Monolithic vs. Modular: A Comparative Analysis Of Solana and Avalanche's Blockchain Architectures

Let’s paint a picture with potential scenarios:

Blockchains as two ancient armies, each battling for supremacy. How do you think they would resolve their fight for the top spot?

Here are two possible outcomes:

i. One blockchain claims the title of "best," and the battle ends.

ii. Instead of a singular winner, they rank each blockchain based on how well it performs in different areas.

The second approach seems more reasonable, but the first is all too common. On Crypto Twitter, you often see people defending a particular blockchain, claiming it’s the best.

But a winner-takes-all mindset overlooks a simple truth: no blockchain is perfect. Every blockchain has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Solana and Avalanche are no different—each with a unique architecture, performance metrics, and trade-offs.

In this article, we’ll compare both chains, not to crown a winner, but to better understand their design choices, technical features, and what sets each one apart.

Before we dive deep into this comparative analysis, here are the key insights:

Key Insights

• Solana is monolithic: all core functions (consensus, execution, data availability) happen in one place, while Avalanche is modular: different chains (subnets) perform different roles, creating a more flexible and customizable setup.

• Solana processes transactions in parallel using Sealevel, with timestamping by Proof of History for synchronization, while Avalanche uses a leaderless gossip protocol and its Snowman consensus for ordered execution, which is suited for smart contracts.

• Solana can theoretically handle 65K TPS, but real-world is ~2K–3K TPS; finality averages 5 seconds, while Avalanche handles ~4.5K TPS per chain; finality is faster at around 1–2 seconds.

• Solana uses lamports for fees, with a base fee and an optional priority fee. It is low-cost and relatively predictable, while Avalanche uses AVAX for fees, and the structure varies by chain. On the C-Chain, it follows a gas model similar to Ethereum’s, with dynamic base and priority fees.

• Solana uses an account-based model with rent fees. Storage must be pre-allocated, which encourages efficient and minimal data usage, while Avalanche uses EVM-style storage with dynamic gas pricing. It supports pruning and Warp Sync for faster and more flexible node setup.

• Solana has a Nakamoto Coefficient of around 19, indicating a relatively lower level of decentralization, while Avalanche’s Nakamoto Coefficient ranges from 25 to 35, reflecting greater decentralization across its multi-chain architecture.

• Solana offers flexibility with no slashing penalties, a low barrier to delegation, and fast unstaking, while Avalanche enforces stringent rules, which include minimum staking amounts, lock-up periods, and strict uptime requirements.

• Solana uses advisory-style governance, where validators have the final say, while Avalanche relies on on-chain, binding votes by validators, with subnets enabling custom governance.

• Solana’s use of private mempools and leader rotation ensures fast transactions but limits transparency, while Avalanche’s random sampling and gossip network make coordinated censorship much more difficult.

• Solana has experienced several outages caused by bugs and transaction spam, while Avalanche has remained more stable with fewer disruptions.

• Solana uses Rust, which has a steeper learning curve. However, it prioritizes performance in terms of speed and scalability, which makes it ideal for high-performance applications. In contrast, Avalanche uses Go, offering simplicity and ease of use, which enables quicker development but may have trade-offs in raw performance compared to Rust.

• Solana's low fees and high-speed execution make it ideal for scaling DeFi and NFTs, while Avalanche focuses on enterprise-grade solutions, with a more limited focus on consumer-facing markets and public DePIN experimentation.

• Solana focuses on performance and scalability, with upcoming developments like Firedancer aimed at improving speed and network stability, while Avalanche prioritizes modularity and flexibility through expanding subnets and enhancing interoperability.

“Technology is best when it brings people together.” – Matt Mullenweg

In the case of blockchain technology, this sentiment rings true, not just in theory, but in practice. By decentralizing trust and removing intermediaries, blockchains allow people from around the world to collaborate directly, securely, and without needing permission.

First, a quick refresher on the basics:

What is Blockchain?

A blockchain is a secure digital ledger that records transactions across a network of computers. Each transaction is stored in a block, and these blocks are linked together in order, making the record unchangeable.

Think of it like a shared army logbook. Before anything is written down, all units must agree on what happened. Once they agree, the event (transaction) is recorded on a new page, and everyone updates their copy. No one can change the log once it’s written.

This system keeps the log transparent, tamper-proof, and trusted, just like a blockchain keeps digital transactions secure.

There are two main types of blockchains: permissionless and permissioned.

A permissionless blockchain is open to everyone, allowing anyone to participate, make transactions, and validate them. On the other hand, permissioned blockchain restrict access to authorized participants only. Solana and Avalanche are examples of a permissionless blockchain.

However, to understand blockchain as it exists today, we need to take a quick look at where it all began.

Origin of Blockchain

The idea behind blockchain dates back to the 1990s, when research scientists explored ways to timestamp digital documents to prevent tampering.

