Comparing the Solana and Ethereum Blockchains

At first glance, Solana and Ethereum may seem quite similar to the average user, but in reality, their architectures are fundamentally different.

Both platforms use the Proof of Stake (PoS) consensus algorithm; however, Solana complements it with a mechanism called Proof of History (PoH).

PoH can be thought of as a decentralized clock that records a chronological sequence of events and confirms the time at which they occurred. The integration of PoH with PoS allows Solana to achieve very high speeds.

The main difference between Solana and Ethereum lies in their architecture: Solana follows a monolithic approach, while Ethereum is evolving along a modular path.

Solana is a single-layer monolithic blockchain, meaning that all operations occur within a unified structure, without the need for additional layer-two (L2) solutions. This enables Solana to run smart contracts in parallel, boosting the network's computational power without sacrificing speed.

However, this monolithic approach may limit scalability in the long run. As the network grows and more applications are launched, maintaining its performance may require complex and expensive hardware. This raises the question: is there a limit to how many applications Solana can effectively support without compromising performance?

Ethereum, on the other hand, is betting on modular architecture by splitting the blockchain’s functions across different layers. In this system, L2 solutions (like Optimism, Arbitrum, Base, etc.) play a key role. Ethereum delegates transaction processing and management to these layers, offloading its often-criticized and expensive main chain.

The modular approach offers greater flexibility, as individual layers can be upgraded and optimized independently. However, it can also complicate integration and coordination between layers, which often negatively affects user experience.

The differences between the two projects are evident even at conferences.

Solana tends to focus on end users and application development, whereas Ethereum leans heavily toward infrastructure, with millions being invested into L2 development.
In essence, both approaches have their drawbacks, but each community believes their favored solution is the only right one.

Some say that Solana cannot survive with a monolithic structure, while others argue Ethereum will continue spending millions on scaling without truly caring about users.

Time will tell who’s right.