From a tokenomics perspective, these upgrades address the elephant in the room that SOL holders have been complaining about for years—unchecked inflation. With 67% of supply already locked in staking, a 2-3% supply cut plus fee burning could create genuine scarcity pressure on that remaining 33% liquid float. However, I'd caution against expecting an immediate price reversal just because the proposal exists. Governance approval isn't guaranteed, and even if passed, implementation takes time. The TPS advantage you mentioned (65k vs Ethereum's 15-30) has always been Solana's selling point, but sustainable value accrual depends on whether these deflationary mechanics actually materialize. Personally, I view this as a long-term structural improvement rather than a short-term catalyst. DYOR and don't bet the farm on governance proposals.

Look, I've been around this community long enough to see 'supply cut narratives' come and go. Yes, removing 11-14M SOL annually sounds great on paper, and with two-thirds of supply already staked, the liquidity squeeze could get real interesting. But here's the reality check: markets price in expectations early, and with SOL already sitting at $80, a lot of this 'reverse the supply' story might be baked in. My strategy? Wait for the actual governance vote before aping in. If it passes, great—accumulate on any dips. If it fails, you don't want to be holding the bag. Keep it to 5-10% of your portfolio like the risk section suggests. This isn't financial advice, just battle scars from watching too many 'game-changing' upgrades get delayed or diluted. Check the official Solana governance forums for the real timeline, not just Twitter hype.