Ethereum Layer 2s vs Solana’s Monolithic Chain: Which Is Winning?

Ethereum is taking a modular approach through Layer 2 scaling solutions, whereas Solana champions a monolithic chain that processes everything in a single, high-performance layer.

What Are Ethereum’s Layer 2s?

Ethereum Layer 2s are scaling solutions that are built on top of Ethereum’s base layer (Layer 1) to increase transaction speed and lower costs while maintaining security. 

They work by offloading computation and transaction data from Ethereum’s mainnet and settling the final results back on-chain, relying on Ethereum’s decentralized security guarantees.

The most common type of Layer 2 is rollups, which bundle thousands of transactions off-chain and post a compressed version to Ethereum L1.

Two Main Types of Layer 2 Rollups:

Optimistic rollups (such as Optimism, Base, and Arbitrum) assume transactions are valid by default and challenge incorrect submissions using fraud proofs.

Zero-knowledge rollups (e.g., zkSync Era) use cryptographic proofs to instantly verify transaction validity on the blockchain.

This architecture drastically reduces gas fees while increasing throughput. For example, Arbitrum and Optimism can process up to 40 times as many transactions per second as Ethereum L1 at a fraction of the cost.

Ethereum Layer 2s preserve Ethereum’s decentralization and security while enabling faster, cheaper, and more scalable dApp experiences, making them critical to the long-term roadmap.

What is Solana’s Monolithic Chain Model?

Solana’s monolithic chain model is a blockchain architecture that handles all core functions, consensus, execution, and data availability via a single, unified layer. 

Unlike Ethereum’s modular design with Layer 2s, Solana prioritizes throughput and simplicity by maintaining everything on the base layer.

Architecture Overview: Proof of History and High-Frequency Validators

Solana introduces Proof of History (PoH), an innovative timekeeping mechanism that pre-orders transactions before they reach consensus. 

This enables validators to process transactions efficiently and in parallel, significantly increasing speed. Solana’s Tower BFT (a PoH-optimized version of PBFT) consensus and a high-performance validator set enable massive transaction throughput.

Solana validation requires high-end hardware such as multi-core CPUs, large RAM, and fast internet bandwidth. This infrastructure enables the network to avoid bottlenecks common in other chains, but it raises concerns about decentralization.

Performance Metrics

Solana has some of the most impressive raw performance metrics in the industry:

• Transaction Speed: Over 65,000 TPS theoretically; real-world averages frequently range from 1,000 to 3,000 TPS.
• Block Finality: As low as 400 milliseconds.
• Fees: Transaction costs are extremely low, typically around $0.00025.

Limitations

Despite its speed and cost advantages, Solana has major drawbacks:

• Network Outages: Solana has experienced multiple downtime incidents, often caused by congestion, spam attacks, or bugs.
• Hardware Demands: Running a validator requires expensive, high-performance machines, which limits accessibility.
• Centralization Risks: A smaller, hardware-intensive validator set may result in validator concentration, raising concerns about censorship resistance and long-term decentralization.

Solana’s monolithic chain model prioritizes performance and low fees over modular flexibility, providing a compelling but divisive alternative to Ethereum’s Layer 2 strategy.

Performance Face-Off: Speed, Cost, and Scalability

In the debate between Ethereum Layer 2s vs Solana’s Monolithic Chain, performance is a key factor. Each architecture has a unique approach to improving transaction speed, cost efficiency, and scalability.

Transaction Speed:

Solana is designed for high throughput, with theoretical speeds of up to 65,000 transactions per second (TPS). In practice, Solana can sustain 1,000 to 3,000 TPS under real-world conditions, far exceeding Ethereum L1’s average of 15 TPS.

Ethereum Layer 2s such as Arbitrum One and zkSync Era significantly improve base-layer speed.

Arbitrum One can handle around 40–100 TPS.

zkSync Era aims for 2,000+ TPS through zk-rollup efficiency and scaling enhancements.

However, actual throughput can vary depending on network load and usage.

• Verdict: While Solana has higher native TPS, L2s are rapidly scaling and benefit from Ethereum’s underlying security and decentralization.

Fees

Solana leads in transaction cost efficiency, with fees averaging around $0.00025 per transaction.

Ethereum Layer 2s provide significant reductions compared to the Ethereum mainnet, but remain higher than Solana:

Arbitrum One: charges approximately $0.02 to $0.10 per transaction.

zkSync Era: costs approximately $0.05-$0.15, depending on complexity.

