Public blockchains face a difficult design question as institutional participation grows: How can validators gain the controls they require without turning one compliance policy into a network-wide rule? Bringing configurable screening into Solana’s block-building process offers an interesting middle ground. Instead of enforcing a single standard across the network, each validator can determine which policies it wants to apply. That preserves validator autonomy and may make public infrastructure more usable for institutions operating under different requirements. But it also introduces a new kind of complexity. If validators begin applying different screening rules, transaction inclusion may no longer depend only on fees, network conditions or technical validity. It could also depend on which validator is producing the block and which policy that validator follows. Over time, users may need to understand not only how a network operates, but also which invisible rules influence the path their transactions take. Without sufficient transparency, one public blockchain could gradually begin to resemble several partially separated execution environments. In my view, programmable compliance could help public networks support a wider range of participants without forcing every validator to follow the same standard. But flexibility alone is not enough. Clear disclosure, measurable behavior and visibility into transaction filtering will be essential if users are expected to trust the system. The goal should be to expand access without weakening the neutrality that makes public blockchains valuable in the first place. Can validator-level policies bring more institutions onchain without creating different versions of the same public network?