Suggestions like this are valuable, and the framing is thoughtful. The instinct to interrogate dilution rather than chase yield is the right place to start, especially in crypto where monetary policy is explicit and inflation is not abstract but encoded.
You are correct that several assets in the index, Solana in particular, have built-in inflation and that staking functions as the mechanism through which holders offset that dilution. From that perspective, staking is not an attempt to generate excess return, but an attempt to preserve real exposure. In isolation, that logic is sound.
Where the difficulty arises is not whether staking itself is complex or scalable on individual chains, but whether it is compatible with the role an index is meant to play. An index is designed to reflect the market as it exists, not to actively manage the monetary policy of its constituents. Once the index begins selectively staking some assets and not others, it is no longer passively measuring exposure. It is making allocation decisions about how that exposure should be maintained. That shift is subtle, but important.
Even if staking is operationally straightforward on Solana or similar chains, applying it inside a broad-market index introduces structural asymmetries. Once that line is crossed, there is no neutral rule that determines which forms of inflation should be offset and which should not, and the index necessarily becomes an active manager rather than a reference.
Some assets inflate and can be staked, others inflate differently or not at all, and some cannot be staked without introducing slashing risk, lockups, or derivative exposure. The index would then be partially compensating for dilution in some assets while leaving others untouched, which quietly transforms the product from a neutral benchmark into an active policy layer.
This does not mean the concern about dilution is misplaced. It means the place to address it may not be inside the index itself. An index that attempts to correct for the monetary design of its components risks embedding assumptions that not all participants agree on, and once that happens, clarity begins to erode.
The more durable approach is to let the index remain what it is, a clean reference point, while allowing separate products to take explicit views on inflation, staking, and cash flow. That separation preserves trust in the benchmark while still giving users tools to express more nuanced positions if they choose to.
None of this invalidates the suggestion. On the contrary, it surfaces the right questions. The tension between dilution, staking, and exposure is real, and it is exactly the kind of pressure that leads to better product design when explored openly. Please keep making suggestions like this.
These are the types of discussions that sharpen systems and build them rather than dilute them. Thanks for being involved and stay involved.
is a powerful, attention focusing statement.
.