Recently, I noticed that Anatoly from Solana posted some quite interesting views on X, directly challenging Ethereum founder Vitalik’s perspective on how blockchains should evolve.

Vitalik once said that a blockchain either evolves or dies. But Anatoly’s idea is completely the opposite. He believes Solana should not pursue some ultimate, self-sustaining state, but should continuously adapt to market and user needs. Put simply, Solana must stay vibrant and never stop changing.

Anatoly emphasized that a network’s vitality depends on its ability to iterate. In an interview, he said plainly: Solana needs to keep improving itself and cannot rely on any particular individual or group. Once it stops changing to meet the needs of developers and users, it will decline. His logic is that only by remaining useful can it avoid being eliminated.

This is in stark contrast to Vitalik’s ideal. Vitalik is aiming for Ethereum to eventually run independently—safe operation for decades even without the involvement of core developers. What he emphasizes is trust and security, pursuing a self-sustaining network.

Anatoly, meanwhile, is taking a different path—Solana should be a high-growth technology platform that captures market share through speed and continuous innovation. The two philosophies differ greatly: one seeks stability and self-sufficiency, while the other seeks dynamic evolution.

From this clash, it’s also clear that Anatoly’s positioning for Solana is to stay flexible and not be constrained by dogma. To a certain extent, this philosophy indeed helps explain why the two public chains have chosen different development paths.