Solana processes 8x transactions more than BNB Chain – Details

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-03-04Last updated on 2026-03-04

Abstract

While the broader crypto market moved sideways in February 2026, Solana's on-chain activity surged, processing 3.4 billion transactions—an 11% increase from January. This volume was eight times greater than that of the next largest network, BNB Chain, which handled 424 million transactions. Although Ethereum's mainnet saw only 62 million transactions, its Layer-2 networks like Base and Arbitrum absorbed significant activity. Solana also saw strong institutional support with nearly $950 million in net inflows into its ETFs. Despite a 12% monthly price decline to around $90, realized loss data suggests the worst of the selling pressure may be over, with the market entering a more stable phase.

While the broader crypto market spent February 2026 moving sideways amid global uncertainty, one ecosystem seemed to follow a different path.

New data from DeFi Dev Corp. (DFDV) shows that Solana [SOL] processed over 3.4 billion transactions in February, marking an 11% increase compared to January.

This is noteworthy because during the same period, major networks like Ethereum [ETH] and Bitcoin [BTC] saw activity slow down as market sentiment weakened.

How are other chains performing?

Following behind Solana is the second-largest network, BNB Chain, which handled around 424 million transactions.

This means that Solana processed about eight times more activity than its closest competitor, dwarfing other networks’ on-chain activity.

The data also reveals an important trend within the Ethereum ecosystem wherein Ethereum’s main network recorded only 62 million transactions, placing it near the bottom of the list.

Is Ethereum in trouble?

Even though Ethereum’s main network saw significantly fewer transactions, this does not mean the ecosystem as a whole is declining.

Instead, much of the activity has moved to Layer-2 networks, which offer lower costs and faster transactions.

For example, Base, the Layer-2 network backed by Coinbase, processed 316 million transactions, showing strong retail activity. Meanwhile, Arbitrum recorded 123 million, and Optimism recorded 68 million, and continued to see stable usage.

This suggests that Ethereum’s biggest competitor may not be another Layer-1 chain. Instead, its own scaling networks are gradually absorbing most of the activity, though even these networks still fall far behind Solana’s transaction volume.

Solana witnsses strong institutional push

Beyond network activity, Solana also saw strong support from institutional investors.

Since their launch, Spot Solana ETFs have attracted around $950 million in net inflows with mostly inflow streaks, according to data from Farside Investors.

Meanwhile, on the price front, like many assets that struggled to find direction in February, SOL too witnessed a monthly decline of over 12%, but at press time, it traded around $90.09, rising 7.46% within 24 hours.

Moreover, this coincided with AMBCrypto’s report about Solana holding ~53% of the $15.34 billion USDC supply, making it one of the largest hubs for stablecoin activity.

What is the data saying?

According to Santiment data, Solana’s Net Realized Profit/Loss remained largely negative throughout late January and February, with most bars turning red. This signals that many holders were selling their tokens at a loss as prices declined.

Furthermore, a major spike in early February shows losses nearing $1.3 billion, suggesting a wave of panic selling as SOL dropped sharply from around $140 to below $90.

Since then, the size of the loss bars has gradually decreased, indicating that selling pressure is easing as the price stabilizes between $80 and $90.

This trend suggests that much of the forced selling may already have occurred, with the market entering a more stable phase.

Yet, despite the strong numbers, an important question remains: can this momentum continue in the months ahead, or will market conditions begin to slow it down?


Final Summary

  • Processing 3.4 billion transactions in a single month places Solana far ahead of competing blockchains in raw activity.
  • Realized loss data shows that much of the panic selling may have already occurred, with selling pressure gradually easing as the price stabilizes.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QHow many transactions did Solana process in February 2026, and what was the percentage increase compared to January?

ASolana processed over 3.4 billion transactions in February 2026, marking an 11% increase compared to January.

QAccording to the article, how many more transactions did Solana process than its closest competitor, BNB Chain?

ASolana processed about eight times more transactions than BNB Chain, handling over 3.4 billion compared to BNB Chain's 424 million.

QWhat reason is given for Ethereum's mainnet having relatively low transaction numbers, and which Layer-2 networks are mentioned as handling significant volume?

