I recently tried a decentralized trading bot called DeltaTrade.ai on two blockchains: Solana and Near Protocol. My experience was eye-opening.  

On Solana, I had to attempt three times to invest my funds because the first two attempts failed. Likely, the network was saturated again. The official advice? Use priority fees. Sure, that's a solution for now. But let’s revisit this when there are over 1 billion users. On the other hand, Near Protocol worked immediately, with no fuss or additional fees. It just works, quietly excelling with less marketing hype compared to Solana.  

That brings me to alternatives.  

- Sui: I primarily use this for apps like SuiLend and Bluefin—it’s smooth and has ongoing airdrops. However, Move, its programming language, comes with its share of risks.  

- Aptos: I use it sparingly, especially after reading about the $25.5M exploit on Thala DeFi. The vulnerability stemmed from insufficient checks in Move-based contracts. While Move is safer in some ways, its decompilation risks make it easier for attackers to analyze and exploit code.  

Contrast this with Near, where I haven’t encountered significant technical or security issues. Its simplicity and reliability remind me why we often undervalue less-hyped but well-engineered solutions.  

To me, Solana's struggles with congestion and Aptos/Sui's Move vulnerabilities underscore a broader trend: the most marketed blockchain doesn’t always mean the most reliable one. While Solana and others might dominate the spotlight, protocols like Near could quietly lead the charge in the next phase of blockchain adoption.  

What do you think? Will we see the rise of technically robust alternatives like Near?