now this might be a very controversial/nuanced take coming from a .eth(take your pick), but most of the divide here stems from ideology.
you can think of solana camp as:
> efficiency maximalists for whom everything comes down to how can we create the most low latency system that can give "enough" guarantees to settle things at the speed of light.
> all design decisions: validator specs, coordination mechanisms, the kind of talent attracted are a downstream effect of this culture.
> given this, they generally hold the belief that sufficiently geo-distributed powerful nodes. can have a value proposition even if they are censored, say on nation level. they do not buy into anarchic ideology.
> you can even view them as decentralization pessimists. with things like alpenglow some vectors make this even worse while some also relax the requirements to run a node. they don't think now is the time to think about all this (something that often leads to more and more tradeoffs in favor of latency)
> this has resulted in some of the best VM engineering for which you cannot take credit from them. they also, are pushing the frontier of fast statistical finality and in my opinion still end up being a "net good" despite their being forces within their ecosystem that mislead people, downplay other chains, etc. toxic culture that should be called out.
the ethreum camp:
> decentralization & alignment maximalists for whom everything comes down to creating a maximally robust, censorship resistant, globally distributed network that most people can participate in validating.
> again, all design decisions: gas limits, validator specs, scaling strategies are designed with this goal in mind. we want to scale but not at any cost of centralizing. every time we face a certain vector like this, (say block production) we come up with solutions to mitigate or democratize it. all the talent that is attracted holds very liberal values and wants to see this being a force for change in the world.
> this culture ends up highly valuing alignment, celebrating plurality, being very vetocratic, preferring liveness guarantees over speed, distributing power across many many teams/actors, etc. all this comes at the cost of efficiency, but makes the network as well as social layer extremely memetic and strong against outside attacks and censorship.
> this has resulted in a network with over a million validators, some of the best research in mechanism design, being a force for good by protecting developers like roman storm and even more pluralistic outcomes with the l2 roadmap where everyone gets to try their own strategy. charlatans like those in bitcoin couldn't even come close, despite their original vision it's now ethereum that carries it.
> personally i stick with the values of ethereum, but i don't entirely dismiss atleast there being some value prop to solana. the more i read about them i like what they try, i respect the developers that feel aligned with something like that. I do call out their hypocrisy and scummy behavior when i see it though.
food for thought :)