In 2026, the competitive logic of the public chain track will shift from opposing technical routes to an evolutionary framework converging towards Ethereum. As a paradigm leader in institutionalization and modularization, Ethereum has established a mature ecosystem of "mainnet settlement layer + L2 execution layer"; Solana, as a high-performance challenger, is accelerating its alignment with the industry standards set by Ethereum through the modular transformation of Firedancer and institutional adaptation strategies. The core market focus revolves around the two propositions: "Can Ethereum maintain its decentralized baseline while accommodating traditional capital?" and "Can Solana overcome centralization risks through technological evolution and complete its identity reconstruction as an institutional-grade public chain?"

On-chain data and institutional practices corroborate that the total TVL of the Ethereum ecosystem (mainnet + L2) has reached $8.5345 billion (with the mainnet at $7.5544 billion, Base at $515 million, Arbitrum at $316.8 million, etc.), with 28 institutions holding 6.14 million ETH, accounting for 5.09% of the circulating supply. However, the risks of capital centralization and the conflict with decentralization principles are becoming increasingly prominent; Solana's total TVL is $916.7 million, equivalent to 10.7% of the Ethereum ecosystem. The Firedancer client is set to launch on the mainnet in December 2025 to promote modular transformation, but whether the targeted performance of 1M+ TPS and the Alpenglow consensus upgrade can deliver institutional-level stability remains to be verified.

In 2026, the ultimate competition between the two chains is essentially a differentiated proposition of "Can Ethereum resolve its internal contradictions while leading the paradigm? Can Solana achieve an identity leap in its converging evolution?" Ethereum needs to embrace institutional capital like BlackRock while accommodating 80% of tokenized government bonds, all while maintaining its decentralized essence through mechanism design; Solana needs to address the centralization risks of POH through the optimization of the Firedancer modular architecture and node governance, completing its identity reconstruction from a "retail trading chain" to an "institutionally recognized high-performance infrastructure." The progress in resolving these two propositions will directly determine the retention quality of the $19.2 billion ETH DAT and $2.6 billion SOL DAT funds.

1. Introduction: From Opposing Technical Routes to Convergence on Industry Standards

The narrative core of the early public chain track was the paradigm struggle between Ethereum's "modular layering" and Solana's "high-performance monolith." However, as the blockchain ecosystem transitions from infrastructure competition to the implementation of institutional applications, the competitive landscape has shifted from opposing technical routes to later entrants converging towards industry standards: Ethereum, leveraging its first-mover advantage and ecological depth, has become the de facto standard and paradigm leader for institutional public chains; Solana, as a high-performance challenger, is accelerating its alignment with the institutional adaptation framework, modular thinking, and compliance system established by Ethereum through technological evolution and strategic adjustments.

This asymmetric convergence is first reflected in Ethereum's industry-leading position. On-chain data shows that the total TVL of the Ethereum ecosystem has reached $8.5345 billion, with the mainnet at $7.5544 billion, Base at $515 million, Arbitrum at $316.8 million, Polygon at $117.1 million, and Optimism at $31.2 million, accounting for 65.9% of the global DeFi market TVL. This data not only reflects the advantage in capital scale but also verifies that Ethereum's "mainnet as a secure settlement layer, L2 carrying high-frequency execution" modular architecture has become an industry consensus: The vigorous development of L2s like Base and Arbitrum is essentially an extension and validation of Ethereum in different scenarios. In contrast, Solana's total TVL is $916.7 million, only 10.7% of the Ethereum ecosystem, with its capital scale and ecological maturity still in a catch-up phase.

Secondly, the allocation logic of institutional capital reveals Ethereum's standard position. 28 institutions hold 6.14 million ETH, accounting for 5.09% of the circulating supply, with Bitmine alone holding 4.17 million and staking 1.685 million ETH to earn 2.8-3.5% APY; 19 institutions hold 18.319 million SOL, accounting for 2.96% of the circulating supply, with Forward holding 6.91 million SOL to support Firedancer validators. In terms of holding scale, the value of ETH held by institutions far exceeds that of SOL; in terms of allocation strategy, ETH institutions primarily focus on "long-term staking + stable returns," while SOL institutions emphasize "infrastructure support + network optimization." This difference reflects the positioning disparity of the two chains in the minds of institutions: Ethereum is a mature value storage and financial infrastructure, while Solana is a high-potential asset that requires continuous investment to enhance stability.

