Solana prioritizes raw throughput over fee markets. EIP-1559's base fee mechanism introduces latency for fee estimation, which contradicts Solana's design goal of sub-second finality and maximizing hardware utilization.
solana-and-the-rise-of-high-performance-chains
Blog
Why Solana's Lack of EIP-1559 is a Deliberate Resilience Choice
EIP-1559's base fee volatility is antithetical to Solana's core design. This analysis argues Solana's static, local fee market is a superior choice for high-frequency state updates, making it the resilient backbone for DeFi protocols like Jupiter, Raydium, and Drift.
introduction
THE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
Introduction
Solana's rejection of EIP-1559 is a calculated architectural decision prioritizing network throughput and state growth over fee predictability.
The network's fee structure is a subsidy for state growth. Solana's low, predictable fees (lamports per signature) encourage applications like Helium and Hivemapper to write massive amounts of on-chain data, a use case economically throttled by EIP-1559's variable pricing.
EIP-1559 is a demand-management tool for congested networks. Solana's scaling thesis, via parallel execution with Sealevel and localized fee markets, aims to make congestion economically irrelevant, rendering EIP-1559's core function unnecessary.
Evidence: During the 2022-2023 bear market, Solana processed over 100 billion transactions with stable, sub-penny fees, demonstrating its fee model's resilience under load where Ethereum L1 would have experienced volatile base fee spikes.
key-trends
DESIGN FOR SPEED
Executive Summary: The High-Frequency Imperative
Solana's rejection of EIP-1559 is a core architectural decision, not an oversight, prioritizing predictable micro-costs and maximal throughput for high-frequency applications.
01
The Problem: EIP-1559's Latency Tax
Ethereum's base fee mechanism introduces variable, unpredictable block-to-block latency. For HFT and real-time applications like Drift Protocol or Jupiter, this creates unacceptable jitter. The fee burn also removes capital from the validator ecosystem, a trade-off for a chain with lower throughput.
~12s
Block Time
Variable
Fee Latency
02
The Solution: Priority Fee Auction
Solana uses a pure priority fee auction atop a negligible base fee. This creates deterministic cost-for-speed for users and direct, unburned revenue for validators. The system is optimized for the ~400ms block time, making fee estimation trivial for bots and dApps like Phoenix and Mango Markets.
- Predictable Micro-Costs: Sub-cent fees with clear speed premium.
- Validator Incentive Alignment: Fees reward stakers directly, securing the network.
$0.0001
Typical Fee
~400ms
Block Time
03
The Trade-off: Congestion & Spam
Without a dynamic base fee to regulate demand, Solana is vulnerable to spam during mempool floods. This was evident in the NFT mint and pump.fun congestion events. The mitigation is local fee markets and client-side filtering, pushing complexity to the edge rather than the core protocol.
- Localized Impact: Congestion affects specific state accounts, not the whole chain.
- Requires Sophisticated Clients: Wallets and RPCs must manage transaction lifecycle.
100k+
TPS Spikes
Localized
Congestion
04
The Competitor: Sui's Hybrid Model
Sui implements a storage fund and epoch-based fee markets, blending Solana's speed with future cost predictability. This highlights the spectrum of design choices. Solana's model is the extreme optimization for hardware scaling, betting that raw throughput solves most economic problems.
- Storage Fund: Recycled fees subsidize future storage costs.
- Epoch Stability: Fees are stable for longer periods.
Epoch-Based
Fee Model
Sub-second
Finality
thesis-statement
THE RESILIENCE TRADEOFF
The Core Thesis: Predictability Over Scarcity
Solana's fee market design prioritizes predictable transaction costs and network stability over the deflationary tokenomics of EIP-1559.
Solana's fee market is a priority queue, not a first-price auction. This design guarantees transaction inclusion for users who pay a localized priority fee, making cost forecasting possible for applications like Jupiter and Phantom. Predictability is a core requirement for high-frequency DeFi and consumer applications.
EIP-1559's scarcity mechanism introduces volatile base fee burns, which creates economic uncertainty for users. Solana's model treats block space as abundant, aligning with its parallel execution architecture via Sealevel. The network's resilience depends on maximizing throughput, not artificially restricting supply.
