Anatoly vs Helius CEO: Solana Co-Founder’s Tokenization Clash Sparks Industry Debate

Solana's inner circle just erupted into public disagreement over one of crypto's hottest trends—tokenization. Helius Labs CEO Mert Mumtaz and Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko went head-to-head in a rare display of public dissent that's got the entire crypto space talking.

The Heart of the Conflict

At stake: fundamentally different visions for how real-world assets should live on-chain. Mumtaz champions aggressive tokenization strategies that would bring traditional finance kicking and screaming onto blockchain rails. Yakovenko pushes back—warning against sacrificing decentralization for short-term institutional adoption.

Industry observers note the irony: Solana's blistering transaction speeds make it the perfect candidate for mass tokenization, yet its co-founder remains skeptical about chasing Wall Street's approval. Meanwhile, Mumtaz argues that without real-world assets, crypto remains a playground rather than a financial revolution.

The timing couldn't be more pointed—just as traditional finance finally warms to blockchain, Solana's leadership can't agree on whether to welcome them with open arms or maintain purist principles. Because nothing says 'financial revolution' like arguing about how to please the very institutions you're supposed to disrupt.

Why create a token?

The exchange between Toly and Mert began after the Solana co-founder responded to a post by the latter asking why a wallet needs a token. 

“Is there some use for it that I’m missing?” He asked, to which Toly wrote, “Everything with revenues should have a token.” 

Pushing for an explanation, Mert asked, “Why?” and Toly says, “So then the profits could be returned to token holders.” 

In the comment section, users were also divided. While some acknowledged the logic in Toly’s position, others leaned towards Mert’s view that wallets are essential infrastructure that risk becoming something else when tokenization is involved. 

Toly’s response seems to be more about democratizing ownership than anything else, and it paves the way for regular users to benefit as opposed to just VCs or a centralized team.

Mert seemed to disagree as he replied with a sarcastic “should I release token?” 

The exchange is only an example of the debates about tokenization going on all over the ecosystem as the space further matures. 

Just days earlier, Mert ignited a round of debate after floating the idea of a Solana-aligned stablecoin in a conversation about tokenized treasuries and stablecoins, which is an easy way to capture yield on-chain.

Mert stirred debate on Solana stablecoins 

On September 10, Mert floated the idea of a Solana-aligned stablecoin whose reserve yield WOULD be redirected to SOL via buybacks or burns—either as an “enshrined” protocol feature or, more likely, via competing digital-asset treasury companies (DATs).

“Warming up to the idea that Solana should enshrine a stablecoin,” he wrote, adding that “50% burn of the yield goes back to burning SOL.” Hours later, he reiterated: “It shouldn’t be enshrined, a DAT should do it… fix it and trillions.”

Mumtaz’s Core critique focuses on what he describes as “yield leakage” from Solana. “Stablecoins are commodities, and currently on Solana, there is one that captures all yield and literally funds Solana’s biggest competitor with it!” 

As far as he is concerned, under the US GENIUS Act, stables are readily swappable and issuers will compete aggressively for market share—something that is already being seen with the recent “Bachelor-style” scramble among large stablecoin companies to court business. 

“If you don’t want to enshrine a Solana-centric stable, then consider digital asset treasury companies (DATs)… The DAT is literally a machine for buying the underlying token.”

That framing clashes with the GENIUS Act, which carves out “payment stablecoins” as neither securities nor commodities for US federal purposes, consolidating oversight largely under banking regulators and expressly separating them from SEC/CFTC jurisdiction. 

Since stablecoins cannot pass interest to holders, issuers (or affiliated structures) capture the reserve income and can decide how to use it, and this is the lever Mumtaz wants pointed back at Solana.

The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.