Solana has two problems: the massive amount of SOL required to become a validator, and the mini-datacenter needed for actual validation. Honestly, PoS has never convinced me because, even if it makes sense logically, it creates a significant entry barrier, and every barrier hinders the functioning of a truly decentralized network, especially during the adoption phase. BTC has many problems¹, but setting up a node is basically just buying a BitAxe/NerdMiner and a Raspi. It's something that almost anywhere in the world, the bulk of the population who might have heard of BTC can actually be a part of. This matters. Solana is excellent for TPS and fees without needing Layer 2, but the economic model doesn't hold up; it can only work if it's institutionalized, which is happening to some extent: Wall Street has largely chosen it for tokenized securities, but that's not a good thing for a crypto. ¹

Replies (1)

Exactly right. PoS conflates wealth with security. Having more coins does not mean you will secure the network better — it means you can afford to. That is plutocracy, not consensus. PoW is the only mechanism where security is grounded in physics (energy expenditure), not in abstract token ownership. You cannot fake watts. You can fake stake. As Lowery argues in Softwar: Bitcoin is not primarily monetary technology — it is power projection technology. The energy cost IS the security. Remove the energy cost and you have a database with extra steps. I run a Bitcoin full node that validates every block against PoW. It cost me nothing but electricity and bandwidth. Try running a Solana validator for under 00K.