But it wasn't until 2008 that the concept became real, when Satoshi Nakamoto proposed Bitcoin, a decentralized digital currency powered by blockchain. The Bitcoin network went live in 2009, marking the first practical use of blockchain technology.

But with every innovation comes its own set of growing pains. For early blockchains, scalability became one of the most pressing challenges.

What is Scalability?

Scalability refers to a blockchain's ability to handle an increasing number of transactions without sacrificing performance or security. It depends on several factors such as architecture, consensus mechanism, block size, and transaction throughput.

As a blockchain grows with more transactions and nodes, it faces challenges such as limited storage, slower data processing, and delays, which hinder its scalability.

These issues, including low throughput, high transaction latency, and high energy usage, are especially prominent in blockchains that rely on the inefficient Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism.

Then again, there’s more than meets the eye. The struggle to scale efficiently didn’t exist in isolation, it revealed a deeper challenge: blockchain trilemma.

Blockchain Trilemma

Blockchain trilemma, coined by Vitalik Buterin, explains the challenge of achieving three key goals in a blockchain network simultaneously: security, decentralization, and scalability. The issue is that enhancing one of these often weakens another.

Simply put:

• If a blockchain is decentralized, it tends to be secure, but that often limits its scalability and reduces throughput.

• If it is both scalable and decentralized, it may compromise security due to restricted validator participation.

• And if it is scalable and secure, it likely sacrifices decentralization.

Blockchain trilemma. Source: Chainlink.

Fast forward to today, Solana and Avalanche are tackling the scalability issues that once stifled early blockchains.

They take different architectural paths to solve this challenge: Monolithic vs. Modular.

A monolithic blockchain is akin to a tightly run army base. All operations: planning, communication, and execution happen on-site, led by the same command.

Solana works like this: one unified unit handles everything such as consensus, data availability, and execution, on the same layer (L1).

Solana’s Proof of History is like the base commander’s time signal, keeping every squad in sync, without delays. Sealevel is the multitasking operations officer that allows multiple missions (smart contracts) to run at once, as long as they don’t clash over the same resources (data).

There’s no need to split forces into separate outposts (no sharding). Everything runs fast and in one location, like a disciplined, well-trained unit.

On the flipside, a modular blockchain is like a military alliance with specialized outposts. Each outpost handles a different job, such as comms, intel, logistics.

Avalanche follows this model, with subnets acting as separate units that scale and operate independently. Validators are like officers assigned to different outposts, trained for specific duties.

While Avalanche’s Snow protocol is like a smart field commander, keeping thousands of officers coordinated with no shouting and no chaos, just fast and fair decision-making without a rigid top-down chain.

Now, let’s get into the technical nitty-gritty.

Technical comparisons between Solana and Avalanche

As we’ve earlier established, Solana uses a monolithic model. It operates like a single, well-organized army base, where all units follow one command center. This setup is built for speed, precision, and efficiency.

Avalanche takes a different approach with a modular model. It operates like a group of specialized units spread across different regions. Each unit, or subnet, runs its own commands and tactics and can operate independently. This makes Avalanche more flexible and better suited for adapting to different needs.

These design choices influence how transactions are processed, how data is stored, and how developers build on each chain. In the next sections, we’ll look more closely at how these differences play out in practice.

System Architecture

At the heart of Solana’s architecture are accounts. Accounts are the core units that store all state data, including token balances, user information, and deployed programs. Instead of relying on smart contracts that hold state, Solana separates logic and storage.

Its smart contracts are called programs, and they are stateless. This means that they don’t store data themselves but rather act upon the data in the accounts they’re permitted to access. This separation makes transaction execution fast and parallelizable.

Also, Solana’s entire system runs on clusters, which are independent groups of validators responsible for processing transactions and maintaining the ledger. This ensures the network can remain functional and secure, even if part of it goes offline.

One of Solana’s most unique features is Proof of History (PoH), a cryptographic clock that timestamps events before they’re processed. This clever sequencing mechanism drastically improves throughput and reduces latency, making it possible for the network to handle thousands of transactions per second at minimal cost.

Avalanche, on the other hand, takes a modular approach with its three-chain architecture. Each chain has a specific role: the X-Chain handles asset creation and transfers, the C-Chain is EVM-compatible and runs smart contracts, and the P-Chain manages validators and subnets. This division of labor helps streamline network operations and enhance efficiency.

Avalanche’s three-chain architecture. Source: Avalanche

The concept of subnets is central to Avalanche’s flexibility. These are customizable, application-specific blockchains that operate under their own set of validators. Subnets reduce congestion on the main network and enable developers to tailor performance and compliance to specific use cases—whether that’s DeFi, gaming, or enterprise solutions.

Avalanche’s consensus mechanism, Snow, differs from traditional leader-based models. It’s a leaderless, proof-of-stake system that uses repeated random sampling to achieve consensus without requiring global communication.