More critically, Solana is converging towards the modular and institutional standards established by Ethereum. On the technical level, the Firedancer client was launched on the mainnet on December 12, 2025, introducing a "modular tiles" architecture to achieve fault isolation and independent upgrades, which is highly consistent with Ethereum's modular concept; the Alpenglow consensus upgrade plan is set to activate in mid-2026, optimizing decentralization through off-chain voting (Votor) and stake-weighted propagation (Rotor) to address institutional compliance demands for node governance. On the strategic level, the Solana Foundation actively incorporates DAT institutional suggestions to optimize network stability, and actions such as Western Union integration and the SOL spot ETF surpassing $1 billion AUM are all examples of Solana learning from and mimicking Ethereum's "institutional adaptation + compliance-first" strategy.

Messari sharply pointed out in "Crypto Theses 2026" that Ethereum faces the risk of becoming a "settlement garbage dump" after the Cancun upgrade, needing to maintain its decentralized baseline while embracing traditional capital; Solana needs to shift from meme speculation, which accounts for 80% of transactions, to a sustainable revenue model to address the centralization risks of the POH mechanism. These contradictions reveal the essence of converging evolution: As a leader, Ethereum needs to resolve its internal contradictions to solidify its standard position; as a follower, Solana needs to complete its alignment with Ethereum's standards through technological upgrades and strategic transformations, achieving an identity reconstruction from a "retail trading chain" to "institutional-grade infrastructure."

2. Core Convergence: A Unified Logical Framework for Public Chain Development

Both Ethereum and Solana have moved beyond the stage where technology determines valuation, shifting to a dual-driven model of ecological vitality and capital quality. The core sign is that the value anchor has shifted from traditional narratives like TPS and gas fees to ecological and capital dimensions such as scenario adaptability, application retention rates, and the quality of institutional capital accumulation.

2.1 Value Support: Ethereum's Dominance in Institutional Infrastructure and Solana's Differentiated Path

In this transition, Ethereum, leveraging its first-mover advantage and ecological depth, has established the industry standard for value support, while Solana is gradually aligning with this standard in its catch-up process.

The Ethereum ecosystem, with a TVL of $8.5345 billion, occupies 65.9% of the DeFi market, becoming the absolute core vehicle for institutions to lay out RWA. Within the mainnet's $7.5544 billion TVL, stablecoin protocols like Aave and Ethena, along with RWA projects like Ondo Finance, form the foundation of institutional financial infrastructure, carrying 80% of tokenized U.S. government bonds; in the L2 ecosystem, Base's $515 million TVL and Arbitrum's $316.8 million TVL serve as successful validations of the modular strategy: the architecture design of the mainnet as a secure settlement layer and L2 carrying high-frequency execution has become the paradigm standard for public chain expansion. Grayscale's report indicates that Ethereum dominates stablecoins, DeFi TVL, and tokenized U.S. government bonds, with the commonality of these scenarios being the need for high security, strong compliance, and complex logic for institutional-level applications. BlackRock's 2026 outlook clearly positions Ethereum as "the only settlement layer standard for stablecoins and digital liquidity," emphasizing its key role in bridging TradFi.

Solana, with a TVL of $916.7 million, ranks in the second tier, equivalent to 10.7% of the Ethereum ecosystem, building user barriers in scenarios like meme and high-frequency trading, but its capital scale and scenario maturity are still in a catch-up phase. On-chain data shows that in the past 30 days, SolanaDEX's trading volume was approximately $12.666 billion. Although its TVL is only 10.7% of the Ethereum ecosystem, its trading activity far exceeds that of the mainnet, with an average transaction cost of $0.01 providing possibilities for high-frequency trading and social applications for millions of users.

The evolution of DAT funds further confirms this convergence path. Ethereum's DAT funds primarily focus on "long-term allocation + network security contribution": Bitmine holds 4.17 million ETH and stakes 1.685 million to earn 2.8-3.5% APY, converting institutional funds into long-term locked assets for network security; SharpLink holds 865,000 ETH focusing on staking returns to reduce circulating volatility. Solana's DAT funds, on the other hand, emphasize "infrastructure support + network optimization": Forward holds 6.91 million SOL deployed in staking and lending, specifically supporting the Firedancer validator client; SOL Strategies manages $1.24 billion, delegating SOL to validators to directly enhance network security. This difference reflects that Solana is learning Ethereum's institutional adaptation model: shifting from purely speculative allocations to infrastructure investments, but the quality of fund retention still needs to be improved through upgrades of Firedancer and Alpenglow.

