2026 Solana Summit Held: From TVL to TVS, What Is the Real Gap Between Solana and Ethereum L2

TVL (Total Value Locked) (total locked-in amount) as a core metric for measuring DeFi activity on-chain has long been an important yardstick for the market to judge the competitiveness of public chains. Data from early 2026 shows that Solana’s DeFi TVL is approximately $9.228 billion, while the TVL of the major Ethereum L2 set is about $9.05 billion—both are almost on par. However, if we shift our attention from “active locked assets” to “Total Value Secured” (TVS), the gap immediately widens to an entire order of magnitude—Ethereum L2’s TVS is as high as $40.5 billion, while Solana’s data in this dimension is almost not in the same range. Behind this structural mismatch, is it due to differences in user behavior, or a fundamental divergence in ecosystem positioning? On April 13, the Solana Summit officially opened in New York, providing a fresh window for observing this diverging landscape.

The structural truth behind DeFi TVL catching up

Does TVL closeness mean Solana has already acquired the same scale of capital attractiveness as Ethereum L2? The answer requires breaking down the statistical scope of the metrics. DeFi TVL measures active funds locked in DeFi applications such as decentralized exchanges and lending protocols; while TVS covers all assets bridged to L2, including funds that merely sit in wallets without participating in any protocol. The difference in measurement scopes means TVS can reflect the “capital stock base” settled on-chain, while TVL more reflects the “funds’ turnover activity.” Solana’s TVL being on par with L2 indicates that the capital utilization efficiency of its DeFi ecosystem is not inferior; but the $4.05 billion difference in L2 TVS versus Solana in this dimension reveals a deeper fact: after many users bridge Ethereum assets to L2, they do not further deploy them, whereas funds on Solana are more inclined to be directly invested into on-chain economic activities. This is not a matter of superiority or inferiority; it is a fundamental split in the capital behavior patterns of the two chains.

Where the huge gap in TVS comes from

Ethereum L2’s total secured assets are far larger than its DeFi TVL, and this is not a coincidence. L2 networks inherit the security and liquidity of the Ethereum mainnet, naturally becoming the first stop for capital overflow within the Ethereum ecosystem. After users bridge ETH or stablecoins from the mainnet to Arbitrum, Optimism, or Base, a significant portion of these funds remain locked for the long term, waiting for market timing before redeploying. This “reservoir” effect makes L2’s TVS far higher than TVL, forming a deep defense moat for the Ethereum ecosystem. For Solana, because it is an independent L1 architecture, the path for capital to enter is direct on-chain top-ups rather than bridge-based settlement and accumulation, so the gap between TVS and TVL is naturally smaller. Therefore, comparing the “scale” of the two chains using TVL is no different from measuring a deposit balance by turnover rate—both metrics measure different dimensions. The real competitive focus is not on the numbers themselves, but on how quickly and how frequently these funds are deployed, and how much economic value the chain can capture from them.

Who is more active in on-chain economic activity

In terms of activity level, Solana shows a clear advantage. Data from early 2026 shows Solana’s daily active addresses remain stable in the range of 3 million to 6 million, and the peak once exceeded 7 million. Ethereum mainnet’s daily active addresses are about 980,000; even after counting the major L2s, overall user activity still has a noticeable gap compared with Solana. This difference is highly correlated with transaction costs: Solana’s fee per transaction is about $0.00025, which is almost negligible, while although the average transaction fee on Ethereum mainnet has fallen significantly from its historical peak, L2 transaction fees still show obvious fluctuations. High-frequency, small-amount transactions naturally favor low-fee networks; as a result, Solana’s user composition leans more toward retail users and high-frequency scenarios. However, does the leading position in active addresses necessarily translate into ecosystem advantages? It depends on whether on-chain applications can convert user traffic into protocol revenue and retain developers.

Divergence in fee revenue and stablecoin supply

In terms of how effectively each chain captures on-chain economic value, the two chains have taken completely different paths. Data from early 2026 shows Solana’s 24-hour on-chain fees are about $1.03 million, while the fees of the major Ethereum L2 composite in the same period are only about $182,000. Solana’s fee revenue far exceeds the total of the L2s; this contrast means the market pricing of Solana’s block space is far higher than the “commoditized” level of L2. In stablecoin supply, Solana holds about $14.068 billion in stablecoin supply, also ahead of the major Ethereum L2 composite at about $10.12 billion. Stablecoin supply is a key indicator for measuring a chain’s maturity as a “transaction settlement layer”—a higher stablecoin stock means the underlying liquidity for on-chain payments, trading, and lending is sufficient. Solana’s lead in this dimension, combined with its high activity, forms a logical closed loop: more users conduct more transactions, needing more stablecoins as a medium, which in turn increases on-chain fee revenue. This positive feedback loop is reinforcing Solana’s ecosystem positioning as the preferred chain for high-frequency trading.

RWA and institutional entry

Data from March 2026 shows that the tokenized total value of Solana’s real-world assets on-chain has already exceeded $2 billion, and the number of holders first surpassed Ethereum, reaching about 182,000 people. This breakthrough reflects institutional capital’s recognition of Solana’s infrastructure. At the same time, Solana’s regulatory status in the United States has also made tangible progress: the U.S. SEC and CFTC have officially recognized Solana as a digital commodity, providing a legal basis for its staking rewards and institutional compliance. The Solana Summit opening today, themed “Washington x Wall Street,” covers the full chain from crypto policy in the White House to asset allocation on Wall Street—including institutional capital discussions with executives from traditional financial institutions such as Fidelity Asset Management and Citibank. This agenda setting clearly conveys a signal: Solana is transitioning from a “high-performance public chain for developers” to a “modern financial infrastructure for institutions and regulators.”

