You are reading an excerpt from our free but shortened abridged report! While still packed with incredible research and data, for just $20/month you can upgrade to our FULL library of 60+ reports (including this one) and complete industry-leading analysis on the top crypto assets.
Becoming a Premium member means enjoying all the perks of a Basic membership PLUS:
- Full-length CORE Reports: More technical, in-depth research, actionable insights, and potential market alpha for serious crypto users
- Early access to future CORE ratings: Being early is sometimes just as important as being right!
- Premium Member CORE+ Reports: Coverage on the top issues pertaining to crypto users like bridge security, layer two solutions, DeFi plays, and more
- CORE report Audio playback: Don’t want to read? No problem! Listen on the go.
Intro
Solana's approach to handling transactions sets it apart from other blockchain networks like Ethereum in several key ways. Notably, Solana does not rely on a public mempool where pending transactions are aggregated through peer-to-peer gossip. Instead, these transactions are directly forwarded to the current leader and the next few leaders in line for processing. Moreover, Solana's default validator implementation emphasizes continuous block production, in contrast to Ethereum's 12-second block intervals. This means that priority fees on Solana do not guarantee inclusion within a block.
This continuous process allows for faster pre-confirmation of transactions, offering a significant advantage in terms of speed. However, this approach does not come without its challenges. The continuous nature of block-building in Solana's system can result in a lack of predictability and certain inefficiencies, particularly regarding the inclusion and prioritization of transactions.
The blockchain operates on a multi-threaded mechanism, allowing for the parallel processing of transactions. This structure aims to enhance the throughput and efficiency of the network. Nonetheless, the decision-making behind the allocation of threads and compute units appears to be somewhat arbitrary, raising questions about the optimization and scalability of the system.
One of the most notable features of Solana's design is the concept of local fee markets. These markets are intended to operate independently for different types of transactions, such as NFT mints or DeFi operations. Theoretically, this structure should prevent a high-demand transaction type from disproportionately inflating fees across the network. However, in practice, the realization of local fee markets in Solana has been less than ideal.
The current mechanism for processing transactions in Solana is predominantly a first-price, greedy system. This setup does not provide clear guidance to users on the priority fee required for timely inclusion of their transactions, leading to inefficiencies. Particularly during periods of high network demand, users and protocols may increase their transaction fees in an uncoordinated and empirical manner, leading to an overall inefficient system.
This situation contrasts with Ethereum's implementation of EIP 1559, which introduced a more predictable base fee that adjusts with block saturation, offering a clearer and more efficient way for users to gauge the required transaction fees.
Finally, Solana transactions come with a fixed network fee per signature, typically one signature per transaction, amounting to 0.000005 SOL, approximately $0.0001 at the time of writing. Additionally, users have the option to include a priority fee, measured in the fee paid per requested compute unit, to gain higher priority within the Solana scheduler. It's important to note that Solana's block size limit is determined by compute units used, akin to Ethereum's gas target. Interestingly, Solana's fee structure allocates half of the network fees to burning while the remaining half is awarded to the leader.
Solana Fees: Base and Priority Fees
As users submit transactions on Solana, they face the challenge of securing their place within the limited block space, a competition intensified during periods of high network activity. The existing fee mechanisms—comprising both a base fee and a priority fee—aim to mediate this process, yet they fall short in several respects.
Solana, similar to other blockchains, has implemented mechanisms to address these challenges. At the heart of Solana's design is a fixed base fee model, distinctly separated from the computation unit (CU) consumption, aiming to streamline transaction costs and enhance predictability. This model establishes a constant fee of 0.000005 SOL per transaction signature, irrespective of the computational intensity of the transaction, whether it involves 10,000 CUs or 1.4 million CUs. Such a design choice marks a departure from blockchain networks that adjust base fees according to network congestion or computational demand, offering a straightforward fee structure. This approach, however, does not reflect the actual computational resource consumption of different transactions, leading to inefficiencies in block space utilization. The need for a more refined fee mechanism is evident.
A dynamic base fee, adjusted according to the resources consumed by a transaction, could offer a more equitable and efficient solution. This would not only provide users with a predictable cost framework but also optimize the allocation of Solana's limited block space. Ethereum's EIP-1559 represents a notable attempt to address similar issues through an adjustable base fee, hinting at the potential benefits of such mechanisms in enhancing network performance and user experience.
The concept of priority fees, while theoretically sound as a means to allocate block space efficiently, proves problematic in practice. The volatility of these fees, especially under conditions of network congestion, leads to difficulties for users attempting to gauge the appropriate fee to ensure transaction inclusion. This uncertainty can result in overpayment and, paradoxically, does not guarantee inclusion due to Solana's continuous block production and multi-threaded execution model.
Solana introduces complexity through its handling of priority fees, which are assessed based on the CU capacity requested by a transaction. This mechanism reflects an attempt to balance network accessibility with the need to manage computational load efficiently. The priority fee system is intricately tied to the network's innovative approach to block production, which does not rely on external block builders but is instead integrated into the validators' operations. Solana's internal 'Scheduler' algorithm is pivotal in this process, orchestrating transaction execution and block construction in real time. The algorithm utilizes four parallel execution threads, each capable of processing up to 12 million CUs within a 400-millisecond slot, underscored by sophisticated read and write locks to manage transaction dependencies and state changes.
This architecture facilitates a dynamic and continuous block building process, enabling Solana to achieve high throughput and low transaction latency. However, it also introduces challenges in transaction prioritization, especially under conditions of high network demand. The fixed base fee and priority fee model do not fully account for market dynamics, making it difficult for users to gauge the appropriate priority fee to ensure timely transaction execution. In periods of intense activity, transactions with lower priority fees may not be processed timely due to the rapid invalidation of block hashes.
Moreover, the role of priority fees in capturing Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) opportunities—where transaction ordering rather than mere inclusion becomes critical—underscores the multifaceted nature of blockchain transaction economics. While this aspect diverges from the primary focus on base fees, it highlights the complex interplay between network fees, resource allocation, and the strategic behavior of users.
In essence, the evolution towards a dynamic base fee system on Solana could significantly improve the network's throughput and user fairness. By more accurately reflecting the true cost of transaction inclusion and resource consumption, Solana can better manage congestion and optimize its computational capacity. This progression requires careful consideration and potentially draws upon a wealth of academic and practical research to navigate the challenges inherent in blockchain fee mechanisms.