According to a16z's "State of Crypto 2025," Ethereum + L2s remain the preferred destination for new developers, but interest in Solana developers has grown by 78% over the past two years. This data validates that ecological vitality attracts developers and users, institutional capital provides liquidity and value support, and Solana is replicating Ethereum's successful model of "ecology + capital" dual-driven growth.

2.2 Ecological Governance: From Community-Led to "Community + Institution" Collaborative Governance

Decentralized community governance was once a core label of public chains, but the influx of institutional capital has driven both chains towards a model of "community + institution" collaborative governance. This transformation is not a simple transfer of power but an inevitable choice to find a dynamic balance between the foundation of decentralization and the demands of institutionalization.

The Ethereum community, while advancing core issues such as L2 profit-sharing proposals and optimizing the re-staking mechanism, must fully consider the demands of institutions like BlackRock for compliance and stable returns. On-chain data shows that within Ethereum DAT, only Bitmine holds 3.45% of the ETH supply and continues to buy to reach a target of 5%. This highly concentrated capital structure gives institutions significant influence in governance decisions. For example, in discussions about optimizing the re-staking mechanism, institutions tend to favor lowering technical barriers and providing standardized low-risk or even risk-free return products to attract more traditional capital; meanwhile, the community worries that this could lead to capital oligopolization, eroding the decentralized foundation of node distribution. In discussions about the L2 profit-sharing proposal, the core demand from institutions is to establish a predictable revenue-sharing mechanism to ensure that the mainnet directly benefits from the prosperity of L2, while the community hopes to emphasize the dividend rights of small and medium nodes to avoid concentrating profits among leading institutions.

The Solana Foundation, in designing the Alpenglow upgrade plan, actively incorporates suggestions from DAT institutions regarding network stability and node governance to avoid disconnects between technical optimization and capital demands. On-chain data shows that 19 institutions hold 18.319 million SOL, but the top five holders control about 85%, indicating a very high concentration. These institutions have made clear demands during the Alpenglow upgrade process: to expand the number of POH timestamp nodes from the original three to twelve and introduce a rotation mechanism to reduce single points of failure and censorship risks; to optimize the Firedancer validator client and strengthen the filtering mechanism for spam transactions to avoid outages caused by client bugs and dust attacks in the past. The Solana Foundation has adopted these suggestions in its technical roadmap, reflecting the substantial impact of institutional capital on network evolution.

The core of this collaborative governance model is to find a balance between the foundation of decentralization and the demands of institutionalization. Ethereum enhances its quantum resistance and censorship resistance through Peer DAS and ZK-EVM while attracting institutions through RWA compliance adaptation; Solana improves network resilience through the Firedancer client while leveraging high performance to promote the rise of native applications. Fidelity emphasized in its 2026 outlook that DAT drove the price of ETH to rebound from a low of $1,472 in April 2025 to a high of $4,832 in August, validating the value support recognized by institutions; while Galaxy pointed out in its 26 predictions on December 18, 2025, that Solana needs to shift from meme to revenue models, but the inflation reduction proposal will be rejected in 2026, hinting at a struggle between community and institutional interests regarding monetary policy adjustments.

Both chains recognize that purely community-led governance is insufficient to accommodate large-scale institutional funds, while overly catering to institutions could erode the core attributes of public chains, making collaborative governance an inevitable choice. Vitalik Buterin emphasized Ethereum's priorities for 2026: sovereignty, scaling ZK-EVM/PeerDAS, and reducing reliance on centralized services, which is a path to uphold the foundation of decentralization amidst the wave of institutionalization; Solana attempts to optimize the degree of decentralization of POH under a high-performance architecture through node admission and exit mechanisms governed by DAO and establishing a timestamp data on-chain verification system. This "community + institution" collaborative governance constitutes a common choice for both chains in the era of institutionalization.

2.3 Target Transformation: From General Infrastructure to Scenario-Based Value Hubs

The early vision of a single public chain supporting all scenarios has been disproven by the market, and public chains need to transform into scenario-based value hubs. In this transformation, Ethereum, leveraging its first-mover advantage and ecological depth, has established a paradigm positioning as the "global financial settlement layer," while Solana seeks differentiated survival in vertical scenarios like high-frequency trading and gradually aligns with institutional standards.

Ethereum focuses on the narrative of the global financial settlement layer, building institutional-grade financial infrastructure and dominating scenarios like stablecoins, DeFi, and RWA, becoming a bridge between TradFi and Crypto. Solana, on the other hand, focuses on high-frequency trading scenarios, forming advantages in areas like meme and DePIN, leveraging low fees and high TPS characteristics to accommodate massive user interactions. A report by 21Shares indicates that Solana performs excellently in speed, participation, and revenue, spanning scenarios like DeFi, meme, DePIN, and AI, but this positioning essentially seeks differentiated survival space outside the institutional track dominated by Ethereum.

