Visa's fact sheet[0] says that they processed about 6500 transactions per second on average for a recent 12-month period. A Solana dashboard[1] says that Solana processed about 2700 transactions per second on average for a recent period of a few hours.

If we would like to pick nits, we could say that the Visa transactions are not comparable to the Solana transactions because Solana transactions let users run complex programs that Visa does not, or that Solana transactions are not comparable to Visa transactions because nobody accepts SPL USDC and everyone pays out the nose to accept Visa, or that 2700 is a lot less than 6500, or that the 6500 number is misleading because the load should have peaks, and do we really know how much peak load Solana can handle, or that only about 1/3 of the Solana transactions are actual useful stuff for users and the rest are consensus messages. But my point is that these things are only "too slow compared to Visa" by a reasonably small factor now, like 6500 vs 900. Thanks.

0: https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/global/about-visa/documents/ab...

1: https://solanabeach.io/

Other networks can achieve up to 50,000 TPS nowadays. The thing is they're still not very mature, technology wise.

But it's been proven to be technically feasible to replace OldFi with blockchain, at least in terms of TPS.

Protocols like fastpay, at2, bullshark, have all claimed hundreds of thousands of transaction/s

With lightning you can have infinite tx per day while having final settlement. In contrast Visa and Mastercard have delayed settlement and operate on many layers of trust

With lightning you can send many txes per day to people who already have as much bitcoin as you want to send them, have their wallet online as you send them the funds, and regularly check in to contest fraudulent channel closes.

1. Ethereum is probably one of the slowest cryptocurrency

2. You’re citing avalanche numbers that are not at peak traffic

3. Avalanche is not far from being the fastest crypto