• Verdict: Solana is cheaper per transaction, but Ethereum Layer 2s are closing the gap as rollup technology matures.

Scalability

Solana uses a vertical scaling model, which boosts performance by upgrading hardware and optimizing the monolithic chain. This model achieves high TPS while introducing validator hardware requirements and potential centralization.

In contrast, Ethereum Layer 2s scale horizontally, multiple rollups operate in parallel, offloading activity from the base layer. This modular design enables Ethereum to scale incrementally and composably without overloading Layer 1.

• Verdict: Ethereum’s modular rollup-centric roadmap provides long-term scalability flexibility, whereas Solana’s vertical scaling offers impressive speed today but may face infrastructure limitations.

When comparing the performance of Ethereum Layer 2s and Solana’s Monolithic Chain, Solana currently leads in terms of transaction speed and cost. However, Ethereum’s Layer 2 ecosystem is rapidly expanding, with scalable rollups and improved fee structures driving adoption. 

The ultimate winner may not be determined solely by raw speed, but also by which model scales best while maintaining decentralization and developer flexibility.

Developer Ecosystem and Network Effects

A blockchain’s long-term success relies on its developer community. In the battle between Ethereum Layer 2s and Solana’s Monolithic Chain, both ecosystems are competing to attract developers with better tools, community support, and financial incentives.

Ethereum Layer 2s: A Mature and Unified EVM Landscape

Ethereum Layer 2s benefit from deep EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) compatibility, allowing developers to migrate and deploy dApps with minimal changes between L2s such as Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, and zkSync Era. 

Shared standards such as Solidity, Hardhat, and Remix facilitate rapid iteration and multi-chain deployment.

As of 2025, the Ethereum Layer 2 ecosystem hosts over 10,000 dApps, including major platforms for DeFi, gaming, and NFTs. Developer-focused initiatives like Optimism’s RetroPGF, Arbitrum’s Orbit program, and Base’s Onchain Summer series further incentivize innovation.

Solana: A Fast-Growing, Rust-Based Ecosystem

Solana’s Rust-based development stack takes a different approach, providing high performance but requiring a steeper learning curve for Web2 or EVM native developers. 

Despite this, Solana’s development ecosystem is rapidly maturing, thanks to tools like the Anchor Framework and initiatives like the Solana Mobile Stack (SMS), which allows for on-chain apps on mobile devices.

Compressed NFTs are a standout feature, as they reduce on-chain data costs and enable scalable NFT minting at a fraction of Ethereum’s cost. Mad Lads and Tensor are two projects that demonstrate Solana’s innovation in this space.

Solana also funds growth through its $100 million ecosystem fund and frequent global hackathons, such as Solana Renaissance, which draw thousands of participants each year.

Developer Experience and Support

• Tooling & Onboarding: Ethereum’s Layer 2s provide improved onboarding through shared EVM tooling and language familiarity.
• Grants and Funding: Both ecosystems are well-funded, but Ethereum L2s have greater access to VC-backed grant programs (such as a16z-backed L2s).
• Community & Hackathons: According to GitHub data (2024-2025), Ethereum-related repositories (particularly Optimism and Arbitrum) consistently have the most commits and contributor activities. 

However, Solana’s developer base has doubled since late 2023, indicating rapid expansion.

In terms of developer ecosystem and network effects, Ethereum Layer 2s have a clear advantage in interoperability, tool familiarity, and ecosystem maturity. 

However, Solana’s monolithic chain is quickly catching up thanks to unique innovations such as mobile integration and low-cost NFT primitives.

As the competition heats up, Ethereum Layer 2s vs Solana’s Monolithic Chain remains a battle of breadth versus specialization, with each providing compelling opportunities for the next generation of Web3 developers.

Adoption and Use Cases in the Real World

As blockchain technology matures, real-world applications become the ultimate proving ground. When comparing Ethereum Layer 2s to Solana’s Monolithic Chain, each ecosystem demonstrates distinct advantages in DeFi, NFTs, gaming, payments, and institutional engagement.

Ethereum Layer 2: DeFi, NFTs, and Gaming Innovation

Ethereum Layer 2s have become a hotbed of DeFi activity, thanks to lower fees and scalable execution:

• GMX (Arbitrum) provides decentralized perpetual futures trading with ample liquidity.
• dYdX (formerly on StarkEx, now moving to its own app chain) was one of the first successful Layer 2 DeFi platforms.

