In a recent debate, Ethereum community member Ryan Berckmans voiced doubts about Solana’s potential to become the “global backbone” for blockchain, primarily due to its structural limitations. Berckmans, who shared his analysis on X, believes Solana’s limitations make it unsuitable for the global financial network that blockchain technology aims to build.
Solana Blockchain Limitations
During the Solana vs. Ethereum debate, Berckmans highlighted several limitations he sees in Solana, arguing that its design and infrastructure hinder it from scaling up globally. Here are the main concerns he raised:
1. Structural Limitation
The Ethereum community’s perspective, specifically Berckmans’, is centered on Solana’s “monolithic” approach, where all transactions run on a single Layer 1 (L1) chain. Solana was first marketed for its capacity to handle global transactions.
Since then, it has introduced what it calls "Network Extensions," which resemble Layer 2 (L2) solutions but are not quite reaching Ethereum’s breadth in decentralized finance (DeFi).
2. Network Downtime and Centralization Concerns
Ryan Berckmans emphasized that Solana’s history of network outages raises concerns about its ability to serve as a reliable global platform. Solana has experienced multiple outages over the past years. This downtime, he argues, results from Solana’s attempt to maximize speed at the cost of stability. Critics within Ethereum's community argue that such vulnerabilities undermine Solana’s capability to serve as a global blockchain backbone.
3. Scalability vs. Security and Decentralization
Solana’s architecture focuses on maximizing transaction throughput, which has allowed it to achieve speeds significantly faster than Ethereum. However, Berckmans believe Solana’s approach sacrifices decentralization and security for speed. Solana's network relies on fewer, high-powered nodes to validate transactions, which the Ethereum community member claims leaves it vulnerable to centralization risks.
4. Long-term Viability and Innovation
Ethereum supporters often point to the ecosystem’s commitment to continuous improvement, with the introduction of Ethereum 2.0 and the growing list of Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solutions. These upgrades are designed to meet the demands of a global user base while preserving Ethereum’s decentralized infrastructure.
In contrast, Solana’s focus on speed might make it difficult to evolve and innovate in line with increasing demand and technological changes. According to the Berckmans, Solana may struggle to maintain its current growth trajectory without risking network reliability or decentralization.
5. Absence of Client Diversity
A major concern is Solana’s reliance on a single primary validator client, written in Rust. Ethereum, on the other hand, operates across multiple independent clients (such as Geth and Besu), which ensures security even in case of issues with one client.
Solana’s client diversity is gradually expanding with the introduction of a secondary client, Firedancer, built by Jump Crypto. However, development delays and a lack of decentralization in validator nodes continue to hinder Solana’s potential to be resilient under global-scale load.
Wrapping Up
When compared to Ethereum's L1 and L2 ecosystems, Berckmans believes that Solana's market share will keep falling year over year. As proof of the market's trajectory, he points to the fact that prominent firms like Sony, Coinbase, and Kraken have chosen Ethereum L2 solutions.
Despite Solana's successes in certain areas, such as meme coin growth and price increase, Berckmans concludes that it cannot support a global financial system because of its inherent limits.