Solana came unusually close to losing transaction finality on August 12 after a networking failure caused 28.83% of all staked SOL to go offline, exposing how concentrated validator infrastructure can turn a problem at a single provider into a network-wide consensus risk.
The disruption was traced to infrastructure provider Teraswitch, where a faulty route advertised from its Miami location affected connectivity to data centers in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Validators using the affected infrastructure became delinquent as they lost the ability to participate normally in consensus. The network remained operational, but the margin was narrow.
Solana requires more than two-thirds of stake to participate for transactions to achieve finality. If 33.34% of staked SOL becomes delinquent, the remaining online validators no longer have the supermajority required to finalize new blocks. At 28.83%, Solana came within just 4.51 percentage points of that threshold—roughly 86% of the way toward losing finality.
One Routing Error Knocked Nearly a Third of Stake Offline
The incident did not result from a flaw in Solana’s blockchain code or a malicious attack on consensus. Instead, it exposed an infrastructure concentration problem. Validators may be independently operated and control separate stake, but decentralization at the consensus level does not necessarily mean their underlying networking and hosting infrastructure is equally distributed. When many validators depend on the same infrastructure provider or interconnected data centers, a single networking failure can simultaneously remove a large amount of stake from consensus.
That is effectively what happened at Teraswitch. The disruption reportedly affected around 90 validators, with Marinade Finance reconstructing the event and estimating that 28.83% of staked SOL became delinquent. Had another 4.51% of stake gone offline simultaneously, Solana would have been unable to finalize transactions until enough validators recovered.
That would not necessarily mean the blockchain permanently failed or lost transaction data. Block production and finality are different concepts. But users, exchanges and applications would no longer have the same cryptographic assurance that recently processed transactions were irreversible. The episode is particularly notable because Solana has maintained a lengthy period without a major network outage. Its official status dashboard reported 100% Mainnet Beta cluster uptime over the preceding 90-day period in its latest indexed status data.
Alpenglow Will Change Solana’s Failure Model
The near miss comes just as Solana prepares one of the biggest consensus changes in its history. The network is moving toward Alpenglow, a new consensus protocol intended to replace the current TowerBFT architecture and dramatically accelerate finality. Solana says Alpenglow’s Votor consensus mechanism is designed around a 20% adversarial stake plus 20% offline stake model, while targeting approximately 150-millisecond finality. Its first phase is currently targeted for mainnet activation in the third quarter of 2026. The different architecture is relevant to incidents such as the Teraswitch failure because Alpenglow changes how the network responds when substantial portions of stake disappear.
But the August 12 incident also highlights a problem that consensus upgrades alone cannot eliminate: infrastructure correlation. A blockchain can distribute stake among hundreds of validators and still contain hidden concentration if many of those validators depend on the same hosting companies, networking providers or geographic facilities. The Teraswitch incident therefore provides an unusually clear stress test. Solana did not halt. Transactions continued, the affected infrastructure recovered, and the network remained below its critical delinquency threshold. But 28.83% of stake disappearing because of a routing problem at one infrastructure provider left very little room for another independent failure.
Only another 4.51 percentage points were needed to remove finality. For a blockchain increasingly positioning itself as infrastructure for payments, trading and institutional financial markets, that margin matters. The incident ended without becoming another Solana outage. But it demonstrated how close one can come without the blockchain itself actually breaking.