However, Solana is converging towards Ethereum's institutional standards through technological upgrades and strategic adjustments. The launch of the Firedancer client on the mainnet introduces a modular architecture, and the Alpenglow consensus upgrade plan optimizes decentralization and compliance adaptability. Actions like Western Union integration and the SOL spot ETF surpassing $1 billion AUM are all efforts by Solana to position itself as "institutionally recognized high-performance infrastructure." Yet, data shows that Ondo Finance's deployed TVL on Solana is only $248.64 million, with an institutional DAT fund retention rate of 40%, indicating that Solana is still in the catch-up phase regarding institutional-level application accumulation and needs to fulfill stability commitments through Firedancer/Alpenglow upgrades to truly align with Ethereum's standards.

Coinbase's institutional monthly report states: Ethereum is the institutional agent for RWA, and Solana performs excellently in speed, participation, and revenue. The narratives of the two are differentiated but not mutually exclusive. This "differentiated but non-oppositional" relationship essentially means that Ethereum has established industry standards and a leading position, while Solana, seeking differentiated survival in vertical scenarios, is converging towards the institutional, modular, and compliant standards established by Ethereum through technological evolution and strategic adjustments, jointly promoting the blockchain from infrastructure competition to a new stage of high-quality application implementation.

3. Dilemmas: Differentiated Challenges within a Converging Framework

Under a unified development logic, Ethereum and Solana still face their respective core dilemmas, which stem from the inherent differences in their technical architectures and development paths, and are key to determining whether they can break through growth bottlenecks. On-chain data and institutional reports reveal that both chains' exclusive dilemmas revolve around the main line of "how to uphold core attributes amid institutional expansion," but the specific manifestations are starkly different.

3.1 Ethereum: The Challenge of Decentralization Erosion Amid Traditional Capital Invasion

As a benchmark of public chain ecology, Ethereum's decentralized attributes are facing unprecedented erosion in the process of accommodating traditional capital and RWA scenarios. This erosion is not a risk of a single dimension but a systemic challenge that permeates capital structure, governance discourse, and network security, becoming the core proposition determining whether Ethereum can maintain its identity as a decentralized financial infrastructure.

The risk of capital centralization has become a core hidden danger, directly threatening governance equality and node decentralization. On-chain data reveals a grim reality: the CR5 (concentration of the top five institutions) of Ethereum DAT funds exceeds 75%, forming a closed loop of "capital holding → network governance → profit acquisition." 28 institutions collectively hold 6.14 million ETH (accounting for 5.09% of the circulating supply, a proportion that is still expanding), and this highly concentrated capital structure leads Ethereum's governance decisions to gradually tilt towards institutional interests—in core issues like optimizing the re-staking mechanism and designing L2 profit-sharing proposals, the weight of institutional demands far exceeds that of small and medium nodes and the community, potentially reducing decentralized governance to an appendage of "capital consensus."

Messari also warned in its annual report that this concentration could lead to "institutionally dominated network evolution" and "governance oligopolization." This is specifically manifested in protocols like EigenLayer, where large institutions monopolize high-yield validation services due to their capital scale advantages, making it difficult for small and medium nodes to participate due to financial thresholds and technical barriers, resulting in re-staking profits concentrating among the top players; in discussions about the L2 profit-sharing proposal, institutions tend to favor predictable fixed ratios, while the community hopes for dynamic dividends based on node contributions, and the conflicting demands may delay the implementation of key mechanisms.

Moreover, the capitalization of Ethereum's PoS mechanism further exacerbates this contradiction. Some institutions predict that by 2026, the amount of ETH staked will exceed $80 billion, but its core participants remain large institutions and professional service providers: Bitmine has staked 1.26 million ETH, and SharpLink has staked part of its 865,000 ETH holdings. These institutions lower costs and improve yields through scaled operations, creating competitive advantages over small and medium nodes, and once ETF staking is approved, the gap will widen further. The essence of PoS is the capitalization of network security, which provides security services and generates profits for the Ethereum mainnet and other protocols by extending ETH staking to multiple AVS. However, the concentrated participation of capital shifts Ethereum's security model from distributed node protection to institutional capital endorsement. If leading institutions adjust their strategies (such as large-scale redemptions of staked ETH) or face risk events (such as custodians being hacked), it will directly impact the foundation of network security.

