In recent months, many users have reported frequent transaction failures and network congestion on the Solana blockchain. Despite its reputation for speed and low fees, Solana has been struggling with reliability issues that directly impact user experience. Researcher @nishil recently offered an in-depth technical explanation, pointing to a core issue rooted in the network layer — specifically, problems with the QUIC protocol implementation. While development teams are actively working on fixes, understanding the root causes is key to grasping why this keeps happening.
Current State of the Solana Network
Over 50% of Transactions Fail on Solana
When users submit transactions on Solana, there are typically three possible outcomes:
- The transaction is successfully executed
- The transaction is processed but fails
- The transaction is lost entirely
Since late 2023, approximately 50% of all transactions on Solana have either failed or disappeared without confirmation. This means only about half of user-initiated actions — such as swapping tokens, minting NFTs, or interacting with DeFi protocols — go through as intended.
👉 Discover how leading blockchain platforms handle network congestion and maintain reliability.
While two types of failures exist, it's important to distinguish between them, as they stem from different causes and require separate solutions.
Processed But Failed: Changing Conditions and Bot Arbitrage
A transaction that gets processed but returns a failure usually fails due to changing execution conditions. For example:
- Attempting to mint an NFT that was just sold out
- A swap failing because slippage tolerance was exceeded
- Liquidity disappearing between submission and execution
These scenarios are common across many blockchains and aren't unique to Solana. However, Solana’s ultra-low transaction costs (often less than $0.01) have made it a hotspot for high-frequency arbitrage bots and spam activity.
These bots constantly flood the network with speculative transactions, hoping to capture tiny profit margins. Data shows that up to 98% of bot-generated transactions fail, primarily because they’re outpaced by competing bots. While this contributes to overall network load, it's not the main reason regular users face poor experiences.
The real problem lies in the third outcome: transaction loss.
The Core Issue: Transaction Loss Due to Network Layer Design
Transaction loss occurs when a submitted transaction never reaches the block producer, known in Solana as the block leader. Unlike other blockchains that use a mempool (a waiting area for pending transactions), Solana does not have a persistent mempool. If a transaction isn’t received by the current block leader during their slot, it simply vanishes — resulting in user-perceived failure.
According to @nishil, this issue originates not in Solana’s consensus mechanism or execution engine, but in its network communication layer, which governs how data packets are transmitted between nodes.
QUIC Protocol: A Fix That Introduced New Problems
To prevent block leaders from being overwhelmed during traffic spikes, Solana migrated from traditional UDP-based communication to the QUIC protocol — a modern transport protocol also used by Google and Cloudflare.
QUIC allows servers (or block leaders) to:
- Limit connection rates from specific clients
- Drop connections under high load
- Prioritize certain traffic flows
On paper, this improves stability by preventing denial-of-service scenarios where too many transactions crash a node. In practice, however, the logic for which connections get throttled or dropped is poorly implemented.
Currently, Solana nodes randomly discard incoming transactions instead of applying intelligent filtering — such as prioritizing higher-fee transactions or identifying known spam sources. This creates several cascading issues:
- Users and apps can’t predict whether their transaction will be processed.
- To compensate, users and bots alike resort to spamming multiple identical transactions.
- This increases network load, leading to more dropped packets and further congestion.
- Legitimate user transactions get buried under noise.
This creates a vicious cycle: congestion leads to dropped transactions, which prompts more retries, which worsens congestion.
Additionally, because there’s no mempool to re-broadcast dropped transactions automatically, lost ones must be manually resubmitted — often with increased fees — adding friction for end users.
The Impact on User Experience
For everyday users, this translates into:
- Wallets showing "transaction failed" after waiting minutes
- Repeated attempts required to complete simple swaps or mints
- Confusion over whether funds were deducted or actions succeeded
- Loss of trust in dApps built on Solana
Even popular platforms like Jupiter, Raydium, or Magic Eden suffer from these底层 issues, despite having excellent front-end design and UX.
Developers are forced to build retry logic into their applications, increasing complexity and cost. Meanwhile, retail users often blame the app or wallet rather than the underlying network — but the root cause lies deeper.
What’s Being Done? Progress Toward Solutions
The good news is that major teams within the Solana ecosystem are actively addressing these challenges:
1. Firedancer (Jump Crypto)
Firedancer, a new high-performance client developed by Jump Crypto, aims to drastically improve Solana’s throughput and resilience. By optimizing message propagation and introducing better congestion control mechanisms, it could help reduce random packet drops.
2. Anza (formerly Jito Labs)
Anza is building a next-generation client focused on MEV efficiency and network health. One of their goals is to implement smarter transaction filtering at the network layer, potentially allowing nodes to prioritize valuable traffic over spam.
3. Solana Foundation & Core Devs
The official Solana team is refining QUIC behavior and exploring ways to introduce soft mempools or transaction relays that can temporarily hold transactions before block production.
These improvements are expected to roll out over the coming weeks. However, full stabilization will depend on adoption rates and real-world performance under stress.
Broader Challenges: Low Fees and Spam Incentives
Even with QUIC fixes, Solana still faces a structural issue: extremely low transaction fees encourage spam.
Without economic disincentives for flooding the network, bad actors and greedy bots will continue exploiting cheap bandwidth. Long-term solutions may involve:
- Introducing dynamic fee markets based on congestion
- Implementing sender reputation systems
- Enabling transaction prioritization tiers
Some proposals suggest integrating resource credits or transaction staking, where users pre-pay for bandwidth access during peak times — similar to EIP-4844 on Ethereum.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why do my Solana transactions keep failing even with high fees?
A: Even high-fee transactions can be dropped at the network layer if they’re not received by the block leader due to QUIC-level throttling. Fee amount doesn’t currently influence transmission priority.
Q: Is Solana down when I see failed transactions?
A: Not necessarily. The network may be live and processing blocks, but your specific transaction might have been lost in transit due to congestion or random packet drop.
Q: Does Solana have a mempool like Ethereum?
A: No. Solana lacks a traditional mempool, so dropped transactions aren’t queued for later inclusion — they’re gone unless resubmitted.
Q: Are bots really causing most of the congestion?
A: Yes. Arbitrage bots account for a large portion of traffic, especially during new NFT mints or volatile market conditions. Their 98% failure rate shows how inefficient much of this traffic is.
Q: Will Firedancer solve these issues?
A: Firedancer aims to significantly improve network stability and scalability. While not a silver bullet, it’s one of the most promising upgrades currently in development.
Q: How can I improve my transaction success rate now?
A: Use wallets or tools that support automatic retry logic with fee bumping. Avoid peak times if possible, and consider using RPC providers optimized for reliability.
Final Thoughts
Solana’s vision of a fast, scalable blockchain remains compelling — but achieving true robustness requires solving foundational infrastructure problems. The current transaction failure and congestion issues stem from a combination of protocol design trade-offs, inadequate congestion control, and economic incentives favoring spam.
While short-term fixes are underway, long-term success depends on coordinated upgrades across clients, fee markets, and network policies. If executed well, Solana could emerge as not just fast — but reliably fast.
Until then, users should remain patient and informed. The road to scalable decentralization is rarely smooth — but every bottleneck overcome brings us closer to mainstream adoption.
Keywords: Solana transaction failure, Solana network congestion, QUIC protocol blockchain, Solana block leader, transaction loss blockchain, Solana mempool alternative, low fee spam problem, Firedancer client