In the ever-evolving world of blockchain and cryptocurrency, comparisons between major networks are inevitable. Recently, a heated debate has emerged within the crypto community: Is Ethereum (ETH) or Solana (SOL) more like the once-prominent EOS?
EOS was once hailed as a high-performance blockchain contender capable of rivaling Ethereum. However, due to issues around decentralization, governance, and long-term sustainability, it gradually faded from mainstream relevance. Today, as Solana surges with strong performance while Ethereum faces criticism over scalability and fees, some observers draw parallels—some say ETH is becoming the new EOS; others argue that title belongs to SOL.
Let’s dive into this comparison through key dimensions: technology, sustainability, community and institutional support, and long-term outlook—revealing which network might be walking a path similar to EOS’s rise and fall.
Technology and Design Philosophy
At their core, Ethereum, Solana, and EOS were all designed to solve blockchain’s so-called "impossible trilemma"—achieving security, scalability, and decentralization simultaneously.
Ethereum has taken a cautious, layered approach. Originally using Proof-of-Work (PoW), it transitioned to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) with The Merge. Instead of pushing all scaling onto the base layer, Ethereum now focuses on Rollup-centric Layer 2 solutions like Optimism and Arbitrum. This strategy prioritizes decentralization and security, even if it means slower transaction finality or higher short-term costs.
In contrast, Solana adopted a much more aggressive technical model. By introducing Proof of History (PoH)—a novel timestamping mechanism—it enables ultra-fast consensus and can theoretically process over 65,000 transactions per second (TPS). While impressive in speed, this design leans heavily toward performance at the expense of full decentralization. Like EOS before it, Solana relies on a relatively small number of high-performance nodes, raising concerns about centralization risks.
👉 Discover how next-gen blockchains are redefining performance and accessibility.
Similarly, EOS used Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) to achieve high throughput—boasting potential TPS in the millions during its peak marketing. But its reliance on just 21 elected block producers made it vulnerable to collusion and censorship, undermining trust in its decentralization.
So technically, Solana bears a stronger resemblance to EOS: both prioritize raw speed and efficiency through centralized-adjacent architectures. Ethereum, meanwhile, sticks to a more conservative, modular path—valuing resilience over immediate performance.
Sustainability: Can They Last?
In crypto, innovation is common—but longevity is rare.
Ethereum has proven its staying power. Second only to Bitcoin in market cap and ecosystem maturity, it hosts the largest developer community and most robust decentralized applications (dApps). From DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Aave to NFT marketplaces like OpenSea, Ethereum remains the backbone of Web3 innovation.
Despite high gas fees and congestion during peak times, continuous upgrades—from EIP-1559 to proto-danksharding—show a clear roadmap for improvement. Its sustainability isn’t guaranteed, but its track record suggests resilience.
On the other hand, EOS, once valued at billions, failed to maintain momentum. After an explosive start with record-breaking ICOs and hype, it struggled with real-world adoption. The lack of compelling dApps, coupled with governance disputes and declining developer interest, led to stagnation.
Solana has faced similar trials. Despite rapid growth in DeFi and meme coin activity, it has suffered multiple network outages due to spam attacks and resource bottlenecks. These incidents have raised red flags about its reliability under stress—echoing early criticisms of EOS.
While Solana’s team is actively working on optimizations (like QUIC upgrades and improved validator requirements), its ability to remain stable during high-demand periods will be crucial for long-term survival.
👉 Explore how blockchain networks evolve under pressure and adapt for the future.
Thus, in terms of sustainability, Solana appears more EOS-like—a high-flying project whose future depends on overcoming recurring technical challenges. Ethereum, despite its flaws, continues to demonstrate endurance.
Community and Institutional Support
No blockchain thrives without strong community engagement and institutional backing.
EOS initially enjoyed massive support. Backed by Block.one, it raised $4 billion in its ICO—the largest at the time. However, regulatory pressure from the U.S. SEC forced Block.one to distance itself from the mainnet launch. After settling with the SEC in 2020, the company effectively stepped back, leaving the network to fend for itself.
Without clear leadership and with growing dissatisfaction among super node operators and developers, EOS’s community eroded over time. Governance became fragmented, innovation stalled, and users moved on.
Compare that to Solana, which has cultivated enthusiastic grassroots momentum—especially around meme coins like BONK and WIF—and attracted significant Wall Street interest. With founders tied to reputable firms like Jump Crypto, and a leadership team deeply embedded in tech and finance circles, Solana enjoys both retail hype and institutional credibility.
Additionally, favorable U.S. regulatory sentiment post-2024 (including pro-crypto stances from political figures) has given Solana a "Made in USA" advantage—helping it avoid some of the legal pitfalls that hampered earlier projects.
Meanwhile, Ethereum enjoys unmatched institutional validation. It's one of only two cryptocurrencies (alongside Bitcoin) with approved spot ETFs trading on U.S. stock exchanges. This regulatory green light signals deep confidence from traditional finance players.
Moreover, Ethereum’s open-source nature fosters a vast global developer community—one that continually contributes to protocol upgrades and ecosystem expansion.
So while Solana may have energy and momentum today, Ethereum leads in depth and durability of support—a stark contrast to EOS’s abandoned trajectory.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why do people compare Solana or Ethereum to EOS?
A: EOS was once seen as a scalable alternative to Ethereum but ultimately declined due to centralization concerns and weak long-term adoption. When people say a project is “becoming the new EOS,” they often mean it's prioritizing speed over decentralization—or showing early signs of unsustainable growth.
Q: Is Solana really as centralized as EOS was?
A: While not identical, there are similarities. Both rely on a limited number of powerful validators. Solana currently has around 1,500 active validators—many running on expensive hardware—which creates de facto centralization risks. EOS had only 21 block producers, making it even more concentrated.
Q: Can Ethereum scale effectively without sacrificing decentralization?
A: That’s the goal of its Rollup-centric roadmap. By offloading computation to Layer 2s while securing data availability on-chain (via danksharding), Ethereum aims to scale sustainably. Early results are promising, though full implementation will take years.
Q: Did EOS completely fail?
A: Not entirely—it still has niche use cases and some active development. But compared to its initial promise and valuation, it underperformed significantly in adoption and innovation. It serves as a cautionary tale about balancing performance with decentralization.
Q: Could Solana suffer the same fate as EOS?
A: It’s possible—if it fails to improve network stability or loses developer interest. However, Solana has stronger retail traction and better funding than EOS did at a similar stage. Its outcome will depend on execution over time.
Q: Is Ethereum too slow to compete long-term?
A: While base-layer speeds are slower than Solana’s, most user interactions happen on fast Layer 2 networks. With these scaling solutions maturing rapidly, Ethereum may not need raw speed—it needs robust security and composability, which it excels at.
Final Thoughts: Who’s More Like EOS?
While Solana shares more technical DNA with EOS—high speed, elite validator sets, recurring outages—its current trajectory benefits from better funding, broader cultural appeal, and improved regulatory positioning.
Ethereum, despite criticism over fees and pace of change, remains fundamentally different: decentralized by design, battle-tested over time, and backed by enduring developer momentum.
So who’s more like EOS?
In technology—Solana.
In risk of decline—neither clearly fits yet.
But history favors those who balance innovation with resilience.
👉 Stay ahead of blockchain trends shaping the next era of digital finance.
Ultimately, time will tell whether Solana avoids EOS’s pitfalls—or repeats them. And whether Ethereum’s slow-and-steady approach secures its place as the foundational layer of Web3. One thing is certain: in crypto, perception shapes reality as much as code does.