In the ever-evolving crypto landscape, where blockchains compete fiercely for dominance, a recent X thread has sparked an important conversation about strategy and regulation. It all started with a post from Max Resnick, Lead Economist at Anza (a key player in the Solana ecosystem), who critiqued the centralized aspects of Base's sequencer. For those new to the term, a sequencer in blockchain lingo is basically the component that orders and processes transactions before they're finalized on the chain. Max argued that Base's setup—being upgradeable and controlled by a multisig (a multi-signature wallet requiring multiple approvals for actions)—could essentially function like a regulated exchange, potentially bypassing U.S. securities laws.

He backed this up with some solid evidence, including a snippet from SEC definitions of what constitutes an "exchange" and code from Base's proxy contract showing its upgradeability.

This take didn't sit well with everyone. Dan Robinson, a researcher at Paradigm, quoted Max's post and warned against "summoning the regulatory demon" to take down competitors over technical disagreements. His point? It's shortsighted because those same regulations could boomerang back on your own projects. Check out Dan's original post here.

Akshay BD, a prominent voice in the crypto community, jumped in agreeing with Dan. In his response, he emphasized that the best path forward is to stand for something positive rather than against others. He highlighted the Solana Policy Institute's work on Project Open as a prime example. Project Open is a groundbreaking proposal submitted to the SEC in June 2025 by the Solana Policy Institute, along with partners like Orca, Superstate, and Phantom. It's essentially a regulatory framework designed to allow compliant issuance and trading of securities directly on blockchain networks like Solana.

Imagine tokenizing real-world assets—stocks, bonds, or even creative meme-inspired securities—and trading them seamlessly on-chain without running afoul of regulations. This isn't just about big finance; it's a game-changer for the meme token world. Solana has become a hotspot for meme coins thanks to its speed and low fees, but regulatory clarity could supercharge this by enabling compliant launches that attract more institutional interest and reduce risks for creators and traders. As Akshay puts it, this could be a "1000x unlock" compared to nitpicking competitors' tech stacks.

Akshay also pointed out a strength of the Solana ecosystem: its diversity of opinions. Not everyone marches to the same beat, and that's okay. Max can share his views freely, but policy pros at the Solana Policy Institute are handling the strategic advocacy. This decentralized mindset—pun intended—allows for robust debate without derailing progress.

The thread drew various replies, from those defending the call-out of potential flaws to others advocating for clearer regulatory guidelines across the board. One reply even joked about hiding in Singapore if regulations come knocking. But the core message resonates: in crypto, where innovation outpaces rules, pushing for constructive frameworks like Project Open is smarter than PvP (player versus player) battles via regulators.

For meme token enthusiasts, this matters big time. Meme coins thrive on community and virality, but they've often operated in gray areas. A framework like Project Open could legitimize tokenized assets, making it easier to create and trade memes that represent real value—think community-owned IPs or fractionalized art—while staying compliant. It's about building internet-native capital markets that empower everyone, from degens to developers.

If you're diving into Solana memes, keep an eye on how these policy moves unfold. They could redefine what's possible, turning playful tokens into powerful tools for financial inclusion. What do you think—should crypto focus more on positive advocacy? Drop your thoughts in the comments below.