Bitcoin Shows Stronger Decentralization Than Ethereum and Solana in New Study

How Do Block Production Thresholds Reflect Network Security?

On September 1, 2026, ARK Invest and Glassnode released a joint analysis revealing that Bitcoin achieves critical decentralization benchmarks with far fewer block-producing entities than its competitors. The study measured the number of entities needed to surpass key production thresholds for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, highlighting significant differences in network concentration. Bitcoin required only three entities to cross its 51% hash-rate threshold, while Ethereum needed a similar three entities to reach its staking-based threshold. In contrast, Solana demanded 19 entities to meet its equivalent benchmark, indicating a higher degree of centralization relative to the other two networks.

The research focused on production thresholds as a proxy for decentralization, assessing how many validators or miners would need to collude to compromise network integrity. For Bitcoin, this meant calculating the hash-rate distribution across mining pools, where just three entities controlled over half of the total computational power. Ethereum’s threshold was based on staked ETH, with the top three validators holding sufficient stake to reach critical mass. Solana’s higher number reflected its more concentrated validator set, despite its high throughput design. The findings suggest that while all three networks operate above absolute centralization risks, Bitcoin and Ethereum demonstrate comparable resilience in block production distribution, whereas Solana’s structure remains more centralized by this metric.

What Are the Implications for Investors and Developers?

These thresholds estimate the minimum number of independent actors that would need to act maliciously to disrupt core functions like transaction finality or block validation. A lower number does not automatically imply insecurity but indicates less distribution of control. In Bitcoin’s case, the three-entity threshold aligns with historical mining pool concentration, though geographic and operational diversity among pools may mitigate risks. Ethereum’s post-merge staking model shows similar concentration in validator stakes, though liquid staking derivatives and protocol upgrades aim to disperse influence. The study did not assess active attack costs or node diversity, focusing solely on production concentration as one dimension of decentralization.

Understanding where networks stand on decentralization helps evaluate long-term resilience and regulatory exposure. Bitcoin and Ethereum’s similar thresholds may suggest comparable foundational security despite differing consensus mechanisms. Solana’s higher entity requirement for threshold crossing points to greater reliance on a smaller validator set, which could affect perceptions of censorship resistance or network robustness. ARK Invest noted that while decentralization is multifaceted, production thresholds offer a quantifiable baseline for comparing blockchain architectures. Glassnode emphasized that ongoing monitoring of entity distribution is essential as networks evolve through upgrades and shifting participation.

Why does Solana require more entities to reach its threshold than Bitcoin or Ethereum? Solana’s threshold is higher because its validator set is more concentrated—meaning fewer validators control a larger share of stake—so it takes more of them to collectively reach the critical production level compared to the other networks.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a lower number of entities needed for a threshold mean a network is less secure? Not necessarily. It reflects higher concentration in block production, but security also depends on factors like geographic distribution, economic incentives, and the cost of launching an attack, which the study did not measure.

Is Ethereum’s staking model as decentralized as Bitcoin’s mining? The study found both require about three entities to reach critical thresholds, suggesting similar levels of production concentration, though the mechanisms differ—mining versus staking—and each has distinct decentralization trade-offs.