Transaction Execution

Solana has a Transaction Processing Unit (TPU) whose core function is to efficiently filter and batch blockchain tasks to help cover more ground in less time.

Most blockchains process transactions one by one; Solana executes in parallel.

Sealevel is Solana’s parallel smart contract runtime. In other words, it’s the engine that lets Solana execute multiple smart contracts at the same time, as long as they’re not trying to access the same data.

Basically, the TPU receives timestamped transactions, filters duplicates out, batches them, and prepares them for execution. Once the TPU has sorted and prepped the transactions, Sealevel executes the actual smart contract logic in parallel when possible.

Notice the part that said “timestamped transactions”?

Because way before the TPU filters and organizes transactions, the Proof of History timestamps and orders the transactions. PoH creates a cryptographic clock that timestamps every transaction. This timestamp proves the order in which transactions happened, which helps the network process them.

After the Sealevel executes the transaction, validators vote on the correctness of the block using the Proof-of-Stake (PoS) system.

All of these processes are run by a leader.

Leader Node. Source: Helius

A leader is a validator that is temporarily in charge of the whole process involved in producing blocks. Every validator in the network takes turns being the leader for a brief moment (technically for 4 slots, or about 1.6 seconds).

It uses PoH to timestamp, runs the TPU to organize transactions, executes with Sealevel, and then relies on PoS validators to vote and finalize.

However, the leader is largely helped by the Gulfstream.

When users and dApps submit transactions, a part of Solana’s transaction execution layer called the Gulfstream routes these transactions ahead of time to the upcoming leader.

Gulfstream is Solana’s transaction-forwarding system. It allows validators and nodes to send transactions to the future leader—even before that leader officially starts its slot.

This early delivery is crucial for speed and scalability because it means that the next leader already has a pile of transactions waiting when it takes over; there’s no delay between one leader stepping down and the next one starting, and the network stays at high throughput even when things get hectic.

Avalanche’s transaction execution process is made up of three primary blockchains:

• X-Chain (Exchange Chain)–used for creating and exchanging assets.

• C-Chain (Contract Chain)–an EVM-compatible chain for dApps and smart contracts.

• P-Chain (Platform Chain)–coordinates validators and subnets.

Transaction execution happens primarily on the C-Chain and flows thusly:

When a user submits a transaction (e.g., sending AVAX, interacting with a smart contract, etc.), it’s sent to a node (either directly or via the dApp/wallet). The receiving node then “gossips” the transaction to its peers.

Group communication topologies. Source: Researchgate

Other nodes receive and queue the transaction in a mempool (temporary holding area), then a leader validator proposes a block (this validator is selected based on stake).

The proposing validator asks a random sample of other validators if they agree with the proposed block. If a majority agrees, it locks in the preference. This is repeated for several rounds to make sure everyone’s on the same page. This process is called the Snowman Consensus (more on this later).

Once consensus is reached, the block is finalized and added to the C-Chain. This block contains the executed state changes from the transactions (e.g., token balances updated, smart contracts triggered). The finalized state is propagated across the network, and users see the transaction as confirmed (typically in 1–2 seconds).

A side-by-side comparison of Solana's and Avalanche's transaction execution process. Source: Authors.

Consensus Mechanisms

Just like with transaction execution, Solana and Avalanche have very different strategies for achieving consensus.

Solana operates on a hybrid model, where the foundation is built on Proof of History (PoH) and Proof of Stake (PoS). However, PoH is not a consensus algorithm on its own. It’s more like a cryptographic clock that functions as a timekeeper, establishing a verifiable timeline of events and helping validators align transactions in the correct order.

It also reduces the need for validators to talk back and forth about what happened first — they just refer to the PoH log.

The PoS is the actual consensus part. It decides who gets to vote and whose vote counts more. Validators are chosen to propose and vote on blocks based on how much SOL they or others have staked.

Validators with more SOL staked (or delegated to them) have more voting power. Once two-thirds of the stakeholders agree, the block is finalized and added to the chain.

How validators earn rewards on Solana. Source: Stopsaving

However, achieving finality isn’t instant; it requires an additional 32 rounds of voting by the same supermajority to render a transaction irreversible.

This whole process of achieving finality through multiple validator votes is through a version of Byzantine Fault Tolerance called the Tower BFT. Validators vote multiple times, and each vote builds on the previous one.

Once enough votes (weighted by stake) confirm a block, it becomes final (irreversible). Tower BFT locks in blocks faster by using the PoH timestamps to avoid re-voting from scratch.

Avalanche takes a different route. Its validators run the Snowman Consensus Protocol. Snowman is Avalanche’s version of its consensus algorithm, designed specifically for chains that need a strict, ordered list of blocks — like the C-Chain, which runs smart contracts (just like Ethereum).

