Max Resnick, chief economist at Anza, used the run-up to voting on Solana proposals SIMD 550 and SIMD 553 to examine a broader question: how the problems those proposals are trying to address connect to Layer 1 valuation. He said the piece was not meant as a direct commentary on either proposal and noted that he had already posted his views under the relevant GitHub discussions. Instead, he focused on what should count in a coherent valuation framework for L1 tokens. Resnick argued that transaction activity, developer growth, or narratives around tokens as money, collateral, or "digital oil" do not by themselves explain token value unless they translate into residual value for token holders. In his framework, L1 value accrues mainly through fee burns, which are economically similar to buybacks, and fee distributions to stakers, which resemble dividends. By contrast, staking rewards funded by inflation are not protocol revenue, nor a real external cost, but a transfer through dilution. He also separated revenue, costs, and total supply as distinct accounting categories, warned that inconsistent treatment can distort L1 profitability analysis, and argued that raising fees does not automatically lift revenue. The outcome depends on demand elasticity and on whether fee design can better match users’ willingness to pay.