In the NFT space, L2s make ownership more affordable:

• zkSync Era supports zk-based NFTs with enhanced privacy.
• Gaming projects such as TreasureDAO (Arbitrum) and zkLoot provide on-chain assets and economies, paving the way for interoperable Web3 games.

These use cases benefit from Ethereum’s existing network effects and robust wallet integrations with MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet, and the L2-native Rabby Wallet.

Solana: Speed Meets Utility in Emerging Sectors

Solana has gained significant traction in DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure) use cases:

• Helium moved to Solana to scale its decentralized wireless network.
• Hivemapper, a decentralized mapping protocol, rewards users for collecting data from dashcams.

Solana’s compressed NFT technology allows for large-scale, low-cost minting:

• Mad Lads projects and Tensor platforms dominate Solana’s NFT scene, which is known for its fast minting and low entry barriers.

Solana Pay is also gaining momentum as a feeless payment method used by merchants and online platforms seeking frictionless crypto transactions.

Phantom, Solana’s flagship wallet with over 3 million active users, has seen a surge in adoption due to its mobile-native functionality and slick UX.

Wallet Support and Accessibility

• MetaMask: The dominant Ethereum L2 with multi-chain and rollup compatibility.
• Coinbase Wallet: EVM-first, now integrating Base and other L2s.
• Phantom: Originally Solana-exclusive, now expanding to support Ethereum and Polygon, indicating cross-chain convergence.

Verdict: Ethereum L2s provide greater wallet compatibility across use cases, whereas Solana offers a more seamless UX with Phantom, particularly for NFTs and mobile-first users.

Institutional Interest

• Ethereum Layer 2s are gaining popularity among institutions because of their connection to Ethereum’s strong base layer and predictable roadmap.
  • Coinbase’s Base L2 is a clear example of enterprise-grade Layer 2 adoption.
  • Financial institutions value Ethereum’s security model and modular flexibility.
• Solana is attracting interest from consumer-tech startups and hardware-enabled projects. Shopify has integrated Solana Pay, and the Solana Mobile Stack allows on-chain apps to run on Solana-native phones.

Ethereum Layer 2s are widely adopted for DeFi, multi-chain wallet support, and institutional trust. In contrast, Solana’s monolithic chain excels in consumer-facing applications such as NFTs, mobile payments, and DePIN, all of which require speed and low costs.

The competition between Ethereum Layer 2s vs Solana’s Monolithic Chain is no longer theoretical; it is taking place across industries and user behaviors around the world.

Security and Decentralization Trade-Offs

Security and decentralization are foundational to blockchain’s long-term integrity. In the ongoing debate between Ethereum Layer 2s vs Solana’s Monolithic Chain, each ecosystem makes different trade-offs to balance performance with trust.

Ethereum Layer 2: Modular Security Inheritance

Ethereum Layer 2s inherit the strong security of Ethereum Layer 1, which is widely regarded as the most decentralized and battle-tested smart contract platform. L2s such as Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync rely on:

• Fraud proofs (Optimistic Rollups): Assume that transactions are valid unless challenged during a dispute window.
• Validity proofs (ZK Rollups): Use cryptographic evidence to instantly confirm correctness.

Because all rollup data and proofs are ultimately settled on Ethereum L1, L2s benefit from its censorship resistance, decentralization, and economic security, making them extremely resilient to network-level attacks.

Uptime: Ethereum L1 has maintained over 99.99% uptime, with L2s such as Arbitrum and Base also demonstrating high availability, thanks to active validator and sequencer participation.

Solana: Speed Vs Validator Centralization

Solana prioritizes fast finality and high throughput via Proof of History (PoH), but this raises unique decentralization concerns.

• Validator centralization: Solana’s validator set requires high-performance hardware, which limits participation to more resource-intensive operators.
• The top 30 validators control more than 30% of the stake, prompting concerns about potential collusion or reduced fault tolerance.
• Outages: Since 2022, Solana has experienced multiple multi-hour outages caused by software bugs or validator overload, affecting its reputation for network liveness.

However, Solana has been working to improve with Firedancer, an alternative validator client designed to boost performance and resilience, which is set to launch in 2025.

Key Comparison: Liveness vs Safety

• Ethereum Layer 2s prioritize safety (state and consensus accuracy), even if it means incurring latency. Fraud/validity proofs ensure trust, even if a sequencer is malicious.
• Solana emphasizes liveness (network uptime and availability), but it has a history of downtime and relies heavily on validator coordination.