The deliberate choice is operational resilience over monetary policy. Ethereum's fee burn is a deflationary lever; Solana's localized fee markets are a congestion management tool. This reflects a fundamental divergence in chain philosophy: store-of-value settlement versus high-performance state machine.
Evidence: During the 2024 memecoin frenzy, Solana's average transaction fee remained under $0.01 despite record demand, while its prioritization logic allowed critical arbitrage and liquidations to proceed. This contrasts with Ethereum L1, where similar events cause base fee spikes exceeding 100 gwei.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY DEEP DIVE
Fee Market Architecture: Ethereum vs. Solana
A comparison of core fee market mechanisms, highlighting how Solana's rejection of EIP-1559's complexity is a deliberate choice for high-throughput system resilience.
| Architectural Feature | Ethereum (Post-EIP-1559) | Solana (Localized Fee Markets) |
|---|---|---|
Core Fee Mechanism | First-price auction with base fee burn | Localized, stateless first-price auction |
Fee Predictability | Base fee adjusts per block (target 50% full) | No global base fee; priority fees set per instruction |
State Bloat Mitigation | EIP-1559 burn removes ETH supply | No burn; relies on state rent and high throughput for amortization |
Congestion Handling | Global fee spike for network-wide demand | Micro-auctions for specific contested state (e.g., popular NFT mint) |
Max Theoretical TPS (Layer 1) | ~15-45 transactions per second | ~50,000+ transactions per second (theoretical) |
Transaction Finality (Time to 99.9%) | ~12-15 minutes (15 block confirmations) | < 1 second (400ms slot time + vote finality) |
Fee Market Complexity | High (User must estimate base + priority) | Lower (User sets priority fee per compute unit) |
Resilience to Spam/DoS | Moderate (expensive for attacker) | High (localized fees protect uncontested state) |
deep-dive
THE RESILIENCE TRADEOFF
Deep Dive: Volatility is the Enemy of Composable State
Solana's rejection of EIP-1559 is a structural choice that prioritizes predictable state growth over fee market smoothing.
Solana's fee model is a static priority fee. This design guarantees composability for high-frequency DeFi by ensuring transaction ordering is predictable. EIP-1559's variable base fee introduces latency uncertainty that breaks atomic arbitrage.
Ethereum's EIP-1559 creates a volatile base fee that burns. This mechanism stabilizes block space demand but makes future state costs unpredictable. For protocols like Uniswap or Jupiter, this fee volatility is a systemic risk to cross-contract execution.
The resilience choice is between fee predictability and demand smoothing. Solana's architecture, used by Drift and Marginfi, treats state growth as the primary constraint. A stable fee model lets applications plan for worst-case congestion, not chase a moving target.
Evidence: During the March 2024 memecoin surge, Solana's priority fees spiked but remained a known input. On Ethereum, the same event would have triggered a base fee auction, making the cost of a 10-transaction arbitrage bundle impossible to estimate upfront.
counter-argument
THE RESILIENCE TRADEOFF
Counter-Argument: The 'Inefficient Auction' Critique
Solana's fee market is a deliberate design choice that prioritizes network liveness and censorship resistance over perfect economic efficiency.
First-Price Auctions Ensure Liveness: Solana's simple first-price auction for block space is computationally trivial. This minimizes consensus overhead and prevents the network from stalling during congestion, a critical resilience feature for a chain targeting global-scale throughput.
EIP-1559 Adds Consensus Complexity: Ethereum's EIP-1559 requires validators to compute a base fee and track a target block size. This introduces stateful logic into the consensus layer, adding latency and complexity that conflicts with Solana's optimization for parallel execution.
The Censorship Resistance Mandate: Solana's design mandates that any validator can include any transaction. A complex fee market like EIP-1559, where the base fee can be gamed, creates a centralizing vector for block builders like those seen in Ethereum's MEV-Boost ecosystem.