A deeper contradiction lies in the fundamental tension between "decentralized beliefs and institutional demands," which is a core ideological conflict. The demands of traditional capital for compliance, certainty, and stable returns naturally conflict with Ethereum's pursuit of censorship resistance, open access, and node equality. Institutions like BlackRock position Ethereum as a "digital asset settlement layer," with the core demand being for Ethereum to provide stable and compliant infrastructure—for example, the BlackRock BUIDL fund requires stablecoin reserves to be 100% transparent, smart contracts to be auditable, and node operations to comply with BSA regulations. These requirements push Ethereum towards evolution in a direction that is regulatory and auditable.

The community is concerned that overly catering to institutional demands will reduce Ethereum to a centralized institutional chain, losing the core value of a public chain. Some community members on Twitter question whether institutions like BlackRock, by holding large amounts of ETH, will influence governance proposals and push Ethereum to introduce "censorable transactions" features (such as OFAC-sanctioned address blacklists). If the PoS mechanism leans towards institutions, will small and medium nodes gradually exit due to inferior returns, leading to validator centralization? These concerns are not unfounded; although the number of Ethereum validators has exceeded one million, the top 10 validators control about 40% of the staked amount, indicating a risk of concentration.

How can Ethereum maintain the decentralized foundation of node distribution and governance equality while accommodating the funds from institutions like BlackRock? In 2026, the progress in addressing this issue will directly determine the retention quality of the $19.2 billion ETH DAT funds and the final establishment of Ethereum's positioning as an institutional-level financial hub.

3.2 Solana: Core Dilemma After the Alpenglow Upgrade

Solana builds its high-performance architecture around the POH mechanism and is moving towards the modular, decentralized, and compliant standards established by Ethereum through the Alpenglow upgrade and the Firedancer client. However, from the perspective of actual operational effectiveness, the inherent limitations of its monolithic architecture create fundamental tensions in the process of "aligning with standards," which become key constraints on its institutionalization process. Solana's dilemma focuses on the paradox of "how to achieve convergence towards Ethereum without sacrificing high-performance advantages." Although the Alpenglow upgrade and Firedancer deployment have made phased progress, whether it can achieve a transition from a "retail transaction chain" to "institutionally recognized high-performance infrastructure" remains to be validated.

The core significance of the Alpenglow upgrade lies in the complete shift from the POH consensus mechanism to the PoS consensus mechanism, marking a symbolic turning point for Solana in aligning with Ethereum's decentralization standards. On-chain data shows that the SIMD-0326 proposal received 98.27% support from stakers in September 2025, with plans to activate the mainnet in the first half to mid-2026. This upgrade introduces two core mechanisms, Votor and Rotor, which respond to Ethereum's core demands for anti-censorship and node decentralization.

Alpenglow replaces global timestamp synchronization with local clocks, skipping votes and fixing a 400ms time slot, completely deconstructing the centralized architecture of early POH that relied on a few timestamp nodes. This shift essentially signifies that Solana acknowledges the POH mechanism under a monolithic architecture struggles to meet institutional standards in decentralization and compliance, and is forced to converge towards the decentralized standards established by Ethereum through consensus reconstruction.

The Firedancer client also went live on the mainnet on December 12, 2025, marking substantial progress in Solana's transition to a modular architecture. Its core significance lies in introducing a modular tile architecture to achieve fault isolation and independent upgrades—this is highly consistent with Ethereum's modular concept of optimizing performance through L2 layering. The modular design allows Solana to upgrade specific functional modules without affecting the entire network, reducing the systemic risks of outages caused by client bugs in the past. This shift reveals that Solana is abandoning a purely monolithic high-performance route in favor of aligning with the modular, upgradable, and fault-isolated industry standards established by Ethereum.

However, despite the progress brought by Alpenglow/Firedancer, Solana's monolithic architecture determines that it is difficult to meet the decentralization standards of the Ethereum ecosystem. Its criticized outage issues still need to be validated for stability in extreme scenarios, becoming the biggest obstacle to institutional trust. Solana experienced seven outages between 2023 and 2025: five due to client bugs (such as consensus failures caused by vulnerabilities in Solana Labs' validator software) and two due to dust attacks (such as NFT minting activities causing TPS bottlenecks and transaction backlogs leading to network paralysis). These historical issues have severely damaged Solana's reputation, becoming the biggest concern for institutional capital allocation.

