifiers have quietly received more income than usual. Today, the focus of discussion is shifting from the hot priority fees to the less eye-catching base fees. This seemingly trivial rule determines who gets paid, how many tokens are destroyed, and whether junk transactions remain cheap. With on-chain governance officially launched, the next important vote may be to reshape the base fee itself. Here are the changes that will actually bring.

Background: Two major events in July

Two events occurred in July that paved the way for subsequent changes. First, Solana launched native on-chain governance to allow the community to formally vote on protocol-level changes. Second, the verifier approved an adjustment to the destination of priority fees. Combining these two matters opens up a realistic path for the next thorough reform of the basic fee rules. When fee policies no longer remain theoretical and become voteable, incentives change quickly and online behavior follows.

Solana's new governance framework requires sponsors to pledge 100,000 SOLs to put proposals for major agreements to a vote, a high but deliberate design. At the same time, the validator approved SIMD-0096, a parameter change that allocates 100% of the transaction priority fee to block producers rather than destroying half. According to the agreement document, the base fee still maintains a ratio of 50% destruction and 50% allocation to verifiers, but resource-based redesign is actively discussed.

Detailed explanation of current Solana fee mechanism

Basic fee operation mechanism

Currently, a small base fee is paid for each transaction based on the number of signatures. Allocation is simple: 50% is destroyed and 50% goes to the block producers of the transaction. This is the part currently under review and has not changed as of late July 2026.

Priority fees after SIMD-0096

On top of the basic fee, you can add priority bids to jump the queue. Since the SIMD-0096 vote recorded in early July 2026, 100% of these priority fees will be paid to the validator who includes your transaction. The formula Solana uses is:

priority_fee = ceiling (compute_unit_price * compute_unit_limit / 1,000,000) lamps

This means that if you set a high price per cell, high-computation transactions may pay more. Under the new rules, the network will not destroy any priority fees and it belongs entirely to the verifier.

Actual flow of your fees: step-by-step instructions

When you sign a transaction in your wallet, there is a basic fee per signature by default.
If you are in a hurry, you can set the unit price to add a priority tip.
The verifier selects a set of transactions to fill the block. During times of congestion, transactions with higher tips are given priority.
Once the transaction is included, 50% of the base fee is destroyed and 50% goes to the block producer. 100% of the priority fee also belongs to the block producer.
The network completes final confirmation and your program is executed in your budgeted computing unit.

Component comparison:

Basic fee per signature: 50% destroyed/ 50% returned to the verifier before early July 2026; remains unchanged after July 2026 (50% destroyed/ 50% returned to the verifier), and the status is active (based on documentation).
Priority (calculated) fee: Previously partially destroyed, now 100% belongs to the verifier (SIMD-0096), approved and effective.
Basic fee architecture: Originally a fixed fee per signature, a resource-based model (SIMD-547) is currently under discussion, but has been proposed but not implemented.

What will the new base fee rules change

The core of the current discussion is resource-based base fees around SIMD-547. Unlike a fixed fee per signature, the base fee will be scaled based on the resources actually consumed by the transaction. It can be understood as paying a small fee in units of network costs, rather than just paying a one-time fee for the signature.

Why is it important

Fixed base fees keep spam transactions cheap when the network is idle and do not price complex calls well. A resource-based base fee allows baseline costs to reflect the true load-bandwidth, computing volume, and possibly account lock-in. It also opens the door to more predictable destruction and clearer verifier incentives.

Potential destruction impact

The industry analysis simulated the lamport rate per cost unit model, indicating that if resource-based base fees were used, Solana's daily destruction volume could increase significantly. One estimate puts the current destruction volume at approximately 648 SOL/day and predicts a range of approximately 10,800 - 64,800 SOL/day at higher parameters and throughput settings. Actual results depend on unit price and utilization.

Anatoly's statement

Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko has publicly supported reforming the base fee/destruction mechanism, pointing out that resource-based fees are part of a healthier market structure. He expressed support in early July, a statement frequently cited by the community in cost discussions.

Why verifiers support SIMD-0096 and what this portends

The verifiers just voted to retain the 100% priority fee, which does not touch the base fee but reveals important information about incentives. During peak periods, the priority fee market is the only pressure valve that users can use in real time. Allowing verifiers to fully capture priority fees strengthens the consistency of interests between block producers and the most urgent transactions on the network.

Information behind the vote

SIMD-0096 can be seen as a bet: fee markets, rather than temporary restrictions, should be responsible for responding to the surge in transactions. If verifiers are paid more for scarce block space at times of peak demand, they will invest in runtime and infrastructure. It also eliminates the ambiguity created by the destruction of some priority fees, which hides the operator's actual income.

Its unresolved problems

It does not solve the garbage transaction problem by itself. Low baseline costs still attract noise. This is part of the reason why basic fee reform has been put on the agenda. Without a base layer based on resource pricing, Solana relies heavily on preferential tipping and local fee mechanisms to rebalance transaction queues.