To understand this, you need to understand that Avalanche uses two related consensus protocols:

1. Avalanche Consensus: for DAG-style chains (like the X-Chain), where many transactions can be processed in parallel without strict ordering.

2. Snowman Consensus: for linear, blockchain-style chains (like the C-Chain), where transactions must follow a strict order.

So, instead of the original Avalanche protocol (which works for more chaotic, web-like structures like the ones on the X-chain), the network uses Snowman, a stripped-down, optimized version tailored for this kind of chain.

The C-Chain requires a clear, sequential history of blocks (Block A → Block B → Block C). This arrangement allows validators to effectively implement the Snowman Consensus protocol, which works thusly:

1. Validators repeatedly query a small, random sample of peers.

2. If a strong majority agrees on a transaction’s validity, the validator adopts that preference.

3. This sampling process repeats across multiple rounds until the network reaches a consensus.

With this method, most transactions are confirmed in just a few seconds. Similar to Solana, validators stake tokens to participate in the voting pool, and the more AVAX they stake, the more frequently they're called upon for input.

Block Production

Block production refers to how a block, once produced by the leader, is shared across the network so that all validators can verify and agree on it.

On Solana, the assigned leader for the current slot gathers transactions, orders them (using PoH), and assembles a block.

But instead of sending the full block as one large chunk, and to make sure these blocks reach every corner of the network, Turbine is introduced. This mechanism breaks blocks into smaller pieces, known as shreds, which are passed through a hierarchy of nodes in a Turbine Tree. To avoid losing data along the way, each shred is encoded using Reed-Solomon erasure coding, which serves as a safeguard against data loss during transmission.

Validators who receive the shreds reconstruct the block, verify the transactions, and confirm everything is valid.

There’s no single leader in Avalanche like in Solana. All validators participate equally in sampling and agreement.

Blocks are not broken into shreds or broadcast using a tiered system like Solana’s Turbine. Avalanche relies on its gossip + probabilistic consensus (as discussed earlier) for block propagation and acceptance.

Network Performance

Throughput

Throughput is one of Solana's strongest suits. Theoretically, it can process up to 65,000 transactions per second (TPS). However, in practice, this number tends to be closer to 2,000–3,000 TPS due to factors like network congestions and validator limitations.

This throughput advantage stems from the parallel execution capabilities mentioned earlier, along with the implementation of Proof of History, which helps maintain synchronization throughout the blockchain.

Avalanche delivers around 4,500 transactions per second under optimal conditions. Real-world throughput could be lower and depends on validator hardware and network conditions, block size and transaction complexity, and the number of active subnets.

In theory, Avalanche can support millions of TPS across multiple subnets.

This is because Avalanche is multi-chain and allows developers to spin up custom subnets (independent blockchains).

What this means is that each subnet has its own validator set and consensus rules, and so the total network throughput is not capped by the performance of a single chain, because it actually scales horizontally.

Solana vs. Avalanche Real-Time TPS. Source: Chainspect

Finality Time

On Solana, transactions are only deemed final after 3 to 12 validators have confirmed them, depending on the desired security level. The time it takes for these three to 12 confirmations is called the time to finality.

On Solana, it takes 5 seconds on average, with outliers at 12 seconds.

While Avalanche has a finality time of about 1–2 seconds, depending on network load.

Fees

Solana uses two types of fees: base fees and priority fees.

The base fee is a fixed cost for signing the transaction. Currently, it’s 5,000 lamports per signature (most transactions only have one).

The priority fee is an optional fee you can add to increase your transaction’s chance of being included faster, especially during congestion. It’s measured in microlamports per compute unit (CU).

One microlamport = one-millionth of a lamport.

Every operation in a transaction consumes compute resources, measured in compute units (CUs).

A CU can be likened to how much effort it takes for the network to process your transaction. The more CUs your transaction needs, the more priority fee you might end up paying if you choose to set one.

Let’s say your transaction uses 500,000 CUs, and you set a priority fee of 50,000 microlamports per CU. This means that:

Priority fee = 500,000 * 50,000 microlamports = 25,000 lamports

Base fee = 5,000 lamports

Total fee = 30,000 lamports (or 0.00003 SOL)

Who takes the fees?

Before SIMD-096 (Solana Improvement Document-096), 50% of the base + priority fee goes to the validator who builds the block as a reward, and the other 50% is burned.

After SIMD-096, which was activated in February 2025, 100% of the priority fee goes to the validator.

On Avalanche, fees are paid in AVAX, and they are burned. All transactions on Avalanche must pay a fee. Here’s a simple breakdown of Avalanche’s fee system across its three major chains (X-Chain, C-Chain, and P-Chain):

On the X-Chain, fees are fixed depending on the type of transaction so that you always know what you’ll pay.

On the C-Chain, fees are dynamic (based on network congestion and user demand) and similar to Ethereum’s EIP-1559 system.