Although the Alpenglow/Firedancer upgrades have optimized consensus and client performance, the Solana network still experienced brief congestion in early January 2026: block confirmation delays reached 3 seconds (far exceeding the usual 0.4 seconds), and TPS briefly dropped to around 400, with some transactions failing and needing retries. Although the network did not completely shut down, this incident once again exposed Solana's vulnerability under extreme high-load scenarios, namely that when transaction volumes surge suddenly, the dust attack filtering mechanism may not fully prevent network congestion, and block confirmation delays will affect user experience.

Institutional reports further indicate that Solana's stability issues are closely related to its monolithic architecture. Ethereum disperses transaction loads through L2 layering, with the mainnet only handling final settlements, meaning that high loads from a single application do not affect the entire network; whereas Solana, as a monolithic chain, processes all transactions at the same layer, and any extreme load from an application can impact overall network performance. In 2025, meme coins contributed about 80% of transaction volume; if applications like chain games, AI agents, and DePIN go live on a large scale in 2026, multiple high-load scenarios could trigger congestion or even outages again.

Solana's core dilemma is not a technical optimization issue, but rather whether it can achieve convergence towards the institutionalized, modular, and decentralized standards established by Ethereum without sacrificing high-performance advantages, thus reconstructing its identity from a "retail transaction chain" to "institutionally recognized high-performance infrastructure." If it can maintain network stability in high-load scenarios such as social, gaming, and high-frequency trading in 2026, it will significantly enhance market confidence.

4. 2026 Trend Outlook: Breakthroughs in Dilemmas and Identity Formation

Based on the analysis of convergence logic and exclusive dilemmas, combined with on-chain data, institutional reports, and market narratives, I make the following judgments about the development trajectories of the two chains in 2026: Ethereum, as a leader, will consolidate its position as an institutional-level financial hub, while Solana must complete its convergence evolution and reconstruction towards institutional standards through breakthroughs in its dilemmas.

4.1 2026 H1: Dilemma Pressure Testing Period

Ethereum: Seeking a Dynamic Balance Between Institutional Capital and Decentralization

Ethereum will benefit from a relatively mature ecological structure and higher institutional recognition, with the core task being to resolve the inherent contradictions of decentralization erosion while accommodating traditional capital dividends.

1. Staked lock-up amounts are expected to grow steadily: Moving towards the $80 billion target, ETFs and leading institutions like Bitmine continue to buy and expand their staking scale, which will create new sources of security service revenue for the mainnet.
2. Continuous advancement of L2 profit-sharing proposals: The "L2 will pay 20%-30% of transaction fees to the mainnet in ETH, then distribute based on node contributions" proposal raised in community discussions like Kanalcoin, if it can achieve preliminary pilots or a clear timeline in the first half of the year, will greatly strengthen the narrative of "value coordinators."
3. Institutional dividends from RWA and stablecoins: Ethereum's TVL remains stable; although mainnet gas revenue is low, the dominance of RWA and the stablecoin infrastructure form a moat for institutional-level finance.

If the CLARITY Act passes smoothly after voting in the Senate, the "all-time high" scenario predicted by Bitwise may be realized in the first half of the year. However, if the balance mechanism's advancement is obstructed, the issue of decentralization erosion may worsen amid the continued inflow of DAT funds, triggering risks of community division. Therefore, Ethereum's valuation will remain relatively robust, with volatility lower than Solana's. Prices may gently rise and test previous highs, reaching $5000, driven by catalysts such as institutional staking, clarity in L2 profit-sharing proposals, and the passage of the CLARITY Act.

Solana: Entering a Key Validation Period for Identity Reconstruction

In January 2026, Amiko submitted the TARS proposal to the Solana Foundation, expanding x402 from a simple M2M payment standard to an anti-witch attack AI Agent market + on-chain reputation system, indicating that Solana's strategic core is shifting from memecoins to building AI Agent economic infrastructure through the x402 protocol.

Solana will enter a critical validation period that will determine its long-term identity. Its price and narrative will heavily depend on several dimensions: substantial progress in the decentralization of POH nodes and verifiable progress in incubating fat applications.

1. Extreme testing of network stability: Facing multiple high-load scenarios such as the launch of large chain games, the resurgence of meme trends, the explosion of x402 application scenarios, and the expansion of DePIN applications. These technical indicators will validate whether Solana can achieve stability improvements by aligning with Ethereum's modular/decentralized standards.
2. Progress in the implementation of the x402 strategy: If at least one x402 application enters the "high performance → user retention → continuous revenue" flywheel, Solana will preliminarily validate the path of identity reconstruction that forms a differentiated advantage in the AI×Crypto track while aligning with Ethereum's standards.
3. Changes in ETF/DAT fund retention quality: In the first half of the year, it is necessary to verify whether infrastructure investments from leading institutions like Forward can attract more long-term empowering DAT funds, which will validate whether Solana can transform from a "retail speculative chain" to "institutionally recognized high-performance infrastructure."

