#数字资产市场动态 Solana founder's recent statements on public chain development reveal a real issue that many projects overlook.

He responded to the Ethereum founder's theory that "public chains must pass a key test," but his approach is entirely different. His attitude is quite straightforward:

**First, Solana cannot become an exclusive tool for any individual or team. Second, if the chain is not continuously optimized and iterated based on developers' and actual users' needs, it won't survive.**

The core message is: **The fundamental reason a public chain exists is because people are actually using it.**

What does this mean for the entire crypto industry? Solana is pulling the concept of "decentralization" back from empty rhetoric into practical application. No longer just storytelling, but looking at whether developers truly choose you and whether there is real revenue flow on the chain. Once there is sustained transaction volume and fee generation, a positive cycle can form—these revenues are reinvested into improving the protocol itself.

But this path also comes at a cost. Overemphasizing efficiency and market orientation may weaken some "idealistic" decentralization principles. Continuous technological evolution also means more complex system architectures and trial-and-error. At the community level, disagreements can easily arise due to differing priorities.

My personal view is: **A public chain is not a philosophical paper; it is a system that must operate stably over the long term.**

If a chain lacks: developer choice, real user needs, and sustainable on-chain revenue, then no matter how beautiful the theoretical design, it will ultimately just be words on a white paper.

Solana's strategic logic is very pragmatic: it does not attempt to solve all problems at once but prioritizes fixing the "bleeding pain points," allowing the protocol to earn from actual transaction value, and using these earnings to drive upstream technological improvements.

**Ultimately, the difference lies here:**

One side cares about "under what conditions users can leave this chain," the other cares about "why users are willing to stay on this chain."

There is no absolute right or wrong between these two approaches, but the market's final answer will often side with—those public chains that are repeatedly validated and used by the real world.