Rolling 24 hours: $SOL -0.15%. Rolling 24 hours: $JUP -3.59%. Rolling 24 hours: $RAY +1.65%. The three quotes did not move in the same direction, but prices only show changes in their respective spot markets over the past 24 hours. They cannot be used to judge whether use of Solana applications is rising or falling, much less to assign the same cause to their gains and losses.
According to a report by Golden Finance (Beijing time, November 7, 2026), ARK ETF Trust filed registration documents with the U.S. SEC proposing a tokenized market infrastructure ETF. The fund would gain indirect exposure to assets such as SOL through swaps linked to U.S.-listed crypto asset ETPs. The key words are “proposing” and “indirect”: this is a filing proposal, the registration statement has not yet taken effect, and the fund would not directly hold digital assets. It concerns investment exposure, not the addition of a new application entry point on Solana or an increase in real users.
When I see this kind of news, I ask one more question: there are several layers between an institution gaining exposure to an asset and an ordinary user doing something useful on-chain. How convenient the entry point is, how smooth the aggregated route is, and whether there is enough liquidity each affect service discovery and transaction completion. But none of these alone proves that users will keep coming back. Transaction volume or address counts also cannot be treated directly as counts of unique users or as evidence of retention.
So I would rather see whether specific services later address clear needs, and whether usage continues. Conversely, the lack of retention evidence right now does not mean nobody is using it; it just means this ETF filing cannot vouch for the applications. A proposal for a market product is one thing; real on-chain usage is another. Let’s not conflate the two.
According to a report by Golden Finance (Beijing time, November 7, 2026), ARK ETF Trust filed registration documents with the U.S. SEC proposing a tokenized market infrastructure ETF. The fund would gain indirect exposure to assets such as SOL through swaps linked to U.S.-listed crypto asset ETPs. The key words are “proposing” and “indirect”: this is a filing proposal, the registration statement has not yet taken effect, and the fund would not directly hold digital assets. It concerns investment exposure, not the addition of a new application entry point on Solana or an increase in real users.
When I see this kind of news, I ask one more question: there are several layers between an institution gaining exposure to an asset and an ordinary user doing something useful on-chain. How convenient the entry point is, how smooth the aggregated route is, and whether there is enough liquidity each affect service discovery and transaction completion. But none of these alone proves that users will keep coming back. Transaction volume or address counts also cannot be treated directly as counts of unique users or as evidence of retention.
So I would rather see whether specific services later address clear needs, and whether usage continues. Conversely, the lack of retention evidence right now does not mean nobody is using it; it just means this ETF filing cannot vouch for the applications. A proposal for a market product is one thing; real on-chain usage is another. Let’s not conflate the two.
