According to @deanmlittle, infrastructure providers object to adding gigabytes of new indexes and extra maintenance for the coldest on-chain data when existing indexing already works, calling the proposal a poor fit for operators (source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025). He reports core developers say a $150 NVMe drive delivers roughly 200k random IOPS and view compressed account indexing as a non-solution to a non-problem based on current hardware capabilities (source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025). He adds application developers deem cNFT indexing still unreliable and reject reverting to complex Rent calculations, labeling the approach a bad idea for developer experience (source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025). The primary counterpoint he cites from commercialization teams is that Rent blocks deployments because opening a token account costs about $0.20, pushing some projects to centralized alternatives like AWS (source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025). As trading-relevant alternatives, he proposes reevaluating the seriousness of these users, promoting existing state compression, relaxing UpgradeableLoader constraints to subsidize program deployments, gauging appetite for a modest Rent reduction, and adding BLS12-381 to verify Alpenglow consensus onchain and enable L1-verifiable sequencers on centralized infra while keeping mainnet economics unchanged (source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025). He references the ongoing discussion in Solana Foundation SID PR #389 (source: Solana Foundation, solana-improvement-documents PR #389).

According to @deanmlittle, aggregated feedback from Solana infrastructure providers, core developers, and application developers is broadly negative on proposed compressed account indexes due to added gigabytes of indexes for cold data, reliance on already working indexing, cheap NVMe random IOPS making the change unnecessary, and ongoing cNFT indexing unreliability plus rent complexity (Source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025). He adds that commercialization teams argue rent costs around 0.20 dollars to open a token account block deployments, a rationale he challenges relative to centralized options (Source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025). He proposes five alternatives: reassess the seriousness of such players, promote existing state compression, relax UpgradeableLoader constraints to subsidize program deployments, take a temperature check on modest rent reduction, and add BLS12-381 on mainnet to verify Alpenglow consensus and enable L1 verifiable sequencers on centralized infrastructure while keeping mainnet economics unchanged (Source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025; Source: Solana Foundation solana-improvement-documents PR 389). For trading context, the watch list is the outcome of PR 389, any concrete rent reduction initiative, and prioritization of BLS12-381 support because these decisions set Solana’s account cost structure, indexing approach, and onchain verification capabilities that underpin SOL ecosystem usage metrics (Source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025; Source: Solana Foundation solana-improvement-documents PR 389). He emphasizes that enabling BLS12-381 offers an analogous alternative to centralized competition without altering mainnet economics, potentially channeling commercial demand to verifiable sequencers rather than changing rent rules (Source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025). Traders should monitor the governance discussion and timeline highlighted in the post to gauge near term developer adoption signals within the Solana ecosystem (Source: @deanmlittle on X, Oct 29, 2025).