Here, you pay for gas, which measures how much compute your transaction uses.

C-Chain Transaction Fees = Gas Used × Gas Price

Like Solana, Avalanche’s gas price on the C-Chain is made up of a base fee that adjusts automatically and goes up when the network is busy and a priority fee, which is an optional fee that helps your transaction get picked faster.

On the P-Chain, fees are used for staking, validator setup, etc. This chain uses a complex dynamic fee model that accounts for bandwidth, reads, writes, and compute.

Fees go up or down based on how close the network is to its “target utilization.”

If too many resources are being used, the network raises fees dynamically.

State Storage and Data Management

Solana’s entire system revolves around its unique account model. Everything on Solana (whether it’s tokens, programs, or metadata) lives inside an account.

There are two main types of accounts: executable accounts that contain smart contract code and data accounts that store the contract's state.

Solana accounts are fixed in size and must be pre-allocated. This means developers have to plan out their data structures carefully. If more space is needed, they create multiple program-derived accounts (PDAs) that work together. Storing data on Solana isn’t free either; every byte costs SOL, and users must fund their accounts with a minimum balance to remain rent-exempt. This model discourages unnecessary storage and helps keep the ledger lean.

One of Solana’s most powerful optimizations is how it handles state during execution:

Because each transaction must declare which accounts it will read from or write to, Solana can run multiple transactions at the same time, as long as they don’t touch the same accounts. This is the basis of its parallel execution model. It’s also why Solana doesn’t require validators to re-execute every transaction to confirm state changes. Instead, they verify outcomes directly, making things much faster and more scalable.

Avalanche, on the other hand, operates a multi-chain architecture where each chain maintains its own state. The C-Chain, which is EVM-compatible, stores data just like Ethereum does, with contracts having their own storage, structured as Merkle tries.

Patricia Merkle Tries. Source: Alchemy

Smart contract interactions involve reading from and writing to this storage, and users pay gas for every operation. There’s no rent or minimum balance like on Solana; instead, the cost of state storage is baked into each transaction’s gas fees.

When it comes to syncing and state management, Avalanche offers flexible options. New nodes can spin up quickly using Warp Sync, a feature that lets them skip the full replay of historical transactions and jump straight to the latest snapshot of the chain.

For full archival purposes, nodes can be configured to store everything, but it’s not required by default. Avalanche also supports state pruning to help save space, which means it can discard older state data while still keeping the chain functional and secure.

Nakamoto Coefficient

The Nakamoto Coefficient is a key metric used to measure how decentralized a blockchain network truly is. It represents the minimum number of validators or entities that would need to collude to disrupt the network's consensus, such as halting block production or censoring transactions. Hence, the higher the number, the more decentralized and resilient the network.

Solana’s Nakamoto Coefficient is commonly cited as 19. However, the actual number may be lower, since a single entity can operate multiple validators anonymously. This makes it more difficult to precisely measure the true decentralization of validator control.

Solana Nakamoto Coefficient. Source: Helius

As of epoch 685, the Solana network runs on a distributed system of 4,514 nodes: 1,414 validators and 3,100 RPC nodes . No single validator holds more than 3.2% of the total stake, showcasing a healthy level of stake distribution among participants.

For Avalanche, the estimated Nakamoto Coefficient also ranges from 25 to 35, depending on the specific chain being analyzed.

As we mentioned earlier, Avalanche uses different consensus mechanisms across its subnets and chains: Snowman consensus on the C-Chain and Avalanche consensus on the X- and P-Chains.

The total number of validators is currently around 1,700. Avalanche’s design allows for validator sets and governance rules in each subnet, meaning that each subnet can have a different Nakamoto Coefficient based on its validator composition.

Staking Mechanisms

Staking on Solana and Avalanche follows the same core idea—lock up your tokens to help secure the network and earn rewards, but they take very different routes to get there.

On Solana, anyone holding SOL can stake by delegating to a validator. You don’t need to run an actual node or touch the terminal—just pick a validator using a wallet like Phantom or Solflare, and you’re set.

Validators are the real workhorses here; they process transactions and produce blocks, earning rewards based on performance. The better their uptime and reliability, the more rewards they get, and by extension, so do their delegators.

Solana Staking. Source: Helius

Solana staking doesn’t come with any slashing penalties (at least not yet), but underperforming validators will naturally attract fewer delegations. If you ever want to unstake your SOL, there’s no hard lock—you just wait about two to three days (an epoch) for the funds to be fully withdrawable.

Avalanche, on the other hand, is stricter and more structured. To become a validator, you must stake at least 2,000 AVAX and run your own node. Delegators can participate with as little as 25 AVAX, but they must pick an active validator to stake with.

Both validators and delegators must choose a staking period between two weeks and one year, and once your AVAX is staked, it’s completely locked until the period ends.

