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).