Validator Incentives

• Ethereum L2s: The incentives are aligned with Ethereum staking and sequencer rewards; anyone can participate in Ethereum staking through decentralized pools or by running a validator node.
• Solana: Offers staking rewards, but validator entry is capital and hardware-intensive, discouraging casual participation.

When comparing Ethereum Layer 2s vs Solana’s Monolithic Chain in terms of long-term trust and resilience, Ethereum’s modular design provides greater security and decentralization by anchoring L2 activity to a stable L1. 

Solana’s speed-focused model improves the user experience, but validator concentration and downtime risks remain a source of concern.

As blockchain applications expand into finance, infrastructure, and enterprise systems, security and decentralization will remain the ultimate litmus test for long-term adoption.

The Road Ahead: Who Will Win in 2025?

As blockchain ecosystems evolve, the battle between Ethereum Layer 2s vs Solana’s Monolithic Chain becomes more than just a design philosophy; it’s about who can scale securely, attract users, and drive real economic activity.

In 2025, both camps are doubling down on innovation, but key trends are revealing the stakes.

Narrative Trends

Ethereum embraces its modular future with critical upgrades, such as:

• Proto-Danksharding (EIP-4844): Introduced in 2024, it reduces rollup costs by introducing blobs for cheap data availability, resulting in faster L2 growth.
• Danksharding (coming 2025-2026): The Goal is to fully implement data sharding to support 100,000+ TPS across rollups, making Ethereum the most scalable modular base layer.

Meanwhile, Solana improves the reliability of its monolithic chain:

• Firedancer, a new high-performance validator client developed by Jump Crypto, is now in testnet and aims to increase throughput tenfold while improving reliability and security.

These efforts are aimed at addressing Solana’s long-standing issues with validator centralization and network outages.

Market Share: TVL, Users, and Token Metrics

Total Value Locked (TVL):

• Ethereum Layer 2s (combined): Over $40B TVL, led by Arbitrum (~$18B), Optimism (~$9B), and Base (~$6 billion).
• Solana: TVL has surpassed $5 billion in 2025, with strong DeFi and NFT resurgence following the FTX fallout.

Active Users and Retention:

• Ethereum L2s have higher multi-app retention, as users frequently interact with multiple dApps across rollups.
• Solana leads in daily transactions per user, thanks to NFT minting, DePIN apps, and Solana Pay integrations.

Token Performance (Year-to-Date, 2025):

• ETH: Increased by approximately 35% due to L2 growth and institutional staking demand.
• SOL: Increased by approximately 110% due to Firedancer hype, high retail usage, and revived NFT momentum.

Technological Innovation

• zkEVMs (such as zkSync, Scroll, and Polygon zkEVM) are rapidly maturing, allowing EVM-compliant ZK rollups to provide privacy, scalability, and composability. However, many are still in the early stages of complete decentralization.
• Firedancer positions Solana as the fastest high-performance chain. Benchmarks show that it could support 1 million TPS in ideal conditions, with the added benefit of client diversity to avoid single points of failure.

Verdict: Ethereum is setting the standard for modular innovation, while Solana is honing its speed-first architecture to bridge the reliability gap.

Future Potential: Hybrid Convergence

The future may not be binary. Emerging projects suggest a hybrid model, where:

• Ethereum Layer 2s achieve monolithic performance through shared sequencers and blobspace, reducing the UX gap.
• Solana may use modular integrations, such as off-chain data availability layers or zk-proofing for light clients.

L2 rollups are already experimenting with Solana-style performance (e.g., Monad, Fuel), and Solana now supports cross-chain bridges and EVM compatibility through Neon EVM.

In 2025, the question of Ethereum Layer 2s vs. Solana’s Monolithic Chain isn’t about picking a winner; it’s about acknowledging their differences.

Ethereum L2s excel in decentralization, modular flexibility, and institutional trust.

Solana excels in performance, user experience, and consumer use cases.

As the distinction between modular and monolithic architectures blurs, the ecosystem that provides scalable, secure, and intuitive user experiences on a global scale will emerge as the clear winner.

Conclusion 

The debate of Ethereum Layer 2s vs Solana’s Monolithic Chain highlights one of the most dynamic chapters in blockchain evolution. Each architecture has a distinct approach to scaling blockchain technology while maintaining decentralization, security, and usability.

The gap between them continues to narrow. Ethereum’s L2 roadmap strengthens with innovations such as proto-danksharding, while Solana improves its infrastructure with Firedancer and expands its tooling. 

These advancements are fostering an environment in which developers can pick the best tool for the job without compromising on vision.