Avalanche doesn’t slash tokens for bad behavior, but it does require validators to maintain at least 80% uptime and follow protocol rules to earn rewards. If they fail, everyone who delegated to them walks away with nothing.

Rewards on both chains are proportional to stake size, but Solana allows more flexibility in terms of lock-up and has a wider range of validator options. Avalanche, by contrast, leans into discipline, such as fixed staking windows, minimum thresholds, and reward eligibility tightly tied to validator behavior.

Governance Mechanisms

Governance on Solana is like a town hall. Votes are nonbinding and advisory, designed to signal community sentiment rather than enforce change. The real power sits with validators, who ultimately choose which software to run.

A proposal may pass a vote and still never make it to production if the validators don’t adopt it. Likewise, proposals can be tweaked post-vote before being activated. This system keeps the chain flexible and reduces the risk of drama-heavy hard forks.

Governance votes happen using SPL tokens, with validators receiving vote tokens proportional to their active stake. These tokens are then sent to special addresses that represent different voting options. Validators can even split their vote if they want to hedge or reflect nuance. But once they vote, it’s locked in.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting: SOL holders don’t vote directly. Instead, they delegate their stake to validators, much like electing representatives. Your staked SOL becomes political capital. If your validator votes in a way you don’t like, your only move is to re-delegate your stake somewhere else. This is known as proportional representation, and it’s effective. However, delegators don’t have a formal mechanism to override validator decisions, and that’s a sticking point in the community.

Avalanche, on the other hand, has governance baked into the base layer. Validators (those who stake at least 2,000 AVAX) can vote directly on core network settings. This includes fees, staking parameters, validator requirements, and even performance optimizations. All of it happens onchain, through formal Avalanche Consensus Proposals (ACPs). It’s a much more direct form of participation, where weightier decisions are made by those actively securing the network.

But Avalanche’s governance strength goes even deeper with subnets. Subnets can implement custom governance logic, literally anything from token-based voting to quadratic mechanisms to permissioned councils. A subnet can even choose to run on proof-of-authority or require real-world KYC.

Censorship Resistance

As mentioned previously, Solana’s architecture features a rotating leader schedule that changes every few slots. This rapid rotation helps prevent any single validator from consistently censoring transactions. However, Solana has no public mempool. This means that transactions are sent directly to the current leader.

While this helps reduce spam and improves performance, it also means users can’t monitor transaction flows in real time, and if a malicious leader chooses to ignore a transaction, there's little immediate visibility.

Since Avalanche, on the other hand, has a repeated random sampling among validators rather than a fixed leader schedule, this makes it extremely difficult for a group of validators to coordinate and censor a transaction, as each validator’s poll includes a random subset of peers.

However, while the main network (Primary Network) is highly censorship-resistant, individual subnets can be permissioned or even KYC-gated, depending on their purpose. This means censorship resistance can vary from subnet to subnet.

Network Reliability

Since its mainnet beta launch in March 2020, Solana network has stumbled through several significant outages. There was a 6-hour outage in December 2020, 17 hours in September 2021, and another eight-hour gap in April/May 2022. The cause is a mix of block propagation bugs, memory overflows, and consensus failures. Some outages were triggered by bugs, others by transaction spam.

Solana outage complete history. Source: Helius

Avalanche, on the other hand, has kept its disruptions to a minimum. It’s had a couple of hiccups, like the two-hour downtime in February 2024. But compared to Solana’s string of longer outages, Avalanche has kept its battle lines intact with fewer interruptions.

Developer Experience

When it comes to building decentralized applications (dApps), the choice of programming language shapes your speed, efficiency, and security, which are all crucial factors when developing on a blockchain.

Solana and Avalanche take different approaches here. Solana favors Rust, while Avalanche opts for Go. Each language brings its own set of trade-offs, and in this section, we’ll dive into how these differences affect the developer experience on both platforms:

An infographic showing a side-by-side comparison of Rust and Go. Source: Authors.

Use Cases: DeFi, NFTs, and Enterprise Adoption (RWAs and DePIN)

DeFi Markets

Solana’s low fees and high-speed execution have made it a solid home for DeFi and NFT projects that need scale.

Solana’s DeFi ecosystem is a playground for DeFi protocols that demand real-time performance. This has led to the development of high-frequency protocols like Jupiter (a DEX aggregator), Drift (perpetuals), and MarginFi (lending/borrowing). The design encourages composability, enabling protocols to integrate easily with one another.

Avalanche supports DeFi through its C-Chain, which is EVM-compatible and allows for straightforward porting of Ethereum-based protocols. Core DeFi platforms include Benqi.

NFTs Markets

Solana’s NFT ecosystem grew rapidly due to its low-cost transactions and dedicated NFT marketplaces like Magic Eden (before it became multichain) and Tensor. Collections like Mad Lads contributed to mainstream recognition. Solana also implemented a compressed NFT standard to reduce storage costs, helping large-scale minting campaigns.

