Ethereum vs Solana for Mainstream Adoption: Fees, Throughput, Reliability, and Institutional Preferences

Ethereum and Solana are often framed as opposites in the smart contract platform market: Ethereum as the decentralized settlement layer with rollup scaling, and Solana as the high-throughput, low-fee monolithic L1.

For mainstream adoption–ETFs, stablecoins, and institutional RWAs–this comparison matters because institutions care about different things than retail traders. They care about predictable operations, regulatory comfort, uptime, and the depth of the integration ecosystem.

1) The core architectural difference: layered vs monolithic

Ethereum is increasingly layered:

L1 provides settlement and data availability.
L2 rollups provide cheap, high-throughput execution.
Apps and users live mostly on L2s in a rollup-centric roadmap.

Solana is often described as more monolithic:

a single L1 aims to handle high throughput and low fees directly.
fees are designed to remain very low per transaction.
optimization and hardware requirements play a bigger role.

Neither model is “right” universally. Each emphasizes different tradeoffs.

2) Fees: what each chain optimizes for

Solana’s documentation describes a base fee model where each signature has a base lamport cost, which in normal conditions translates to extremely low fees. This makes Solana attractive for:

consumer apps,
high-frequency microtransactions,
gaming and social interactions,
and cost-sensitive payments flows.

Ethereum’s L1 fees are more variable because L1 blockspace is scarce and priced via a gas market. The upside of this scarcity model is that it can finance security and signal demand. The downside is user experience when demand spikes.

Ethereum’s practical answer is L2: cheap execution on rollups that still settle to Ethereum. So the mainstream fee question becomes: do you benchmark Ethereum by L1 fees, or by the Ethereum ecosystem including rollups?

3) Throughput and user experience

Solana has often marketed high throughput and fast confirmation as core advantages. For mainstream adoption, that can translate into smoother consumer UX.

Ethereum’s UX improvements increasingly come from:

rollups,
account abstraction and better wallets,
and improvements to data availability that reduce rollup costs.

In other words, Ethereum aims for high throughput through an ecosystem of L2s rather than pushing all execution into L1.

4) Institutional comfort: liquidity, integration depth, and standards

Institutions often prefer ecosystems with:

deep liquidity (stablecoins, DeFi),
mature custody options,
standardized token interfaces,
and a proven upgrade and security track record.

Ethereum has an advantage in integration depth and the breadth of deployed infrastructure. This matters for RWAs and tokenized funds, where the largest cost is not a transaction fee but compliance, custody, and operational integration.

Solana’s advantage is cost and throughput, which can matter for payments and consumer apps–use cases where “pennies vs fractions of a penny” can be meaningful at scale.

5) Visa as a real-world data point

Visa’s stablecoin settlement experimentation provides a real-world example of multi-chain thinking. Visa has used stablecoin settlement over Ethereum (including USDC settlement experiments) and later expanded stablecoin settlement capabilities to Solana. The mainstream lesson is that large institutions may adopt multiple rails and choose based on performance, cost, and partner needs.

This is not a winner-take-all story. It’s a “routing” story.

6) Ethereum vs Solana in DeFi and tokenization

Ethereum remains central for DeFi and tokenization narratives because:

much of the stablecoin liquidity and DeFi innovation has concentrated there,
tokenization experiments by major institutions have often used Ethereum or Ethereum-adjacent infrastructure,
L2s allow cheap execution while preserving Ethereum settlement.

Solana is competitive in DeFi and growing in consumer ecosystems. But institutional RWA tokenization often prioritizes conservative settlement assumptions and integration ecosystems–areas where Ethereum remains strong.

7) Adoption metrics: users and activity

“Total users” is hard, but activity proxies help. Etherscan reports total addresses and network statistics for Ethereum, reflecting the scale of Ethereum’s on-chain surface area. Solana has its own ecosystem metrics and explorers; comparing them requires care because transaction types and fee structures differ.

A more meaningful approach is to compare:

stablecoin settlement and usage across ecosystems,
the distribution of RWA/tokenized asset deployments,
and where institutional pilots are being launched.

8) The mainstream investment wrapper advantage

One reason Ethereum has a mainstream edge is financial product availability. Spot ether ETFs launched in the U.S. in 2024, making ETH exposure easy to buy through brokerage accounts. Solana has seen regulated product developments (including futures discussions and filings), but the mainstream ETF access story has historically been strongest for BTC and ETH.

As regulated products expand, the competitive landscape may shift. But today, Ethereum benefits from being one of the primary “institutional crypto assets” alongside Bitcoin.

9) Practical conclusion: what institutions actually choose

Institutions rarely choose a chain the way crypto Twitter does. They choose based on:

compliance requirements and settlement risk,
partner ecosystems (custody, KYC, transfer agent functions),
cost at scale,
operational resilience and support.

Ethereum’s layered model aims to satisfy “settlement-grade” requirements while delegating most user activity to L2s. Solana aims to deliver low fees and high throughput directly on L1. Both approaches can support mainstream adoption, but in different verticals.

In the final article of this series, we integrate everything: ETFs, DATs, stablecoins, RWAs, and cross-chain comparisons–then propose a practical “mainstream adoption dashboard” for tracking Ethereum’s growth beyond hype.

References (selected)

Solana documentation: base fee of 5000 lamports per included signature and fee burn/distribution mechanics.
Ethereum.org developer docs: EIP-1559 base fee mechanics and why fees vary with demand.
Visa press release (Mar 2021): USDC settlement pilot over Ethereum with Crypto.com.
Visa press release (Sep 2023): Visa expanded stablecoin settlement capabilities to Solana.
SEC/market coverage (July 2024): spot ether ETFs began trading, broadening brokerage access for ETH exposure.

VEI.XYZ™ – Virtual Ethereum Index

Practical SEO takeaways for readers and researchers

If you are researching mainstream Ethereum adoption through a TradFi lens, it helps to separate four layers that often get mixed together in headlines: regulated exposure (spot Ethereum ETFs, futures, ETPs), settlement rails (stablecoin payments, treasury settlement, on-chain cash management), tokenization (real world assets, tokenized Treasuries, tokenized money market funds), and execution ecosystems (Ethereum L1 + rollups). Each layer has different adoption curves, different risk profiles, and different “user counts” that matter.

For example, ETF investors are often “users” of Ethereum price exposure without ever touching a wallet. Stablecoin users may not care about ETH price but use USDC or USDT as programmable dollars. And RWA participants care about compliance, reporting, and redemption mechanics as much as they care about block times. When you combine these cohorts, Ethereum’s mainstream footprint becomes larger than any single metric like L1 transactions.

Long-tail keywords readers often search include: spot ether ETF fees, Ethereum ETF brokerage availability, institutional ETH allocation, tokenized treasury fund on Ethereum, Visa stablecoin settlement USDC, real world asset tokenization on public blockchain, Ethereum vs Solana fees, and Ethereum vs Bitcoin portfolio role. These queries map well to the four-layer framework above.

Glossary: Finality
Glossary: Gas
Directory: Optimism Foundation / OP Labs
Blog: Proto-Danksharding to Twice-a-Year Forks: Dencun (2024), Pectra (2025), and Fusaka (Dec 2025)