Differences in drivers of user activity

Behind Solana’s high daily active addresses are structural drivers of programmatic trading and automated market makers. Data shows that programmatic AMMs account for more than 60% of trading volume on Solana decentralized exchanges, meaning that a large share of on-chain activity is not manually operated by retail users, but driven by automated strategies and algorithms. This structure brings high trading volume and active addresses, but it also brings volatility: Solana’s DEX trading volume fell to $55.5 billion in March 2026, down 58% from the peak in January. By contrast, the growth of active addresses for Ethereum L2 relies more on the organic diffusion of applications and the natural fragmentation of ecosystem projects; user stickiness is relatively stable but the expansion rate is slower. Differences between these two user growth models will be tested in the next phase of the market cycle—when macro liquidity tightens, will automated-trading-driven traffic be more resilient than organic user growth? The answer to this question will determine the two chains’ ability to withstand pressure in a bear-market environment.

A re-examination of liquidity depth

Liquidity depth is a core metric for determining whether a chain can support large-scale capital inflows and outflows. Data from early 2026 shows that although Solana’s on-chain DEX daily trading volume has declined, its stablecoin supply exceeds $14 billion, providing substantial liquidity pools for DeFi protocols. Ethereum L2’s liquidity advantage is reflected in asset diversity—assets settled on L2 not only include ETH and stablecoins, but also various yield-bearing assets and tokens bridged across chains; this diversity provides broader space for complex DeFi portfolio strategies. According to Gate market data, as of April 13, 2026, the SOL price has undergone a certain degree of market adjustment, but this has not weakened Solana’s performance in indicators related to on-chain activity. The essence of liquidity competition is competition in capital efficiency; Solana’s high-frequency, low-fee model and Ethereum L2’s asset-diversity model represent two different ways of organizing liquidity. At present, there is no evidence that one has an absolute advantage.

Summary

In 2026, the competition between Solana and Ethereum L2 presents a unique pattern of “TVL catching up, TVS differing vastly.” Solana demonstrates significant advantages in daily active addresses, stablecoin supply, and on-chain fee revenue; its low-fee, high-throughput characteristics are attracting institutional capital to accelerate entry through RWA and compliant channels. Ethereum L2, meanwhile, remains in the lead in the scale of secured asset accumulation and asset diversity, relying on the deep moat of TVS to hold onto the fundamental base of “value storage.” The Solana Summit opening today brings together policymakers, traditional financial institutions, and ecosystem developers, marking that competition has upgraded from a simple comparison of on-chain data to a comprehensive contest of infrastructure capabilities and regulatory fit. The evolution paths of the two chains are moving toward asymmetrical convergence—Solana extending upward from the high-frequency trading layer into institutional finance, and Ethereum L2 extending downward from the secure settlement layer into consumer-level applications. In the future, the deciding factor of the landscape may not be whose technology is superior, but who can faster complete the business closed loops within their respective ecosystems that have not yet been closed.

FAQ

Q: Solana’s TVL is close to Ethereum L2’s; why is the TVS gap so vast?

A: TVL measures active funds locked in DeFi protocols, while TVS covers all assets bridged to L2 (including idle funds). As the first stop for Ethereum mainnet capital overflow, a large amount of capital settles in wallets waiting for deployment timing, causing TVS to be far higher than TVL. As an independent L1, Solana has a different path for capital entry, so this structural difference naturally exists.

Q: Solana’s daily active addresses far exceed Ethereum L2’s—does this mean users are migrating?

A: The leading position in active addresses does reflect Solana’s appeal in retail and high-frequency trading scenarios, but this lead is largely driven by low fees and programmatic trading. Whether users are “migrating” still needs to be observed in terms of the net direction of cross-chain capital flows and the extent of migration intent in the developer ecosystem. A single active-address metric alone is not enough to draw a migration conclusion.

Q: The Solana Summit opens today—what potential impacts could it have on the market?

A: The summit focuses on policy making and institutional adoption. The agenda covers discussions on crypto policy in the White House and capital allocation by institutions such as Fidelity and Citibank. These high-spec institutional dialogues themselves are a signal of Solana ecosystem maturity, but their real impact on the market depends on whether specific policy rollouts occur after the summit or whether institutional products are introduced.

Q: How will the future competitive landscape between Solana and Ethereum L2 evolve?

A: Competition between the two chains is shifting from a contest of technical parameters to division of ecosystem roles. Solana is expected to continue expanding in high-frequency trading, consumer-level applications, and RWA tokenization; Ethereum L2 may maintain advantages in complex DeFi composability, asset diversity, and an institutional-grade clearing and settlement layer. The two may not be a zero-sum game; complementary division and cooperation is also possible.

Q: How should we rationally view the TVL closeness as a data signal?

A: TVL closeness is an objective reflection of activity in the Solana DeFi ecosystem, but it does not mean the two chains’ overall competitiveness is on par. Significant differences still exist across dimensions such as the scale of secured assets, the scale of the developer ecosystem, and liquidity diversity. Investors should view TVL as an “activity indicator” rather than an “overall strength indicator,” and avoid over-interpreting the signal from a single metric.