#Strategy加仓BTC Why do some public blockchains survive while others gradually fade away?

Recently, I saw Solana founder Toly respond to Ethereum founder Vitalik’s views, which suddenly made me think of this question.

Vitalik once mentioned the concept that "public chains must pass the exit test"—users should be able to leave at any time. It sounds very reasonable. But Toly’s answer is completely different. He said very straightforwardly:

The premise for a chain’s existence is that someone is genuinely using it.

This sounds like common sense, but it actually highlights the contradiction within the industry. Many public chain projects focus on perfecting theoretical frameworks but ignore a fundamental reality—without developers, no real transactions, and no matter how grand the vision, it’s just empty talk.

Solana’s logic is very pragmatic:

First, it doesn’t rely on any individual or team (a necessary condition for decentralization).
Second, it must continuously adjust based on the real needs of developers and users. If not, this chain will definitely encounter problems.

In other words, a public chain is not a philosophical paper; it’s a business system that requires long-term operation. What is the key to its survival? Transaction volume that can generate revenue, attracting developers, and applications that create value.

Many chains are currently facing this issue—the huge gap between idealistic decentralization pursuits and actual user needs. Emphasizing pure decentralization might limit efficiency, but sacrificing principles entirely for speed is also wrong. That’s why communities of different chains often have ideological disputes.

But the market won’t vote for you just because your ideals are perfect. The market will favor public chains that have continuous transaction income, active developers, and genuine user engagement.

Solana’s approach is: identify the most urgent pain points now and prioritize solving them. Then, let the protocol earn revenue from transaction value and reinvest that into technological upgrades. This creates a positive feedback loop.

In comparison, Vitalik focuses on "how users can leave gracefully," while Toly focuses on "why users are willing to stay." Neither approach is inherently right or wrong, but time will tell. Ultimately, the public chains rewarded by the market will be those repeatedly used by the real world and generating genuine value.

What do you think about this difference?