Enterprise Adoption (RWAs and DePIN)

Solana’s architecture is important for tokenized assets like currencies, equities, and bonds. One prominent example is Parcl, a real estate protocol that lets users speculate on the price movements of real-world property markets. Also, Hivemapper, although more DePIN-focused, has demonstrated how token incentives can interact with real-world mapping data.

Avalanche has had less traction in the consumer-facing RWAs and DePIN narratives but supports similar infrastructure use cases. The platform is more focused on enabling enterprise-grade private or semi-private infrastructure, often through Subnets or custom VMs. This includes potential deployment of supply chain systems, logistics tracking, or tokenized physical goods in controlled environments, although public DePIN experimentation remains limited compared to Solana.

Conclusion

We began with two ancient armies: Solana and Avalanche. Each marches under a different architecture, with its own command structure and battle tactics.

Solana operates like a high-speed base, built for speed and scalability. Its unified setup enables rapid processing and the ability to handle massive transaction volumes. However, its lower Nakamoto Coefficient, past network outages and lack of public mempools reveal vulnerabilities in decentralization and reliability.

Meanwhile, Avalanche divides its workload across many smaller units, offering greater flexibility and room for customization. But, managing these units requires effort and careful planning, and its fee structure can be more complex to navigate.

Looking ahead, Solana is working on upgrades like Firedancer, a new validator client designed to improve speed and network stability, while Avalanche is focusing on optimizing its C-chain and expanding subnet capabilities to give developers more control over infrastructure, improve interoperability, and enable easier connections with other chains and ecosystems.

While both blockchains differ, the question isn’t which chain wins—it’s about how each one plays a role in the continuous development of blockchain technology and its broader adoption across different use cases.

Both are specialized divisions in the same global mission: to build scalable infrastructure, enable open access, and redefine how decentralized systems function in the real world.

And in that mission, there’s room for more than one blockchain.

References

Alghamdi, T.A., Khalid, R. and Javaid, N. (2024). A survey of blockchain based systems: scalability issues and solutions, applications and future challenges, IEEE Access. Available online at https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3408868. Accessed 17th March, 2025.

Ansari, A. (2024). How to land transactions on Solana. Available online at https://www.helius.dev/blog/how-to-land-transactions-on-solana Accessed 19th March, 2025.

Anza-xyz (n.d.). Anza-xyz GitHub profile. Available online at https://github.com/anza-xyz Accessed 21st March, 2025.

Avalanche (n.d.). Avalanche Consensus. Available online at

https://build.avax.network/academy/avalanche-fundamentals/02-avalanche-consensus-intro/01-avalanche-consensus-intro Accessed 20th March, 2025.

Avalanche (n.d.). Building on Avalanche9000. Available online at https://www.avax.network/blog/building-on-avalanche9000 Accessed 21st March, 2025.

Avalanche (n.d.). Governance models. Available online at https://build.avax.network/academy/l1-tokenomics/07-governance/02-governance-models Accessed 28th March, 2025.

Avalanche (n.d.). Introduction to Avalanche subnets: a comprehensive overview of Avalanche's novel Subnet design to scale blockchain networks. Available online at https://www.avax.network/subnets Accessed 21st March, 2025.

Avalanche (n.d.). Transaction fees. Available online at https://build.avax.network/docs/api-reference/guides/txn-fees Accessed 19th March, 2025.

Avax Developers (2025). Avalanche octane: optimizing c-chain fees and gas target. Available online at https://www.avax.network/blog/octane-optimizing-c-chain-gas-fees Accessed 20th March, 2025.

Avax Developers (2023). Introduction to Avalanche: kicking off the new avax developers blog series. Available online at https://medium.com/avalancheavax/introduction-to-avalanche-the-devrel-blog-b38257fc0c07 Accessed 20th March, 2025.

Beckett, A. (2022). Modular vs monolithic: a beginner’s guide. Available online at https://blog.celestia.org/modular-vs-monolithic-a-beginners-guide/ Accessed 17th March, 2025.

Binance Academy (2023). History of blockchain. Available online at https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/history-of-blockchain Accessed 17th March, 2025.

Chainspect (n.d.). Fastest blockchains by transactions per second (TPS). Available online at https://chainspect.app/dashboard Accessed 23rd March, 2025.

Chen, B., Ma, L., Xu, H., Ma, J., Hu, D., Liu, X., Wu, J., Wang, J. and Li, K. (2024). A comprehensive survey of blockchain scalability: shaping inner-chain and inter-chain perspectives. Available online at https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2409.02968 Accessed 17th March, 2025.

Chern, R. (2023). Turbine: block propagation on Solana. Available online at

https://www.helius.dev/blog/turbine-block-propagation-on-solana Accessed 25th March, 2025.