AThe article states that much of Ethereum's activity has moved to Layer-2 networks, which offer lower costs and faster transactions. The Layer-2 networks mentioned are Base (316M transactions), Arbitrum (123M), and Optimism (68M).

QWhat was the net inflow amount for Spot Solana ETFs since their launch, according to data from Farside Investors?

ASince their launch, Spot Solana ETFs attracted around $950 million in net inflows.

QWhat does the negative Net Realized Profit/Loss data for Solana signal, and what does the decreasing size of the loss bars indicate?

AThe negative Net Realized Profit/Loss data signals that many holders were selling their SOL tokens at a loss as prices declined. The decreasing size of the loss bars indicates that selling pressure is easing as the price stabilizes.

Related Reads

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

**Summary: A Conversation with Jia Hang on Two Decades of China's Payment Globalization** Jia Hang, a veteran with over twenty years in payments, reflects on China's attempts to build a global payment network through three key phases: UnionPay (card networks), Alipay+ (digital wallets), and now, stablecoins. His journey began at UnionPay International, aiming to establish China's card network abroad. While successful in following Chinese tourists ("where Chinese go, UnionPay goes"), it struggled to achieve true global scale. The core lesson: card networks like Visa/Mastercard's unassailable advantage isn't just technical standards, but their deeply entrenched **governance and profit-sharing models** that create powerful network effects. Competing as the "same species" is nearly impossible. At Ant Group, he led Alipay+, a strategy to bypass card networks by interconnecting local e-wallets worldwide. While innovative, it faced a similar ceiling. Mobile QR payments and card swipes were essentially **the same species competing for the same pie**, lacking a disruptive value proposition for users or a sustainable new incentive model to replace the card networks' established flywheel. Today, at Singapore's DCS, Jia focuses on stablecoin-based payments. He argues stablecoins represent a fundamental shift. They are not competing with Visa for consumer payments but challenging the **traditional banking and account system for value movement**. Products like "U Cards" (stablecoin-linked payment cards) are transitional, leveraging existing card networks for acceptance while building new rails. The real potential lies in stablecoins enabling seamless, low-cost global value transfer, potentially reorganizing the financial infrastructure around **accounts rather than cards**. Jia believes stablecoin adoption for local retail payments, cross-border transactions, and as high-yield savings vehicles is becoming irreversible. This could gradually reduce reliance on traditional fiat channels, especially in regions with weak currencies or capital controls. The quest for the "next global payment network" continues, now centered on whether stablecoins can successfully bridge Web2 and Web3, establish new governance, and create compelling user value beyond mere cost reduction.

marsbit2m ago

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

marsbit2m ago

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

Circle's stock price has plunged approximately 76% from its 2023 peak, reflecting a major market revaluation. Despite this, Circle President Heath Tarbert emphasized the company's focus on long-term execution and its dominant position with USDC's $73 billion circulation across 34 blockchains. The competitive landscape is intensifying. A new consortium-backed stablecoin, Open USD, is attempting to challenge incumbents by sharing reserve yields with partners. More significantly, Visa's new stablecoin platform, initially supporting Open USD while also being compatible with USDC, could erode Circle's network effects. In response, Circle is expanding into real-world payments through partnerships like the one with Japan's JCB. Separately, Tether (USDT) faces a two-year compliance window under new U.S. regulations, requiring it to adjust its reserve composition away from assets like Bitcoin and loans towards cash and U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, Standard Chartered-backed fintech firm Dian Dian is poised to launch a licensed HKD-pegged stablecoin (HKDAP), moving the industry into a phase where the real test is integrating licensed stablecoins into actual payment flows and corporate treasury systems. The sharp decline in Circle's stock underscores a broader shift: the stablecoin market is moving from a winner-takes-all dynamic to a multi-player competitive arena where execution, compliance, and real-world utility are becoming paramount.

marsbit3m ago

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

marsbit3m ago

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight News13m ago

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight News13m ago

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit30m ago

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit30m ago

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手42m ago

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手42m ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SOL (SOL) are presented below.

活动图片