In summary, Solana will exhibit high Beta characteristics in the first half of the year: if it performs well across the above dimensions, strong inflows of ETF/DAT will drive prices to rise rapidly, potentially testing the $200-250 range; if it falls short of expectations, it will trigger significant volatility. The chaotic and unpredictable scenarios predicted by Galaxy may manifest more prominently in Solana.

4.2 2026 H2: Convergence and Positioning Under Unified Logic

As we enter the second half of the year, market attention will shift from the pressure test of "whether exclusive dilemmas can be resolved" to the validation phase of "the effectiveness of breakthroughs determining final identity." Ethereum will consolidate its paradigm-leading position as an institutional-level financial hub, while Solana will show clear path differentiation based on the results of the first half's pressure tests.

Ethereum: Consolidating its Identity as an Institutional-Level Financial Hub, Global Financial Settlement Layer

In terms of Ethereum, if the L2 profit-sharing mechanism can achieve substantial implementation, or even just a clear timeline for implementation and preliminary pilots, it will greatly strengthen its narrative as a "value coordinator" and may attract more DAT funds aimed at obtaining long-term profit-sharing benefits. The mainnet's identity as an "institutionally recognized global settlement layer" will be solidified.

Specific catalysts include: the mainnet's staked lock-up amount surpassing the $80 billion target, creating quantifiable risk-free income; DeFi TVL progressing towards $1 trillion, with RWA scaling up to over $12.5 billion, further deepening integration with TradFi; institutions like BlackRock bringing more traditional capital into the Ethereum ecosystem through stablecoin bridges.

Vitalik's emphasis on the scaling of ZK-EVM/PeerDAS, if significant progress is made in the second half of the year, such as expanding PeerDAS from mainnet pilots to broader applications, will also support the long-term vision of "sovereign + decentralized services," attracting institutional funds focused on fundamentals.

These developments will solidify Ethereum's positioning as the "institutionally recognized global settlement layer standard," attracting long-term allocation funds that focus on fundamentals. Even if L2 profit-sharing encounters obstacles, Ethereum will still maintain its core value as an institutional-level financial hub due to its mature ecological structure and dominance in RWA/stablecoins.

Solana: Path Differentiation in Identity Reconstruction

Solana's performance in the second half of the year will show clear differentiation, depending on the results of the pressure tests in the first half, especially the effectiveness of the x402 strategy's implementation.

If it passes the pressure tests in the first half and achieves breakthrough progress in the AI Agent market, successfully incubating leading retention-type applications, while DAT funds show clear ecological synergy, its positioning as a high-performance infrastructure aligning with Ethereum standards will be preliminarily validated.

In this scenario, Solana's valuation logic will shift from a speculative platform to an AI Agent economic infrastructure, becoming the L1 representative of the AI Agent era. Similar to how platform companies in the internet era achieved high valuations through user scale and advertising revenue, Solana will gain valuation premiums due to its first-mover advantage in the AI×Crypto integration track.

Social media and institutional reports may reposition Solana as: "the global AI Agent economic infrastructure" and "the API economic standard setter of the Web3 era," which will attract funds and attention from the traditional AI industry, expanding Solana's potential market space.

If application incubation or the AI Agent economic narrative falls short of expectations, and DAT funds continue to focus on short-term speculation, or if network stability issues arise again, its narrative may be forced to adjust.

In this scenario, the market may reposition Solana as a "high-performance computing layer" or "infrastructure for specific vertical scenarios (such as meme trading, NFTs)", rather than the core hub of the AI Agent economy. The failure of the x402 protocol would mean Solana loses its differentiated competitive advantage against Ethereum L2 in the AI×Crypto integration track; even if it technically aligns with Ethereum standards, it may awkwardly position itself as "performance below expectations, ecosystem not as good as L2," being forced to revert to the traditional high TPS narrative.

Thus, Solana can only maintain its value through two paths:

1. Strengthening compliant DAT products to maintain institutional interest, focusing on attracting hedge funds and high-frequency trading institutions, rather than long-term allocation funds like pensions.
2. Seeking interoperability with Ethereum L2, becoming the "high-performance execution layer" in a modular ecosystem—providing an execution environment for applications that require extreme TPS, with final settlements returning to the Ethereum mainnet. This means Solana would downgrade from an independent L1 to a complementary execution layer within the Ethereum ecosystem, potentially providing a more stable valuation positioning.

