The Solana blockchain, which officially launched on March 16th, 2020, uses a combination of Proof-of-Stake (PoS) and Proof-of-History (PoH). This unique innovation by Solana doesn’t replace PoS but rather works alongside it to improve efficiency.
On the other hand, Ethereum transitioned from a Proof-of-Work architecture to Proof-of-Stake in an event called The Merge on September 15, 2022. This shift aimed to improve Ethereum’s scalability, security, and energy efficiency.
Under PoS, validators replace miners, staking their gas tokens to secure the network and validate transactions. The transition to PoS has significantly reduced Ethereum’s energy consumption by approximately 99.95% and has set the stage for future scalability upgrades like sharding.
As both Ethereum and Solana are very popular blockchain networks that utilize proof of stake, in this article we'll analyze the differences between both networks. In addition to that, we will attempt to find out which network is more profitable for stakers.
There are different ways to stake both SOL and ETH that can help reduce the complexity of staking. These methods can vary in their profitability and requirements from the end user. As we’ve covered these methods quite extensively, below is a brief summary of each method.
Solo-staking ETH involves running a validator node independently, securing the Ethereum network, and earning rewards. To solo-stake ETH, you need a minimum of 32 ETH, which is deposited into the Ethereum 2.0 staking contract. Additionally, you'll need a dedicated computer with stable internet connection to run the validator software 24/7. This setup ensures your node participates in block validation and attestation.
ETH Solo-staking requires technical knowledge to manage and secure the node effectively. While it may offer higher rewards compared to staking methods, it also comes with higher risks, such as penalties for downtime or incorrect validations.
Staking-as-a-service for ETH lets you participate in staking without the technical burden. These platforms handle the validator node setup and maintenance for you.
All you need is some ETH which may vary by the service provider. You deposit it, and the Saas provider pools it with others' contributions to meet the 32 ETH minimum. The service then validates transactions on your behalf, sharing the rewards proportionally.
It's convenient, but there are downsides. You rely on the provider's security and potentially face fees for their service. For control over your keys and potentially higher rewards, solo staking might be preferable, but with greater technical responsibility.
Liquid staking for ETH allows users to stake their ETH and receive a tokenized version of their staked assets, such as Hord’s hETH or similar. This token can be used in DeFi applications, traded, or held while earning staking rewards.
Liquid staking platforms, such as Hord or Lido, pool ETH from multiple users to run validator nodes. Users can stake any amount of ETH, making it accessible even if they don't have the 32 ETH required for solo staking. These platforms handle the technical aspects and distribute rewards proportionally to stakers, deducting a fee for their services.
Native staking on Solana allows you to directly participate in securing the blockchain and earn rewards. You delegate your SOL tokens to a chosen validator rather than running one yourself. Select a validator with a good reputation and uptime to maximize your rewards. Your delegated SOL helps secure the network, earning you rewards distributed by the validator proportionally, typically every few days.
While delegated, you retain control over your SOL tokens and can undelegate them, usually with a short waiting period. Setting up the staking account involves small fees. Native staking offers good returns but requires some research to choose a validator.
Liquid staking for SOL is very similar to liquid staking for ETH. It allows you to stake your SOL tokens and receive a liquid token in return, representing your staked assets. These liquid tokens can be used anyway you’d like while still earning staking rewards. To participate, you typically use a liquid staking platform, deposit your SOL, and receive the corresponding liquid token. There are usually no minimum staking amounts, and you retain flexibility and liquidity.
Solana and Ethereum differ significantly under the hood. From a technical perspective, this includes, architecture, consensus methods, and more. These distinctions impact their performance, scalability, and consensus processes.
Solana uses a combination of PoS and PoH, which timestamps transactions to improve efficiency and scalability, enabling high transaction throughput with low latency. PoH allows validators to process transactions in parallel. Ethereum currently relies solely on PoS, which requires validators to propose and validate new blocks based on their staked ETH.
Solana and Ethereum differ significantly in scalability. Ethereum and current Proof-of-Stake limitations, struggles with low throughput, handling around 15 transactions per second or TPS, leading to congestion and high fees. In contrast, Solana's design for high throughput, leveraging Proof-of-Stake and Proof-of-History, enables processing thousands of TPS, theoretically reaching up to 50,000.
This fundamental difference allows Solana to achieve faster transaction times and lower fees, addressing scalability challenges more effectively than Ethereum.
Solana and Ethereum exhibit major differences in fee structures. Ethereum's fees can be high due to the price of ETH and network congestion, especially during peak usage periods, which can lead to unpredictably expensive transactions. In contrast, Solana typically maintains lower fees, thanks to its scalable architecture and efficient transaction processing.
The fee structure on Solana is designed to be more stable and cost-effective for users. It offers a more predictable and affordable experience compared to Ethereum, where fees can vary widely depending on network conditions.
Ethereum and Solana differ significantly in their DeFi ecosystems. Ethereum, having launched much earlier, boasts a far more extensive and mature DeFi ecosystem. It hosts numerous DeFi protocols, including well-known platforms like Uniswap, MakerDAO, and Aave, making it the go-to network for decentralized finance. However, Ethereum's popularity often leads to high fees and congestion.
.webp)
Solana, although newer and with a smaller DeFi ecosystem, is rapidly growing and carving out its niche. It offers high throughput and low fees, attracting projects that require fast and cost-effective transactions. Additionally, Solana has become the home to successful meme-coins, such as Boden and Bonk, which differentiate its ecosystem and draw a unique user base.
In conclusion, both Ethereum and Solana offer distinct advantages for staking, catering to different investor preferences and needs. Solana at the time of writing provides a higher APR, with staking rewards around 7%, compared to Ethereum's 5%. This makes Solana an attractive option for those seeking higher immediate returns from staking.
Beyond a staking APR, an investor should also consider other important elements such as price appreciation. Other key factors can also include the asset's status in the eyes of regulators and the liveliness of its ecosystem.
