{"id":12923,"date":"2026-09-07T19:33:26","date_gmt":"2026-09-07T19:33:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=12923"},"modified":"2026-09-07T19:33:26","modified_gmt":"2026-09-07T19:33:26","slug":"solana-decentralization-what-arks-scorecard-measures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=12923","title":{"rendered":"Solana decentralization: What ARK\u2019s scorecard measures"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

ARK Invest and Glassnode have put a new number on blockchain capture risk: the smallest group of block-production entities needed to cross a protocol-relevant control threshold.<\/p>\n

Their joint scorecard, published Sept. 1, put the threshold at three entities for Bitcoin and Ethereum and 19 for Solana. The same framework placed Bitcoin first in its composite decentralization ranking. The apparent tension reflects different forms of network exposure. The coalition needed to disrupt consensus is one risk measure; ownership, infrastructure, software, auditability and exit speed describe other routes to pressure a network.<\/p>\n

Institutions considering a blockchain as settlement infrastructure must define the failure they need to survive before selecting a metric.<\/p>\n

\"Comparison\"Comparison<\/p>\n

What the 3\/3\/19 result measures<\/h2>\n

The report calls the measure a critical resilience threshold. It asks how many of the largest entities must coordinate to pass a concentration point governing block production or voting power.<\/p>\n

The inputs change by network. Bitcoin weights hash rate attributed to mining pools. Ethereum and Solana weight stake, while their dashboards may classify a liquid-staking protocol, exchange, distributed validator network, underlying operator or individual validator as the relevant entity. Protocol rules then determine what a given percentage can accomplish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Network<\/th>\nReported count<\/th>\nCoordination unit<\/th>\nRisk captured<\/th>\nOutside the measure<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Bitcoin<\/td>\n3<\/td>\nMining-pool labels by hash rate<\/td>\nConcentrated block-template coordination at the report’s threshold<\/td>\nHardware ownership, pool switching and node distribution<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ethereum<\/td>\n3<\/td>\nStaking entities under the report’s taxonomy<\/td>\nStake concentration at the selected threshold<\/td>\nUnderlying operators, attack level, clients, hosting and exit queues<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Solana<\/td>\n19<\/td>\nValidators by delegated stake<\/td>\nA coalition crossing the measured one-third voting-power threshold<\/td>\nCommon owners, delegation sources, software and data centers<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A seven-day Bitcoin mining snapshot on Sept. 6 attributed 26.88% of blocks to Foundry USA, 16.91% to AntPool and 15.25% to F2Pool. The three pools coordinated block templates for 59.04% of observed production, consistent with the report’s three-pool result.<\/p>\n

Pool share remains distinct from miner ownership. Individual miners supply work to a coordinator and can redirect that hash rate. The report estimates that a miner could leave a 1% Bitcoin position in roughly 30 seconds by switching off hardware. This mobility makes pool concentration important for short-term censorship and template selection while leaving ultimate control of the machines more dispersed.<\/p>\n

\n

Related Reading<\/span><\/p>\n

A major Japanese Bitcoin mining pool just pulled the plug on its Bitcoin service just as 3 mega-miners claimed 60% of the network<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/div>\n

Ethereum highlights the classification problem from the other direction. Rated Network, an Ethereum validator analytics provider, listed Lido at 21.17%, SSV at 16.56% and Binance at 7.77% in its Sept. 6 pool view. The same table described Lido as 544 entities. One label can therefore represent a protocol, hundreds of operators or both, depending on the grouping.<\/p>\n

Ethereum’s own threat model adds another distinction. Official protocol documentation says at least 33% of stake can delay finality. More than 50% can censor transactions and control short-range fork choice. At least 66% can finalize a preferred chain and alter finalized history. Each attack maps to a different threshold.<\/p>\n

Solana’s coefficient also changes with stake distribution. Solana Compass, an independent network dashboard, showed a Nakamoto coefficient of 18 on Sept. 6. ARK and Glassnode reported 19, while the Solana Foundation’s June 2025 health report, using April 2025 data, recorded 20.<\/p>\n