The statement “Solana is Bitcoin 3.0” sparked debate in the crypto community following an extensive analysis by Justin Bons, founder and CIO of Cyber Capital. According to his stance, Solana surpasses Bitcoin in decentralization, scalability, programmability, privacy, security, and scarcity, based exclusively on objective and verifiable metrics.
The approach goes beyond the narrative. Bons argues that, when comparing the real data of both networks, Solana represents a technological evolution aligned with the original cypherpunk values, while Bitcoin would have been limited by its own design.
Decentralization and scalability: metrics vs. narratives
Decentralization, according to Justin Bons, is not an absolute concept but a measurable spectrum through concrete indicators. One of them is the Nakamoto coefficient, which measures how many entities would be needed to compromise a network.
At this point, Bitcoin registers a coefficient of 3, while Solana reaches 21, suggesting a greater distribution of power in the latter.
Another indicator is the number of validators. Bitcoin, relying on pools and individual miners, has 92 relevant entities, compared to the 827 active validators in Solana. For Bons, this difference reinforces the idea of a more distributed network.
In terms of governance, the analyst is adamant. Bitcoin is governed by centralized decisions around Bitcoin Core, while Solana uses a stakeholder-based governance model. This structure, according to the CIO of Cyber Capital, allows for a more flexible and representative evolution.
Subscribe to our Newsletters: Receive all the important information about what is happening in the Web3 world directly in your inbox.
Scalability is another key axis. Bons claims that Solana has a capacity 2,857x greater and is 1,538x faster than Bitcoin.
This difference implies that Bitcoin could not support massive use without collapsing, generating transaction queues that would last months or even decades. In contrast, Solana would have sufficient capacity to operate as global financial infrastructure at present.
“SOL will outperform BTC and ETH in five years. At the current trajectory, SOL would have to make a serious mistake to lose its leadership. An unknown technological advance could also challenge SOL. But at this moment, nothing is 10x better, something that is generally needed to surpass an existing operator,” Bons highlighted in another post on X (formerly Twitter).
Programmability, security, and scarcity: arguments that do not receive unanimous approval
From the perspective of programmability, Bons points out that Bitcoin lacks a Turing-complete virtual machine, which limits the development of real DeFi applications on its network. In his view, this deficiency pushes users towards centralized custodians to access financial services, contradicting the original spirit of cryptocurrencies.
Solana, on the other hand, features the Solana Virtual Machine (SVM), which allows the creation of complex and scalable DeFi applications. This combination of programmability and performance also opens the door to privacy solutions through third-party smart contracts, something that Bitcoin could not support on a large scale.
In terms of security, Bons compares the economic cost of an attack. Bitcoin presents an estimated security budget of $8.44 billion, while Solana would reach $21.1 billion, considering staking participation, fees, MEV, and inflation.
Relatively, Bitcoin's security budget represents 0.47% of its capitalization, compared to 28% in Solana.
Regarding scarcity, the analysis questions the sustainability of Bitcoin's model. Bons argues that the security budget has decreased and could make 51% attacks profitable in the future, forcing an increase in inflation.
In Solana, the design includes a residual inflation of 1.5% combined with fee burning, which could lead to a decreasing supply if network usage grows.
Despite the data and metrics presented, the founder of Cyber Capital's proposal was not without strong criticism.
“Calling Solana ‘Bitcoin 3.0’ is nonsense. Performance and programmability are not synonymous with decentralization, security, or cypherpunk values. Permissionless ≠ decentralized. Security TPS ≠ . Changing monetary policy assumptions ≠ sound money. BTC and SOL solve different problems. Claiming objective superiority only demonstrates a lack of understanding of the trade-offs,” replied Sabih.
At the same time, CryptoFlute pointed out that labeling Solana as “Bitcoin 3.0” is a conceptual error. For the enthusiast, Bitcoin is a monetary protocol primarily designed to ensure immutability and neutrality.
“[In contrast] Solana is a high-performance application chain optimized for speed and cost. These trade-offs are key, not a defect,” emphasized CryptoFlute.
In summary
Justin Bons argues that Solana is Bitcoin 3.0 because, according to his metrics, it surpasses Bitcoin in all key technical aspects that define a modern blockchain.
The CIO of Cyber Capital poses an uncomfortable question for the ecosystem: if the data contradicts the narrative, to what extent does loyalty to Bitcoin respond to principles or technological tribalism?
Do you have something to say about Justin Bons' approach to Solana and Bitcoin or any other topic? Write to us or join the discussion in our BeInCrypto channel on Telegram and in our Newsletters. You can also find us on Facebook or X (Twitter).
