Solana vs Ethereum — two strategies for scalable blockchain
Ethereum and Solana are two leaders in the world of smart contracts, but they have chosen radically different approaches to scaling. Let's analyze the essence of these strategies and what each sacrifices.
Ethereum: modularity and L2
Ethereum bets on a modular architecture:
Ethereum itself (Layer 1) becomes the security base.
Scaling occurs through Layer 2 solutions — Rollups.
In the future, Danksharding will be implemented for cheap L2 data storage.
Advantages:
High level of decentralization.
Security at L1 level.
Flexibility — each Rollup can be tailored for specific tasks.
Disadvantages:
Complexity of interaction between L2.
Delays and UX inconvenience for users.
High fees on L1 are still a reality.
Solana: everything in one (monolithic approach)
Solana took a different path — everything within one level (monolithic chain):
All transactions and smart contracts are processed on one chain.
Ultra-high throughput is achieved through optimizations, including:
Proof of History (PoH)
Parallel transaction processing (Sealevel)
Advantages:
Fast, cheap, UX like Web2.
No L2 — everything is simple and native.
Disadvantages:
High system requirements for nodes.
Decentralization level is lower.
Network failures have already occurred — overloads, downtimes.
Main difference:
Ethereum divides responsibilities between layers: L1 = security, L2 = scaling.
Solana does everything in one place, maximizing L1 efficiency.
What to choose?
Ethereum is an ecosystem for building infrastructure.
Solana is a platform focused on UX and speed.