In either scenario, the market in the second half of the year will pay more attention to the "verifiable income flywheel" and the "long-term retention quality of DAT funds." Whether it is Ethereum's global financial settlement layer or Solana's AI Agent economic infrastructure narrative, both will face strict scrutiny from real data. The allocation of funds will depend on who can better demonstrate the positive cycle of "ecological prosperity → institutional recognition → capital inflow → ecological redevelopment."

The market's understanding of the relationship between ETH and SOL will become clearer: Ethereum is the leader and industry standard of institutional public chains, while Solana seeks differentiated survival in vertical scenarios (AI Agent economy, high-frequency trading, etc.). The "narrative differentiation but not exclusion" emphasized by Coinbase will become mainstream consensus. The ultimate picture of multi-chain coexistence, each occupying its own scenarios, will become clearer in the second half of the year.

4.3 Risk Warning

1. Technical Risks: Risk of Core Mechanism Failure

If the Ethereum L2 profit-sharing plan does not land as expected, it may trigger governance conflicts and trust crises between L2 and the mainnet. The "settlement garbage dump" risk warned by Messari may worsen if L2 continues to drain resources, potentially exacerbating the mainnet's inflation issues.

If Solana experiences another major network interruption, it will deal a fatal blow to its stability narrative. If it goes down during the large-scale launch of chain games/social applications, or if x402 AI agents cause network congestion due to high-frequency trading, it could trigger panic selling, potentially leading to a concentrated withdrawal of $1-1.5 billion in DAT funds. If the Firedancer validator client is delayed or fails to significantly improve stability, market expectations will be disappointed.

2. Technical and Governance Risks of the x402 Protocol

If the TARS proposal is delayed or rejected due to technical complexity or community governance disputes, it will directly undermine Solana's AI×Crypto strategic foundation. A deeper risk lies in: even if x402 is technically successful, if the actual demand in the AI agent market falls short of expectations, Solana and Base's bet on x402 may become a typical case of being technically feasible but commercially unsuccessful.

3. Application Layer Risks: "Fat Applications" Underperforming Expectations

If the overall rhythm of "fat applications" does not meet market expectations, it will lead to a lack of actual carriers for the narrative. If Solana's 80% contribution from meme coins does not drop below 50% in 2026, or if Ethereum L2's "zombie chain cleansing" leads to liquidity further concentrating towards Base/Arbitrum, it will weaken expectations for multi-chain prosperity.

4. Capital Risks: Systemic Vulnerability of the DAT Model

If the growth of DAT institutional allocation scales does not meet expectations, or if there is a large-scale concentrated withdrawal (such as the top 5 holders selling simultaneously), it will directly impact market liquidity. High concentration means systemic risk; if leading institutions like Bitmine or Forward sell due to operational issues or strategic adjustments, the impact will far exceed retail selling pressure.

Conclusion

In 2026, Ethereum and Solana will each break through their dilemmas under a framework of asymmetric convergent evolution, with their final positioning depending on the effectiveness of resolving these dilemmas:

As the leader of institutional public chains, Ethereum must solidify its decentralized foundation while capturing the dividends of traditional capital and RWA scenarios, reinforcing its industry standard positioning as a global institutional-level financial settlement layer; Solana, on the other hand, must break through the centralization of the POH mechanism and network stability bottlenecks while maintaining high-performance advantages, reconstructing its identity from a "retail transaction chain" to "institutionally recognized high-performance infrastructure" through Alpenglow consensus reconstruction, Firedancer modular transformation, and the x402 protocol to build an AI Agent economic ecosystem.

The two are not in a zero-sum game of parallel competition, but are exploring value symbiosis. Ethereum has established the industry standard and framework for institutional public chains, while Solana is aligning with this standard through technological upgrades and strategic adjustments, attempting to form differentiated advantages in vertical tracks like AI×Crypto.

As investors, we need to look beyond short-term price fluctuations and focus on Ethereum's L2 proposal progress, mainnet staking data, stablecoin and RWA capital flows, ecological applications, etc.; and Solana's network stability, retention rates of leading applications, x402 protocol implementation progress, and effectiveness in aligning with Ethereum standards, to seize Alpha opportunities in structural transformation.

The ultimate competitiveness of public chains will no longer depend on the TPS competition or a single technical route, but on whether they can build a sustainable value flywheel through deep symbiosis of ecology and capital within a framework of security, scenario adaptation, and institutional recognition. They will jointly drive the blockchain from infrastructure competition to an era of application prosperity.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。