SOL isn’t “still running without stopping the chain” and therefore “risk-free”: about 29% of staked weight was simultaneously offline. Even after it surged to 118.89, I still won’t chase.
Right now, I remain moderately bullish on SOL, but I won’t chase above 118. The price is indeed strong, and the narrative around network upgrades is heating up. However, what’s truly worth watching isn’t just “faster”—it’s whether the concentration of infrastructure can withstand the next shock.
On September 14, the Solana Foundation revisited a stress test that’s easy to overlook: on August 12, the largest infrastructure provider experienced a routing failure, temporarily taking offline nearly 29% of the network’s staked weight. The chain did not stop producing blocks—transactions could still enter blocks—and the relevant facilities were restored about half an hour later. Metrika’s on-chain data review added another perspective: the offline proportion was about 28.83%, roughly 4.5 percentage points away from the finality-stop threshold of one-third. Block production continued, but the time for some blocks to reach final confirmation stretched abnormally—from the usual ~13 seconds to nearly 30 minutes at one point.
So this can’t be simply written as “Solana held up, so everything is fine,” and it shouldn’t be exaggerated into “Solana has already stopped the chain.” A more accurate assessment is: during this incident, the consensus layer kept operating, which shows the fault-tolerance is effective. But many validator nodes share the same network and hosting path, indicating there are still correlation risks at the operations level. For institutional settlement, collateral liquidation, and cross-chain bridges, finality delays matter more than whether blocks are displayed on the page. Going forward, I’ll watch whether validators are genuinely diversified across different autonomous systems and whether backup routes can automatically switch—not just whether the number of nodes increases.
On the charts: SOL’s current price is around 118.3, with a 24-hour range of 108 to 118.89. The funding rate is about +0.0036%, lower than the previous cycle’s roughly +0.01%. Open interest is about 3.22 million SOL, with a notional value of about $380 million. The price is making new highs and positions are increasing in tandem, but the funding rate isn’t showing obvious overheating—so it’s not necessarily bad for longs. The issue is that 118.89–120 has already moved into a short-term pressure zone; chasing from here could stretch stop-loss room in an ugly way.
In the prior round, after I publicly observed that the 115.8–116 support held, the price later touched the 118.5–120 target zone. Here, I can only say that the path judgment was validated by the market; you can’t treat the conditional plan as me having already entered or profited.
If this were my own trade, I’d still be in zero position right now. The first plan: wait for a pullback to 117.2–117.5 where selling pressure eases, then after a 15-minute candle closes back above 118.2, use 2%–3% of principal to place spot longs—first targeting 118.9. Once it hits, cut about one-third. The second target is 120–121.5. If price breaks below 116.8, cut half first, and if within 1 hour the price closes below 115.8, exit the rest entirely. If, instead, price rallies on volume and holds above 119 on the 15-minute timeframe, and then a pullback to 118.6 does not break, I’ll only follow with 1.5% principal and no added leverage. On the other hand, if 117.2 drops on volume and breaks down, and then a failed rebound at 117.8 occurs, I’d only consider a low-leverage short using at most 0.6% principal, targeting 116.3 and 115.5. If the 15-minute timeframe regains above 118.5, I’ll close immediately. If nothing triggers, I’ll keep waiting. Network resilience is a fundamental positive—not a permission slip to chase.
$SOL
The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.
Right now, I remain moderately bullish on SOL, but I won’t chase above 118. The price is indeed strong, and the narrative around network upgrades is heating up. However, what’s truly worth watching isn’t just “faster”—it’s whether the concentration of infrastructure can withstand the next shock.
On September 14, the Solana Foundation revisited a stress test that’s easy to overlook: on August 12, the largest infrastructure provider experienced a routing failure, temporarily taking offline nearly 29% of the network’s staked weight. The chain did not stop producing blocks—transactions could still enter blocks—and the relevant facilities were restored about half an hour later. Metrika’s on-chain data review added another perspective: the offline proportion was about 28.83%, roughly 4.5 percentage points away from the finality-stop threshold of one-third. Block production continued, but the time for some blocks to reach final confirmation stretched abnormally—from the usual ~13 seconds to nearly 30 minutes at one point.
So this can’t be simply written as “Solana held up, so everything is fine,” and it shouldn’t be exaggerated into “Solana has already stopped the chain.” A more accurate assessment is: during this incident, the consensus layer kept operating, which shows the fault-tolerance is effective. But many validator nodes share the same network and hosting path, indicating there are still correlation risks at the operations level. For institutional settlement, collateral liquidation, and cross-chain bridges, finality delays matter more than whether blocks are displayed on the page. Going forward, I’ll watch whether validators are genuinely diversified across different autonomous systems and whether backup routes can automatically switch—not just whether the number of nodes increases.
On the charts: SOL’s current price is around 118.3, with a 24-hour range of 108 to 118.89. The funding rate is about +0.0036%, lower than the previous cycle’s roughly +0.01%. Open interest is about 3.22 million SOL, with a notional value of about $380 million. The price is making new highs and positions are increasing in tandem, but the funding rate isn’t showing obvious overheating—so it’s not necessarily bad for longs. The issue is that 118.89–120 has already moved into a short-term pressure zone; chasing from here could stretch stop-loss room in an ugly way.
In the prior round, after I publicly observed that the 115.8–116 support held, the price later touched the 118.5–120 target zone. Here, I can only say that the path judgment was validated by the market; you can’t treat the conditional plan as me having already entered or profited.
If this were my own trade, I’d still be in zero position right now. The first plan: wait for a pullback to 117.2–117.5 where selling pressure eases, then after a 15-minute candle closes back above 118.2, use 2%–3% of principal to place spot longs—first targeting 118.9. Once it hits, cut about one-third. The second target is 120–121.5. If price breaks below 116.8, cut half first, and if within 1 hour the price closes below 115.8, exit the rest entirely. If, instead, price rallies on volume and holds above 119 on the 15-minute timeframe, and then a pullback to 118.6 does not break, I’ll only follow with 1.5% principal and no added leverage. On the other hand, if 117.2 drops on volume and breaks down, and then a failed rebound at 117.8 occurs, I’d only consider a low-leverage short using at most 0.6% principal, targeting 116.3 and 115.5. If the 15-minute timeframe regains above 118.5, I’ll close immediately. If nothing triggers, I’ll keep waiting. Network resilience is a fundamental positive—not a permission slip to chase.
$SOL
The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.
