In this article I will illustrate the positive and negative aspects inherent to an ultrascalable chain like Solana and a more decentralized and secure but much less scalable chain like Ethereum. Most of these insights/criticisms were exposed by A.Yakovenko (founder of Solana) and J.Drake (Ethereum researcher). For those who are not in the blockchain world, the first thing to understand is that every chain tries to solve the Trilemma:

-Scalability (speed and cost-effectiveness)
-Safety
-Decentralization

The more scalable a chain is (Solana), the more it lacks security and decentralization. As security and decentralization increases, scalability decreases (Bitcoin/Ethereum).

POSITIVE ASPECTS (ETHEREUM)
✅Longer life, greater history, "network effect" (smart capitals trust Ethereum more than younger chains)

✅Huge distributed network with many physical nodes (Data Avaibility Sampling) therefore greater security

✅Client differentiation that makes Ethereum more resistant to attacks

POSITIVE ASPECTS (SOLANA)
✅High TPS (Throughput), low fees

✅User experience therefore greater adoption (growth of users and transactions)

✅Global State Machine (unlike other chains that can have partially updated or coherent states only locally, Solana maintains a single and coherent state across the network. Furthermore, all transactions sent to the blockchain are processed so that all state changes are applied atomically, meaning all operations in a transaction complete successfully or none are applied. Analyze uses a parallel approach to handle transactions, leveraging hardware to process thousands of transactions per second without compromising global state consistency.

✅Synchronous Composability (refers to the ability of smart contracts to interact with each other synchronously within a single transaction. During a transaction, a program can call another program and wait for its result before continuing. Thanks to the synchrony of calls, all interactions between programs are atomic. If one of the calls fails, the entire transaction is aborted. Developers can build programs that build on other programs, creating a modular and reusable architecture lending could use one smart contract for asset management and another for interest management. All of this reduces latency while increasing transaction efficiency, synchronous interactions reduce the possibility of inconsistent or partial states, and provides the ability to build dapps. complex combining reusable module)

NEGATIVE ASPECTS (ETHEREUM)
⚠️Difficulty in parallelization (i.e. impossibility of simultaneous execution of multiple transactions, in fact Ethereum uses sequential execution where transactions are validated one by one by updating the global state after each transaction. This causes problems because sometimes the transactions are dependent on each other other: if a transaction A concerns a balance and a transaction B depends on it, if A is not executed, B cannot be executed either. The calculation speed is affected by this sequentiality used by the nodes, which leads to low TPS and high fees due to network congestion: in order for a transaction to be executed faster you have to pay more gas)

⚠️Difficulty of maintaining settlement on Layer1 (refers to executing transactions directly on the mainnet) and delegating execution on Layer2 (refers to the use of rollups, plasmas and state channels that manage transactions outside the mainnet of Ethereum; everything is processed off chain and finalized on the mainnet, this leads to a reduction in the gas fee and greater speeds but also to greater centralization, possible security problems on Layer2 and therefore liquidity fragmentation of the ecosystem)

Some solutions that could solve these problems are: "Shared Sequencer" and the integration of "Zero Knowledge Proof":

➡️Distributed sequencers are mechanisms that order transactions in a Layer2 network in a coordinated and decentralized way. These sequencers manage the ordering of transactions in a Layer2 environment, ensuring that transactions are processed consistently and without conflicts. Instead of having a centralized sequencer, the task of ordering transactions is distributed among various network participants, increasing resilience and security. This can facilitate communication and synchronization between different Layer2 solutions, allowing cross-chain operability without the need to trust a single central point while increasing scalability and security.

➡️ZK-Proofs, on the other hand, allow you to verify the correctness of a transaction without revealing the details of the transaction itself. They provide validity proofs for transactions or states, allowing you to verify the integrity of a transaction without exposing sensitive information.
ZK rollups use ZK-Proof to aggregate many off-chain transactions into a single on-chain transaction. Only proof of validity is recorded on the main blockchain, significantly reducing gas costs as there is less data that needs to be recorded on-chain, improving network efficiency. ZK-Proofs maintain a high level of cryptographic security, ensuring that only valid transactions are accepted. They also protect user privacy by not revealing transaction details.

NEGATIVE ASPECTS (SOLANA)
⚠️Centralization of the chain in data propagation (by the fastest infrastructures)

⚠️Less security (as there is no system that separates block builders from those who propose them. The separation increases transmission latency but prevents censorship and centralization of the chain. In fact, on Solana, the same entity can be responsible for both the construction and block proposition. Validators are in charge of both functions. Solana uses Proof Of History as a mechanism to order transactions chronologically, which helps speed up the validation process and maintain high throughput increases transmission latency, as it introduces an additional step in the block creation and proposition process. However, this can also act as a security measure because separation of duties can help prevent censorship, as different participants with distinct roles perform more. difficult for a single actor to censor transactions. With separate roles, malicious actors would have a harder time manipulating the network, improving overall security and reducing the ability to censor transactions, as control is distributed across multiple entities)

⚠️Network blackout (high scalability with very low fees makes spam attacks economically feasible)

⚠️Lack of differentiated clients

⚠️Association with a scam organization (FTX/Alameda) among the main financiers

ISSUANCE: TWO OPPOSING VISIONS
The question of whether the issuance (issuance/inflation) of a crypto represents a cost to the network is an interesting debate in the world of cryptocurrencies. The difference between Solana and Ethereum reflects different philosophies and approaches to designing and managing blockchains.

✔️Solana: issuance is not a cost
-Incentives for Validators: The issuance of new coins serves as an incentive for validators (or nodes) to participate in the network and maintain the security and integrity of the blockchain. In this sense, issuance is seen as an investment to ensure that there are sufficient validators to protect the network.
-Growth of the Ecosystem: inflation brings users closer and encourages the development of applications
-Increase in stakers: Offering rewards in new coins can attract new participants to the network, increasing decentralization and overall security.

✔️Ethereum: Issuance is a cost
-Dilution of Existing Holders: Every time new coins are issued, the value of existing coins is diluted. This represents a cost for the current owners of the asset, who see the value of their participation reduced.
-Opportunity Cost: the issuance of new coins represents an opportunity cost because the resources allocated to rewards for validators could be used in alternative ways, such as improving network infrastructure or other initiatives.
-Inflation: The constant issuance of new coins can lead to inflation, which can reduce the attractiveness of money as a store of value. This can be seen as a cost to the network in terms of loss of trust and long-term adoption.
-Economic Efficiency: according to this vision, a security model that minimizes emissions is more efficient. Security should be provided at the lowest possible cost, thus reducing inflation and preserving the value of existing currencies.

Solana prioritizes rapid growth and attracting validators with high rewards. Security and decentralization are ensured by incentivizing a large number of participants to join the network.
Ethereum tries to minimize emission costs and maintain economic efficiency, also by burning gas fees (this currently also happens on Solana but the quantity of gas burned is enormously different). It focuses on long-term sustainability and protecting the value of existing coins.

Are you interested in ways to earn crypto bonus? Check it out here: Some Sites To Earn Crypto Bonus (Old & New)