Summary Fidelity Solana Fund ETF receives a 'hold' rating due to a lower staking ratio than peers, comparable fees, and use of asset custodians. BSOL remains preferred over FSOL for its lower expense ratio and 100% staking. Solana network metrics show declining daily active addresses, transactions, and fees, raising concerns about network utility and competitive positioning. Despite excitement around Solana's RWA and stablecoin growth, shrinking stablecoin transfer share and fee collapse temper bullish conviction. Back in late-October, I wrote an article for Seeking Alpha that compared the Bitwise Solana ETF ( BSOL ) and the Grayscale Solana Trust (GSOL), with the latter having been successfully converted from a closed-end product to a spot ETF. In the time since that piece was published, several additional spot Solana ( SOL-USD ) ETFs have come to market. In this article, we'll look at the Fidelity Solana Fund ETF ( FSOL ) and see how it stacks up to BSOL and GSOL. In the past, I've been a fan of Fidelity's spot ETF products relative to alternatives. Perhaps surprisingly, FSOL is not one that I see myself buying. FSOL Details Like the other funds mentioned, FSOL is a spot Solana ETF that aims to provide investors exposure to Solana in a straightforward traditional financial product. Fund Name Inception Expense Ratio AUM (millions) Bitwise Solana Staking ETF 10/27/2025 0.20%* $797.38 Grayscale Solana Staking ETF 11/18/2021 0.35%* $200.42 Fidelity Solana Fund ETF 11/17/2025 0.25%* $160.45 Sources: Seeking Alpha, fund issuers, *active waivers The fund is competitive with BSOL and GSOL in areas like expense ratio; each of which have waived their fees and currently charge investors 0%. FSOL has quickly been able to scale AUM close to GSOL, but BSOL is far and away the market leader in assets under management. Each of these funds are staking-enabled, but FSOL has the lowest staking ratio of the three. Staking Ratio Gross Staking Reward Rate GSOL 100% 7.60% BSOL 100% 6.74% FSOL 72% 4.51% Sources: Grayscale, Bitwise, Fidelity BSOL and GSOL are both at 100% as of January 14th. FSOL's staking ratio is 72%. Additionally, the gross staking rewards rates between the three funds are all over the place. Bitwise is using an annualized 90-day window of data to derive the BSOL staking reward rate. Grayscale is doing something similar going back to mid-October, and Fidelity is using an annualized 30-day trailing average. Given the fact that FSOL has a smaller staking ratio, the difference in gross staking reward rate makes some sense. In the company's prospectus, Fidelity does mention that it could stake as much as 100% of the assets in the fund. However, my interpretation of the text is that a full 100% staking ratio with FSOL may not be likely due to the company's desire to have assets available for redemption and/or expenses. Ultimately, the lower staking ratio and the higher long-term fee are two legitimate reasons that I think passing on FSOL in favor of BSOL is a justifiable decision. But there is actually another factor that I find to be disappointing regarding FSOL, and that's the use of custodians for the fund's staking services. One of the big reasons why I liked Fidelity's spot Bitcoin ( BTC-USD ) and spot Ethereum ( ETH-USD ) offerings was because the company holds those assets in self-custody rather than utilizing a third party provider. For me, this minimizes risk, and I'm surprised Fidelity decided to go the other way with FSOL. But beyond just deciding between ETF products, investors also need to consider the merits of Solana itself before making any decisions about which fund to allocate to. And the latest network data isn't all that great from where I sit. Solana Network Data Here's the good news: Solana's network usage continues to be at or near the top of the market in several important categories like raw users, transactions, and fees. The bad news is Solana is experiencing significant quarter-over-quarter and year-over-year declines in each of these metrics. Network Data Q4-25 Q3-25 Q4-25 YoY QoQ DAAs (millions) 6.0 3.7 2.5 -58.3% -32.4% Transactions (billions) 7.5 8.8 6.9 -8.0% -21.6% Fees (000s) $396.4 $122.8 $65.7 -83.4% -46.5% Source: Artemis In Q4-25, daily active addresses fell by 58% from the prior year. Transactions were down by just 8%. But it was fees, down a staggering 83% year over year, that I think could be cause for concern for Solana bulls. Where the network is beginning to make a splash is in the world of tokenized 'Real World Assets' or RWA. At $1.1 billion in tokenized assets on Solana (not counting stablecoins), Solana is the third most utilized blockchain for RWA after Ethereum and BNB Chain ( BNB-USD ), and it had the second best positive net flow story over the last month with $323 million coming into the ecosystem: 30 Day Net Flows (RWA.xyz) Tokenized assets on Solana include T-bills, private credit, corporate bonds, and equities. Stablecoin supply - while off highs - is up over 150% since the start of 2025 from $5 billion to slightly above $13 billion: Solana Stablecoins (DeFi Llama) While stablecoin supply is up over the last year, stablecoin transfer volume last quarter was well off highs: Stablecoins (trillions) Q4-25 Q3-25 Q4-25 YoY QoQ Total Market Transfer Vol $10.2 $15.8 $19.7 93.1% 24.7% Solana Transfer Vol $3.2 $0.9 $1.3 -59.4% 44.4% Solana Share 31.4% 5.7% 6.6% -79.0% 15.8% Source: Artemis Stablecoin transfer volume on Solana fell significantly year over year from $3.2 trillion in Q4-24 to $1.3 trillion in Q4-25. Not only was this a 59% decrease year over year, but it came at a time when the total market for stablecoin transfer volume nearly doubled. As a result, Solana's share of stablecoin transfer volume collapsed from 31% a year ago to just under 7% last quarter. Risks This network data should serve as a reminder that despite the positive catalysts for the digital asset ecosystem over the last year or so, utility absolutely does matter. And while I believe Solana is a chain that has proven to be fast, cheap, and market-leading in many ways, there is a lot of competition in this space, and just because an ETF product exists, it doesn't necessarily make it a good investment. That said, I think there are much worse long term investments in the cryptocurrency market than Solana. But as investors, we have to acknowledge when network metrics are improving and when they're doing the opposite. Solana is losing stablecoin transfer share to other networks all while network fees collapse. These are not reasons to be overly bullish, in my opinion. Closing Takeaways My view on Solana is mixed. I certainly don't hate the idea of long exposure to Solana today. But I wouldn't get over my skis. I believe the chain is going to compete with larger blue-chip networks like Ethereum in the stablecoin and RWA markets over the long run. Given that, SOL is an exciting asset in a reality where public networks are competing for TradFi asset tokenization. But the declining usage of the network over the last few quarters shouldn't be overlooked. Regarding ETF products, FSOL will likely serve as a perfectly fine way to express a long-term SOL thesis. If SOL appreciates, FSOL should outperform given the assets underlying the fund are staked for network rewards. Still, I'm choosing BSOL over FSOL for a handful of reasons. First, BSOL is slightly cheaper by long term expense ratio. Second, BSOL has a larger staking ratio. Third, FSOL utilizes custodians, which was a competitive edge that Fidelity had with prior products that it no longer has with FSOL. I'll initiate FSOL with a 'hold' rating at this time.
