A few days ago, Anatoly Yakovenko, founder of the Solana crypto project, strongly criticised Ethereum for creating a social hierarchy that seems to benefit the upper-middle class at the expense of the working masses.
The accusations are mainly related to Vitalik Buterin’s concept of centralising the validators of the chain, as the access requirements are limiting for the lower classes.
In fact, in order to join the group of independent validators, it is necessary to have at least 32 ETH, or about 53,000 dollars at the current exchange rate.
Vitalik had previously praised Solana’s developer community, calling them “serious” and saying that the project could survive for years to come.
Let’s look at all the details together.
Latest news from the crypto world: Solana’s founder thinks Ethereum is only for the upper middle class
The latest news from the crypto world is about the clash between Ethereum and Solana, specifically Anatoly Yakovenko and some heavy accusations made 2 days ago on X (formerly Twitter).
The founder of the Solana blockchain, born in 2018 with the nickname “Ethereum Killer”, stated that although the rival network was conceived as the engine of a decentralised economy open to all, so far it has turned out to be a tool dedicated exclusively to the upper middle class.
In the published text, words such as “oppression” and “stateless digital domain” can be read, highlighting the most negative aspects of the world’s second most capitalised crypto project after bitcoin.
Here is the original tweet.
The core of Anatoly Yakovenko’s speech concerns the strict requirements needed to become an autonomous validator within the Ethereum protocol, which act as an access barrier for the poorer masses.
In fact, it is common knowledge that in order to access Ethereum stakes as a validator, one must block a minimum of 32 ETH, which at the current price of the cryptocurrency is equivalent to over $53,000.
As of today, we can count a total of approximately 126,000 Ethereum addresses holding at least 32 ETH. With a total of 245.9 million unique addresses on the network, we can conclude that only 0.05% of all addresses can participate in the validation of network blocks.
As the more experienced in the industry probably know, there are alternative ways to participate in Ethereum staking (not validation), such as using third-party services like Lido, Rocket Pool, Frax and Stakewise, where the minimum requirements are more affordable and in everyone’s pocket.
The problem is that the trend towards liquid staking (LSD) platforms is only helping to further centralise the chain, with Lido having a market share of over 32% in coin staking.
This narrative has been echoed in recent weeks by many representatives of these platforms who are looking for a solution to limit the power of Lido and the richer middle class masses.
Add to this the fact that Ethereum has always been defined as a chain for the rich, as the commission costs to execute a TX are much higher than its current competitors.
Solana vs. Ethereum: comparing the two blockchain networks
The harsh words of the founder of the Solana crypto project make even more delicate a competitive relationship that has been going on for years, with the two blockchains fighting for market supremacy.
To tell the truth, it is mainly Solana and its exponents who have centred the narrative of the “L1 killer” as a marketing tool to attract new traffic to the network, followed by the “Ethereum fan boy” who has responded punctually in tone on social media to remind them of their superiority.
Vitalik Buterin, on the other hand, has never shown any rivalry with Solana, even going so far as to praise the community of crypto network developers as a group of “serious and smart people”.
In June 2023, Vitalik himself expressed his solidarity with the repressive actions of the US federal authorities, who were trying hard to define SOL as a security, suggesting that he would be happy to see the blockchain landscape expand in favour of other competitors such as Solana.
If we look at the data of both networks, it is easy to see that Ethereum is the most used in all areas: from the number of active addresses, to the volume moved on-chain, to the number of dApps built on it.
On Ethereum, for example, we can count a number of active addresses of 12.65 million in September 2023 against Solana’s 6.13 million, as well as three times the volume generated on-chain.
All this is not due to a better technology or a more functional blockchain architecture, but simply to the fact that Ethereum is a historical chain, born long before its “rival”, which has gained public legitimacy as the main blockchain engine of the DeFi and NFT market, given and also taking into account the stress tests it has been able to face.
Solana, despite being cheaper, faster and accessible to everyone, still suffers from some problems related to the synchronisation of nodes and it happens very often that it goes down for a few minutes/hours. And let’s not forget the beating it took immediately after the collapse of FTX in November 2022, which was the project’s main backer.
A struggle for supremacy or a silly narrative?
Returning to Anatoly Yakovenko’s talk, we feel it is worthwhile to provide some food for thought regarding the future of the decentralised network landscape in the coming years.
As investors and supporters of each other’s projects wage war on each other on social media, they come up with complex techniques to generate FUD, it is important to realise that no one here cares about the “war for supremacy”.
If one or the other blockchain were to disappear in the next few years, it would be detrimental to the entire cryptographic industry.
What really matters is that the industry as a whole grows to a market that can satisfy both sides.
We are not here to make political propaganda or to start a war between rich and poor.
We are here to support a world that in its broader background sees the participation of a long series of protocols and networks that contribute to creating a parallel economy that fully expresses the concept of financial freedom, disconnected from financial intermediation and bank control.