Blockchains under the microscope. A recent study published by ARK Invest and Glassnode evaluates the degree of decentralization of the Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana networks through several technical criteria. The report analyzes these infrastructures according to auditability, security, governance and ownership distribution. By aggregating the different indicators used, the results rank Bitcoin first for overall decentralization, followed by Ethereum then Solana. The researchers emphasize, however, that no network outperforms its competitors on all the dimensions studied.
Accessibility of material and concentration of validation
Access to independent verification depends largely on the cost of the hardware needed to operate a full node. According to the report's estimates, system requirements cost around $289 for Bitcoin, compared to $730 for Ethereum and $21,478 for Solana. This difference restricts the installation of Solana nodes in individuals and favors the use of professional servers.
Block production also has very different concentration profiles. On Bitcoin, Foundry USA, AntPool and F2Pool together exceed the threshold of 51% of computing power retained by the study. On Ethereum, Lido, Binance and Kraken concentrate around 39% of ether staked, thus crossing the critical threshold of 33% used by researchers. The Nakamoto coefficient is therefore established at 3 for the two networks.
This measure must, however, be interpreted with caution: mining pools and staking services bring together operators who are not necessarily controlled by the same entity. In particular, miners can change pools, while Lido distributes the deposited ethers between several node operators.
On Solana, the report's summary table sets the Nakamoto coefficient at 19. This value reflects a wider distribution of delegated stake between validators, even if it is based on a control threshold of 33%, different from that applied to Bitcoin.
Bitcoin Ethereum and Solana: Geographic distribution, governance and holding of tokens
The physical location of equipment then influences the resistance of networks to outages, regulatory interventions and pressures placed on their hosts. According to data included in the report, 68% of Solana's infrastructure is in Europe and almost all of it operates in data centers. The geographic figures for Solana, however, come from data dating back to November 2024.
Conversely, 63% of Bitcoin nodes use the Tor network, making them more difficult to locate and coordinate. The network infrastructure also has a more balanced geographic spread, with approximately 47% of nodes in Europe and 35% in North America.
In terms of governance, Bitcoin applies a decentralized improvement process without an authority having the power to modify the protocol alone. Developments generally go through BIP proposals and require coordination between developers, miners, node operators and users.
Ethereum relies on All Core Developers meetings to coordinate its updates. The Ethereum Foundation retains a role of influence and coordination, without having unilateral authority over the protocol. Solana adopts a more structured organization: the Solana Foundation plays a more direct role in the development and coordination of its ecosystem.
Finally, the analysis of token ownership shows more dispersed ownership on Bitcoin. The authors explain this situation in particular by the functioning of proof of work: miners must regularly sell part of their rewards to cover their equipment and electricity expenses. Ethereum occupies a middle position, while Solana has a greater concentration in the more well-funded wallet categories.