Evidence from Network Stress Tests: During the 2022-2023 congestion events, Solana's TPS collapsed but blocks continued. This proves the system's liveness guarantee held, even as user experience degraded—a trade-off favoring the network's survival over individual transaction efficiency.
case-study
SOLANA'S FEE PHILOSOPHY
Case Study: Fee Models in Action
While Ethereum's EIP-1559 burns fees to create deflationary pressure, Solana's fixed-fee model is a deliberate architectural choice for high-throughput resilience.
01
The Problem: Fee Auction Congestion
EIP-1559's priority fee auction creates unpredictable costs during high demand, as seen in Ethereum's $100+ gas spikes. This directly conflicts with Solana's design goal of sub-$0.01 predictable fees for consumer applications.
- Auction dynamics slow down block inclusion.
- User experience degrades for high-frequency use cases like DeFi and gaming.
100x
Fee Variance
~$0.0025
Solana Target
02
The Solution: Localized Fee Markets
Solana uses state-specific congestion control, where fees spike only for the specific program (e.g., a popular NFT mint) causing congestion, not the entire network. This is enforced by priority fees per instruction.
- Isolates congestion to hot spots.
- Preserves baseline throughput of ~3,000 TPS for all other transactions.
3k+
Base TPS
Targeted
Congestion
03
The Trade-off: No Base Fee Burn
Solana forgoes EIP-1559's deflationary 'burn' mechanism. All fees are paid to validators as protocol-subsidized rewards, ensuring security during low-fee periods. This aligns with a high-inflation, high-security initial model, transitioning to fee-based rewards.
- Strengthens validator incentives for network security.
- Avoids deflationary pressure that could reduce on-chain liquidity.
100%
To Validators
0%
Burned
04
The Resilience Test: Post-FTX Throughput
The network stress after the FTX collapse proved the model. Despite transaction volumes surging to ~4,000 TPS, the core fee mechanism held. Congestion was managed via local fees, not a global auction, preventing a total network stall.
- Validators were compensated for processing the spam load.
- Critical transactions could pay priority fees to get through.
4k
Peak TPS
No Stall
Network Outcome
takeaways
SOLANA'S FEE PHILOSOPHY
Key Takeaways for Builders and Architects
Solana's rejection of EIP-1559 is a core architectural choice, not an oversight. It prioritizes predictable state growth and network resilience over fee burning and variable blocks.
01
The Problem: State Bloat is the Real Bottleneck
EIP-1559's variable block size can mask the true cost of state growth. Solana's fixed compute unit (CU) per block forces explicit pricing for the network's most scarce resource: RAM and storage.\n- State Rent: Accounts must pay for storage, preventing indefinite bloat.\n- Predictable Load: Fixed blocks simplify validator hardware requirements and long-term scaling forecasts.
~4MB
Block Size
50k+
TPS Capacity
02
The Solution: Priority Fees as Congestion Insurance
Without base fee burns, Solana uses a pure priority fee auction. This creates a direct, transparent market for block space during congestion, aligning with its high-throughput, low-latency design goals.\n- No Fee Volatility: Base transaction cost is stable and minimal (~$0.00025).\n- Explicit Bidding: Users pay for urgency, not for unpredictable network conditions.
~$0.00025
Base Fee
100%
To Validators
03
The Trade-off: Simplicity Over Deflationary Tokenomics
Solana sacrifices the deflationary pressure and "ultrasound money" narrative of EIP-1559 for operational simplicity and validator incentives. This avoids the complex fee market dynamics seen on Ethereum, Polygon, and Avalanche.\n- Validator Alignment: Fees directly reward network security and performance.\n- No Hidden Subsidies: State growth is paid for upfront, not through future inflation or fee burns.
0%
Burned
~5.8%
Inflation Rate
04
The Resilience Choice: Predictability in Hyper-Parallel Execution
EIP-1559's elasticity is antithetical to Solana's Sealevel parallel runtime. Fixed resource limits per block are essential for scheduling thousands of non-conflicting transactions simultaneously across cores.\n- Deterministic Scheduling: Validators can pre-compute execution paths without fee volatility interference.\n- Hardware Optimization: Enables validators to run on standardized, high-performance setups.
Parallel
Execution
~200ms
Slot Time
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall