A week after Akash holders approved the move to Solana, the chain took its first concrete step. Mainnet 19 (Akash v2.2.0) went live on November 6 at block 29,399,482, installing the Akash side of the one-way AKT portal as a new module called x/sink — with transfers still turned off (@akashnet; Mainnet 19 upgrade docs).
Today, Proposal 349 asks stakers to configure that module and switch deposits and refunds on. When we checked Valopers this morning (Nov 9, America/New_York), the vote was already past quorum at about 51% turnout, with roughly 99.8% Yes, and the voting window was due to close later today (Valopers, Prop 349).
This is the follow-up to our Nov 5 explainer on Prop 346. That piece covered the decision. This one covers what has actually shipped, what Prop 349 would change on Akash, and what still has to happen on Solana before anyone should treat SPL AKT as live.
Where the migration stands, in three steps
| Step | Status as of Nov 9 | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Prop 346 | Passed Nov 2 (~97.3% Yes, ~69% turnout) | Authorizes leaving akashnet-2 for Solana and launching a one-way AKT portal (@akashnet; our Prop 346 explainer) |
| Mainnet 19 / Prop 347 | Live Nov 6 at block 29,399,482 | Installs x/sink disabled, updates the Pyth VAA verifier, repairs orphaned escrow payments (Mainnet 19 docs) |
| Prop 349 | Voting (closes ~Nov 9) | Sets sink parameters and sets enabled / refunds_enabled to true (Valopers) |
The marketplace still runs on Cosmos. Live leases, staking, and inflation continue on akashnet-2 until a later cutover proposal. Prop 349 is about the token portal, not about moving deployments.
What Mainnet 19 actually installed
Per Akash’s upgrade guide, voting Yes on Prop 347 approved three changes:
x/sink(AEP-95). The Akash half of the one-way bridge to Solana. The upgrade only initializes the module and its store. Deposits and refunds stay off until a later parameter proposal — that is Prop 349. Any balance already sitting at the sink module address was moved to the community pool before the module was initialized.- Pyth VAA verifier update. Akash pulls AKT/USD for burn-mint equilibrium (BME) through Pyth. The verifier contract that checks Pyth router signatures was migrated to new code with guarded router-set rotation and verification that stays inside CosmWasm limits. The price contract address, feed ID, and oracle parameters did not change.
- Escrow payment repair. Closes open escrow payments whose leases had already closed. Balances and bank state were left untouched; the upgrade emits an
escrow_orphan_payments_repairedevent with a count.
Akash’s own summary on X matches that list: groundwork for AKT on Solana, tighter Pyth verification, and billing cleanup for ended leases (@akashnet).
How the sink is supposed to work
AEP-95 is the design document. In plain terms:
- A user signs
MsgSinkon Akash with an amount and a Solana wallet address. x/sinklocks that AKT and writes an immutable transfer record.- A relayer proves the record to an AKT program on Solana against an Akash light-client header.
- The Solana program mints the same amount of SPL AKT, once per record — or marks the record voided if the recipient cannot hold it.
- Reporters on Akash confirm the Solana outcome. A confirmed mint leaves the AKT locked. A confirmed void can refund the sender after a challenge window.
The design is deliberately one-way. There is no return path from Solana to Cosmos. Every SPL AKT, including Overclock Labs’ planned 1,000,000 AKT seed deposit into a Solana treasury vault, is supposed to be minted against a proven x/sink lock (AEP-95).
During the launch phase, SPL AKT is for transfers and DEX liquidity only: no staking and no governance on Solana. Inflation and BME stay on Akash. The marketplace does not move until a separate cutover vote.
What Prop 349 would turn on
Prop 349 is an MsgUpdateParams for x/sink. From the parameters shown on Valopers when we read them this morning:
| Parameter | Value in Prop 349 | Plain reading |
|---|---|---|
enabled |
true |
Deposits can start |
refunds_enabled |
true |
Eligible voids can be refunded |
min_amount_per_transfer |
1,000,000 uakt | 1 AKT minimum |
max_amount_per_transfer |
1,000,000,000,000 uakt | 1,000,000 AKT per transfer |
max_transfer_amount_per_epoch |
10,000,000,000,000 uakt | 10,000,000 AKT of deposits per Akash quota epoch |
max_epoch_amount_per_account |
1,000,000,000,000 uakt | 1,000,000 AKT per sender per epoch |
max_epoch_refund |
1,000,000,000,000 uakt | 1,000,000 AKT of refunds per epoch |
reporters |
5 addresses | Outcome voters on Akash |
reporters_threshold |
0.667 | Quorum needs more than two-thirds of that set |
reporter_challenge_period |
259,200s | 72 hours |
allowed_destination_vaults |
empty | No listed vault destinations in this proposal |
pause_guardian |
one address | Can pause deposits/refunds; cannot turn them back on |
Those caps match AEP-95’s seed-window defaults: large enough for a single 1,000,000 AKT seed transfer, not the lower “launch caps” AEP-95 says should come after the seed mints (AEP-95).
Two practical caveats from the same document:
- Akash enablement is not the whole launch. AEP-95’s launch sequence still needs the Solana AKT program, light client, and bridge configuration in place, with minting turned on by the Solana upgrade-authority multisig after the Akash proposal passes. If Solana minting is still off, deposits can lock on Akash and wait for a relayer to mint later.
- The vault allowlist is empty in Prop 349. Ordinary Solana wallet destinations can still work. A treasury vault seed of the kind AEP-95 describes needs that vault on the allowlist (and on Solana’s vault list). We did not see that address in the Prop 349 params we read.
We also could not independently confirm, from pages we opened today, that the two independent token and portal audits Prop 346 requires are complete and published. Prop 346’s own timeline pointed to token launch two to three weeks after passage once those audits finish (our Prop 346 piece; CryptoSlate). Prop 349 arriving about a week later is aggressive relative to that schedule. Treat audit status as unverified until Akash publishes the reports.
What this does not change
- Marketplace cutover. New deployments still go to Cosmos. Providers and tenants are not being asked to re-register yet.
- Staking rewards. Old-chain inflation ends at cutover, not at token launch (CryptoSlate; Akash blog).
- Demand for compute. Lease fees on Akash, per DefiLlama’s fee series retrieved this morning, were about $288K in August and September and about $207K in October. November is about $71K through Nov 8. The Solana token launch is a distribution and liquidity move first; it does not, by itself, raise paid GPU demand (DefiLlama API).
For the product side of that demand question — including AkashML hosting open models — see our Kimi K3.1 Pro piece.
How to read Prop 349 if it passes
If Prop 349 passes with the parameters above, Akash will have completed the Cosmos half of AEP-95’s “open transfers” step: the sink is configured, deposits and refunds are allowed, reporters and a pause guardian are set, and seed-window caps are live.
That is necessary. It is not sufficient for a working SPL AKT market. The checklist that still matters after the vote:
- Solana mint and bridge live, with minting enabled by the multisig.
- Published canonical mint address (AEP-95 warns that impostor AKT mints should be assumed to exist).
- Audit reports within the 30-day window Prop 346 committed to.
- Official portal domain, announced through official Akash channels only.
- Seed and launch-cap follow-up if Overclock Labs still plans the 1,000,000 AKT treasury seed, including any vault-allowlist update.
Until those are visible, the right mental model is: the lockbox is installed and may be unlocked on Akash; the Solana mint and the official door into it still have to be shown in public.
What to watch
- Prop 349 final tally. Did Yes hold near-unanimous support, and what was final turnout against the 33.4% quorum?
- Solana bridge enablement. Official confirmation that
set_bridge_enabled(true)has run and that a canonical mint address is published. - Audit publication. Two independent token/portal audits, with reports public.
- Portal phishing. One official domain only. Ignore lookalikes.
- Cap changes after any seed. AEP-95 expects seed-window caps to be lowered to launch values after the seed mints.
- Lease fees. Whether Akash paid usage recovers from October’s ~$207K toward the ~$288K Aug/Sep run rate — independent of the chain migration.
Research and commentary only, not financial advice. Token migrations carry smart-contract, phishing and liquidity risks. Figures are from the linked sources as of Nov 9, 2026 (America/New_York) and change often.