Solana beats market with $5.84B daily volume, but SOL slips 6% – What now?

ambcryptoPublished on 2025-08-18Last updated on 2025-08-19

Key Takeaways

Solana inflows surged in the previous week, with ETFs and ETPs leading. Still, there was a lot more bridging from other chains into Solana. This raised the amount of revenue generated.


Solana [SOL] has maintained a strong trend in price action and real world use cases. The inflows in the past one week surpassed $400 million that included Solana-based products and bridged assets.

In the past 24 hours, Solana has declined by 6%, but was up when viewed from a weekly timeframe scale. Interestingly, the daily volume was at $5.84 billion, up by 58% at the time of writing.

The altcoins maintained serious capital pull at a time the market is correcting. The total crypto market cap was down about 3.56%. That said, why was Solana different in terms of money flow?

What’s driving inflows?

Institutions and Solana products like ETFs and ETPs were responsible for driving this charge. As per Farside Investors data, the total inflow of REX-Osprey (SSK) was $166.7 million.

Last week alone, more than $176 million was injected. This took the month-to-date total to $199 million, and year-to-date slightly surpassed $1 billion.

Only Ethereum [ETH] and Bitcoin [BTC] had higher weekly inflows, of $2.87 billion and $552 million, respectively.

Source: CoinShares

The total assets under management on Solana blockchain reached at $2.84 billion.

More capital entered SOL through bridging. Most of the money (roughly 62%) came from Ethereum network. That was about $126 million from a total of $230 million over a similar period.

About $56 million was bridged from Arbitrum One [ARB] while $20 million left Base chain. Other chains like Polygon [POL], Avalanche [AVAX] and Sui Network [SUI] contributed amounts less than $10 million.

solsol

Source: Solana Floor/X

Also, capital from whales from trading of memecoins.

Smart Money flows were dominating in terms of ROI over the past seven. Memecoins built on Solana were in a pullback face. Whales were rotating their capital into the speculative assets.

Still, minting drew more money. Circle minted more than $1.25 billion USDC. The total on the network now stood at $24 billion.

Stablecoins were generally rising in supply across multiple blockchains, as noted earlier in AMBCrypto’s analysis.

This surge in inflows and activity has resulted in higher revenue.

Solana network revenue soaring

Particularly, activities on Solana-based platforms like Jupiter [JUP], Raydium [RAY], LetsBONKfun, Pump.fun are the main revenue drivers.

Pump.fun reclaimed its lead for the second week with $10 million generated. The total for all dApps was $35 million.

Solana led other chains by revenue generation for 22 consecutive weeks, per Solana Floor. Tron [TRX], Ethereum and Bitcoin followed.

sol Solanasol Solana

Source: Blockworks

However, Solana continues to face backlash due to its wide acquisition by venture capital firms. The current inflow should therefore be viewed on all fronts.

At times, transactions like these are to lure gullible traders and trap them. Still, the outlook of Solana stayed bullish, and the inflows could be a signal that another price surge was building up.

Share

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit19m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit19m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit23m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit23m ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit59m ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit59m 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