Economic impact on users, validators, and SOL

Users and applications

Simple transfers may look the same on most days if resource-based base fees are implemented, but complex calls that lock multiple accounts or consume more computing resources may pay slightly more by default. The cost is that when you don't set a high enough tip, you will reduce unexpected fee spikes. If you still need guarantees during congestion, you can still add preferential bidding.

Verifiers and Operators

Priority fees now flow entirely to block producers. If base fees also start to scale with resource use (while retaining part of the destruction), verifier revenue may become more stable over different cycles. This facilitates operating expense planning. It also eliminates certain marginal situations: for example, large households pay excessive fees for calculations, while complex procedures contribute little to the destruction budget.

Supply and Destruction

Higher, usage-linked basic destruction may bias SOL supply towards deflation during periods of high activity. This is a background force, not a trading signal. Destruction is only part of the situation; circulation volume, pledge dynamics and block space requirements are all important. Still, models that add per-unit cost to the base layer show that destruction increases by an order of magnitude during busy periods.

How to pass governance

Solana's on-chain governance is new, and fee rules are exactly the system-level changes it is designed to handle. There is a minimum pledge threshold for proposals to be submitted, a snapshot window and a voting period, and ultimately produce authoritative results on the chain.

Path to Success

Draft specific specifications based on resource base fees (parameters, upper limits, destruction ratios).
Ensure that sponsors pledge at least 100,000 SOLs to start voting.
Release simulations and parameter ranges to show user costs and verifier benefits under different load scenarios.
Run testnet pilots and stress tests, and then lock in the parameters considered by the main net.
Conduct online voting. If it passes, coordinate the verifier's online level and client updates.

Who has a say

Pledged SOL controls voting rights. This often focuses influence on the validators, large delegators, and the procedures that manage the pledge pool. The proposal threshold is deliberately set high to keep parameter changes low and to keep changes consistent with the operators who are actually running the network.

Outlook and Concerns

In fact, the next 1-2 quarters will focus on parametric work. The most difficult part of a resource-based base fee is not the code, but the numbers: how many lamports per unit, where the upper limit is set, and whether discounts should be given in special circumstances. Please pay attention to drafts that show parallel tracking of real transaction bundles at different unit prices.

Signals worth noting

Draft or PR that references SIMD-547 with specific unit cost tables.
Test net's average cost per transaction indicator by category (DEX exchange, NFT casting, DeFi clearing).
Verifier consistency statement similar to the SIMD-0096 vote description.
Wallet updates that more clearly show calculated budgets and base/priority fee breakdowns.
On-chain governance proposals launched under the new framework with 100,000 SOL sponsors.

Risks and possible things to go wrong

Wrong pricing of parameters makes daily transactions significantly more expensive, but fails to curb junk transactions.
Verifier revenue surged, attracting speculative operators, but reliability did not improve.
Unexpected interactions with local fee markets or account lock-ins create new bottlenecks.
Governance is controlled by a few large pledgers, promoting aggressive fee packages.
Wallet user experience lags behind, causing users to overpay priority fees on top of higher base fees.
If the utilization assumption is not true, the amount of destruction will be lower than expected, weakening the expected supply impact.
Smart contract breach: If the program assumes a fixed baseline cost and is not updated.

Fee rule changes are systematic. Incorrect parameter settings affect not only who pays, but may also change who has the ability to build.

FAQs

Are the new base fee rules now effective on Solana?

No. As of late July 2026, according to Solana official documents, the basic fee is still a fixed fee per signature, with 50% destroyed and 50% returned to the verifier. The priority fee changed in July: 100% goes to the verifier according to SIMD-0096.

What will the resource-based basic fee be charged for?

The direction of the proposal is to charge a small fee per unit of network resources-mainly units of calculation, and may also include other costs related to account access. This allows baseline costs to be aligned with actual loads rather than a one-size-fits-all signature fee.

If yes, who will pay more?

It is likely a transaction that touches multiple accounts during computationally intensive or busy periods. Simple transfers and lightweight program calls may not change much under normal conditions. Priority bidding is still optional for speed-up.

When is the vote likely?

Once specific specifications are ready and sponsors who have pledged at least 100,000 SOL will start voting under the new governance system. There is currently no date set, and the quality of the draft and the consistency of the verifiers will determine the time.

Will this make SOL deflationary?

It may increase destruction during periods of high activity, pushing deflation in the direction, but supply outcomes depend on issuance, pledge and demand. Research estimates point to a significant increase in destruction under certain parameters, but this is not a guarantee under all market conditions.

How is this different from Ethereum's EIP-1559 base fee?

Ethereum's basic fee is based on block fill, and this fee is destroyed, and a tip is given to the miners/verifiers separately. Solana's discussions tend to charge per unit of resource consumed and make policy choices on how much to destroy and how much to pay to verifiers.

Does Anatoly support specific parameter sets?

He publicly gave no fixed numbers. He supports changing the base fee and destruction mechanism, but specific unit prices and allocation ratios need to come from community drafts and tests.