Author | Ryan Berckmans
Compiled by | WuBlockchain (This article reflects the author's personal views and does not represent WuBlockchain's stance.)
Introduction
Ethereum has solidified its position as the backbone of the new global financial system, composed of Layer 2 (L2) and Layer 1 (L1) applications. No other blockchain comes close to this status.
While Solana has gained traction this season—particularly in degen/meme coin growth and SOL price appreciation—its leadership seems to be grappling with the reality that L2 solutions may gradually erode other L1s' market share. Recently, Solana hinted at pivoting toward a "mainchain strategy" akin to Ethereum’s. However, Solana is fundamentally ill-suited to serve as a global mainchain for L2s or world-class L1 activities. Below, we explore the five critical reasons why.
The Shift in Solana’s Narrative
- From "Monolithic" to "Integrated":
Initially, Solana promoted a single-chain "monolithic" approach, claiming it would be fast and cheap enough for global adoption. When this proved unrealistic, the narrative shifted to "integrated." - Reluctant Acceptance of L2s:
Mid-year, Solana acknowledged the inevitability of L2s after flagship projects began building custom L2 appchains. Notably, a prominent Solana developer team migrated to building an SVM L2 on Ethereum. - Marketing Spin:
Solana rebranded its L2s as "network extensions" and introduced "real TPS" metrics after years of inflated claims (e.g., reporting 3,000 TPS while actual throughput was ~750).
5 Reasons Solana Can Never Be the Mainchain
1. Lack of True Client Diversity
- Ethereum: Runs four independent production clients (e.g., Geth, Nethermind) with balanced stake distribution.
- Solana: Only one production client (Agave Rust). Efforts to develop a second (Firedancer) face delays due to missing protocol specifications and hardware dependencies.
- Implication: Solana lacks the attack resistance and redundancy required for a global mainchain.
2. Excessive Bandwidth Requirements
- Solana validators need 10Gbps upload speeds, limiting decentralization to high-end data centers.
- Ethereum: Designed to run on consumer hardware globally, minimizing centralization risks.
3. High Risk of Network Downtime
- Solana has suffered multiple outages and lacks Ethereum’s protocol-level fail-safes (e.g., continued block production during finalization stalls).
- Critical for Mainchains: Zero downtime is non-negotiable for trillion-dollar asset settlement.
4. Economic Centralization
- Solana’s Token Distribution: ~98% allocated to insiders during TGE/ICO vs. Ethereum’s 80% public sale.
- PoW Legacy: Ethereum’s seven years of high-inflation mining ensured broad ETH distribution.
5. Inefficient Scaling for L2 Settlement
- Ethereum: Uses zk-proof aggregation to settle thousands of chains without sacrificing decentralization.
- Solana: Focused on L1 execution scaling, which conflicts with the neutrality and decentralization needed for a global mainchain.
Conclusion
Solana’s technical and economic constraints prevent it from becoming the backbone of blockchain. Ethereum’s L2-centric strategy, backed by unmatched decentralization and institutional adoption (e.g., Coinbase, Sony, Visa), cements its lead. As L2s continue absorbing L1 market share, ETH’s monetary premium will grow—leaving Solana behind in the race for global infrastructure dominance.
FAQs
Q1: Can Solana’s Firedancer client solve its diversity issues?
A: Firedancer’s development is years away from handling 50% of stake. Even then, a third independent client would be needed—a monumental challenge.
Q2: Why does Ethereum’s bandwidth requirement matter less?
A: Ethereum nodes run on consumer-grade hardware (e.g., 2Gbps), enabling broader participation than Solana’s data-center-dependent model.
Q3: How does Solana’s token distribution affect its security?
A: High insider ownership increases systemic risks (e.g., collusion), deterring institutional adoption.
👉 Explore Ethereum’s L2 ecosystem
👉 Why institutions favor Ethereum over Solana