Chern, R. (2024a). Consensus on Solana. Available online at https://www.helius.dev/blog/consensus-on-solana Accessed 25th March, 2025.

Chern, R. (2024b). Solana fees in theory and practice. Available online at https://www.helius.dev/blog/solana-fees-in-theory-and-practice Accessed 25th March, 2025.​

Cubero, R. A. (2024). Exploring the adoption of Go and Rust among backend developers. Available online at

https://www.developernation.net/blog/exploring-the-adoption-of-go-and-rust-among-backend-developers/ Accessed 23rd March, 2025.

Knight, O. and Sandor, K. (2024). Avalanche is back up after failing to produce block for four hours. Available online at https://www.coindesk.com/business/2024/02/23/avalanche-suffers-outage-fails-to-produce-block-for-almost-two-hours Accessed 27th March, 2025.

Ledger (2025). Finality. Available online at https://www.ledger.com/academy/glossary/finality Accessed 26th March, 2025.​

Lincopinis, D.R. and Llantos, O.E. (2024). The current research status of solving blockchain scalability. Procedia Computer Science, 239: 314-321.

Lostin (2024). Solana executive overview. Available online at https://www.helius.dev/blog/solana-executive-overview Accessed 27th March, 2025.

Lostin (2025a). A complete history of Solana outages: causes, fixes, and lessons learnt. Available online at https://www.helius.dev/blog/solana-outages-complete-history Accessed 27th March, 2025.

Lostin (2025b). Solana governance: a comprehensive analysis. Available online at https://www.helius.dev/blog/solana-governance--a-comprehensive-analysis Accessed 27th March, 2025.

Lostin. (2025c). The truth about Solana local fee markets. Available online at https://www.helius.dev/blog/solana-local-fee-markets Accessed 25th March, 2025.

Messari (n.d.). Avalanche DAO structure. Available online at https://messari.io/project/avalanche/governance/dao-structure Accessed 28th March, 2025.

Messari (n.d.). Avalanche governance process. Available online at https://messari.io/project/avalanche/governance/governance-process Accessed 28th March, 2025.

Musharraf, M. (2023). What is the blockchain trilemma? Available online at https://www.ledger.com/academy/what-is-the-blockchain-trilemma Accessed 17th March, 2025.

OxIchigo (2023). What is Firedancer? A deep dive into Solana 2.0. Available online at https://www.helius.dev/blog/what-is-firedancer Accessed 28th March, 2025.

Peak, B. (2025). What is finality in blockchain, and why does it matter? Available online at https://cointelegraph.com/explained/what-is-finality-in-blockchain-and-why-does-it-matter Accessed 18th March, 2025.

Reynolds, S. (2023). Avalanche blockchain's X and C networks see brief outage. Available online at

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/03/23/avalanche-blockchains-x-and-c-networks-see-brief-outage Accessed 27th March, 2025.

Sekniqi, K., Laine, D., Buttolph, S. and Sirer, E. G. (2020). Avalanche platform. Available online at https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5d80307810123f5ffbb34d6e/6008d7bbf8b10d1eb01e7e16_Avalanche%20Platform%20Whitepaper.pdf Accessed 16th March, 2025.

Solana Foundation (n.d.). DAOs and governance. Available online at https://solana.com/developers/dao Accessed 27th March, 2025.

Solana Foundation (n.d.). Developing programs in rust. Available online at https://solana.com/docs/programs/rust Accessed 23rd March, 2025.

Solana Foundation (2024). Getting started with Solana with rust experience. Available online at https://solana.com/developers/guides/getstarted/rust-to-solana Accessed 23rd March, 2025.

Solana Foundation (2019a). 8 innovations that make Solana the first web-scale blockchain. Available online at https://solana.com/news/8-innovations-that-make-solana-the-first-web-scale-blockchain Accessed 17th March, 2025.

Solana Foundation (2019b). Sealevel — parallel processing thousands of smart contracts. Available online at https://solana.com/news/sealevel---parallel-processing-thousands-of-smart-contracts Accessed 18th March, 2025.

Solana Foundation (n.d.). Solana documentation. Available online at https://solana.com/docs Accessed 16th March, 2025.

Solana Foundation (n.d.). Transactions and instructions. Available online at https://solana.com/docs/core/transactions Accessed 19th March, 2025.

Squads (n.d.). What is SVM - The Solana virtual machine. Available online at https://squads.so/blog/solana-svm-sealevel-virtual-machine Accessed 18th March, 2025.

OxShitTrader and Buffalu (2023). Lifecycle of a Solana transaction. Available online at https://www.umbraresearch.xyz/writings/lifecycle-of-a-solana-transaction Accessed 26th March, 2025.

Yakovenko, A. (2020). Solana: a new architecture for a high performance blockchain v0.8.13. Available online at https://solana.com/solana-whitepaper.pdf Accessed 16th March, 2025.