Solana price prediction for November after Alpenglow’s mainnet switch

Solana has approached its October 21 Alpenglow activation near $106, far below where it began the month, after repeated U.S. fund withdrawals and the sale of a large corporate SOL reserve. The upgrade aims to make transactions final much faster. Whether the network delivers that improvement under live conditions, and whether investors return afterward, will shape the case for a November recovery toward $125. Selling could still carry SOL toward $90 even if the technical change succeeds.

SOL traded around $106 on October 21 after closing the previous day at $106.39 in CoinGecko’s historical data. The round $106 figure gives both November scenarios a clear starting point, though its price can change considerably before the month opens. Alpenglow has a scheduled activation epoch; its actual performance on mainnet will have to be measured after that point.

The Solana Foundation’s Alpenglow guide places activation at the beginning of epoch 1064 on October 21 and currently estimates about 13:20 UTC. Epoch timing can drift, and the estimate should not be treated as a guaranteed clock time. As of this writing, the guide describes an upcoming activation rather than providing post-upgrade evidence of the live network’s speed. November’s analysis will need that evidence after the handoff.

Solana’s price has moved the other way

SOL began October near $121, with the $124 to $125 area then standing just above it after two months of gains. The token went the other way and closed October 20 at $106.39. Using round prices, that is a fall of roughly 12.4% from $121 to $106. What looked like a nearby breakout at the start of the month would now take almost an 18% recovery.

SOL fell before Alpenglow was due to reach mainnet, so the price move cannot be read as a verdict on the upgrade’s live performance. Investors were already weighing fund redemptions, changing risk appetite and a disclosed corporate sale while validators prepared for the switch. November will provide a chance to assess the network result against the market’s response rather than assume the two must move together.

In the middle of October, SOL recovered from an intraday $101.69 low toward $107.77, with the $100 area drawing attention as a round downside marker. The October 20 close above $106 shows that the market had not remained at the weekly low, but it had not reclaimed the $120 area either. A few dollars of rebound can coexist with a damaged monthly trend.

At $106, SOL would have to gain $19, or roughly 17.9%, to reach the constructive $125 scenario. The $90 adverse case lies $16 away, a decline of approximately 15.1% from the same October 21 reference. Neither figure comes from an order-book wall or a model assigning odds; the distances show how much the token would have to move as the network and fund data arrive.

Before $125 becomes relevant, SOL has to regain the $110 to $115 area and then the early-October range near $120. Below the market, the approximately $101.69 mid-month low and the round $100 level mark a very different route toward $90. Either side could be touched briefly during a volatile session; repeated trading and daily closes would show whether buyers or sellers managed to hold the ground.

Market capitalization gives scale but cannot be used as a direct cash-flow estimate. CoinGecko displayed roughly $62 billion of value for circulating SOL on October 21. If price rose 17.9% with the supply nearly unchanged, the quoted value would rise by many billions, yet that is not the amount of new money needed. Existing tokens reprice at the market’s marginal trade. ETF subscriptions and completed company purchases are flows; market cap is a stock.

Alpenglow changes finality, not the token’s price formula

Solana’s current finality takes about 12.8 seconds, according to the Foundation, while Alpenglow aims for roughly 150 milliseconds. Dividing 12.8 by 0.15 gives an improvement of about 85 times in the time needed to finalize a transaction if the target holds under comparable conditions. That figure concerns consensus finality. It says nothing by itself about an 85-fold rise in user transactions, fee revenue or the price of SOL.

The October 21 mainnet schedule covered by crypto.news detailed validator preparation and warned of a possible short interruption during the consensus handoff. The protocol changes how validators agree that a transaction can no longer be reversed. User-facing applications still depend on their infrastructure, RPC nodes, wallets and exchanges. Some services can display confirmation later than the validator layer even if consensus reaches a faster target.

Validators need a supported Agave-based client, with the Foundation’s guide naming version 4.3.2 of Agave, Jito-Solana or Harmonic Salsa. Firedancer and Frankendancer are not supported during the migration, according to that guidance. A node running incompatible software may not contribute as intended at the switch. The relevant November evidence is the observed validator transition, network stability and measured finality rather than a marketing speed claim repeated without a mainnet sample.

The fee mechanics change as well. Validator votes will no longer appear as ordinary onchain transactions under the new consensus method. A 0.8 SOL Validator Admission Ticket fee per epoch replaces roughly 1 SOL of voting transaction fees per epoch for a participating validator, with the new fee charged to the vote account and burned. The first charge at epoch 1064 pays for participation in epoch 1065. Validators must fund vote accounts above their rent-exempt minimum or risk missing the next epoch’s voting and block production.

At a simple $106 token reference, a 0.8 SOL charge is worth $84.80 per validator per epoch. That dollar conversion does not establish the total network burn; it would require a verified count of participating validators and epochs, and the price changes. It does illustrate why the unit in the protocol guide matters. Claiming a large new deflationary impulse without multiplying by a real validator count and comparing other issuance and burn sources would overstate the price effect.

Moving votes offchain may make a headline transaction-per-second figure fall even when ordinary user activity does not. An account of the changing vote counts flagged that measurement problem. November comparisons should separate user transactions from validator voting before and after the handoff. A raw drop in total transactions cannot be called an adoption crash if it reflects a deliberate accounting change in what goes onchain.

Fund outflows have persisted into the upgrade

Farside Investors’ Solana ETF table shows $6.7 million of U.S. spot fund withdrawals on October 19 and $2.6 million on October 20. The two rounded daily totals add to $9.3 million. The October 16 figure was a $12.7 million outflow. Those dates show that the product market had not turned decisively positive just before the scheduled upgrade.

The table recorded $9.8 million of outflows on October 15, $1.3 million on October 14 and $1 million on October 13. The withdrawals were smaller than the larger Bitcoin ETF swings in dollars, but comparisons should account for different asset bases and product sizes. Solana has a smaller listed-fund market, and a dollar value alone cannot express the percentage of each fund’s holdings redeemed.

The nine-session withdrawal streak had become a notable part of the October price story by October 16. Farside’s subsequent rows extend the evidence through October 20. Counting a streak requires care if a later source revises a daily flow or reports a zero session; the broader fact is that the recent series showed persistent net redemptions, not fresh subscriptions ahead of Alpenglow.

The total row on Farside’s Solana table remains positive at roughly $1.54 billion, reflecting cumulative flows across products and dates. It includes a separate seed row of around $449.3 million, including a conversion from a prior product noted by the provider. That lifetime measure cannot be presented as $1.54 billion of new October investment. A monthly assessment should start with October’s daily rows, keep seed capital distinct and distinguish price-driven changes in assets from net flow.

Fund demand could reverse after the upgrade if investors conclude it improves the network. The number to watch is not one positive session, however. A series of subscriptions over multiple weeks would provide evidence that holders are increasing listed exposure while the network proves itself in production. If the price rises on a day of continuing redemptions, the buyer may be elsewhere. The ETF table identifies one channel, not every trade in SOL.

The aggregate can conceal divergent issuers. One fund may lose assets as another gains, depending on fees, trading spreads, staking arrangements and distribution. Examining the fund rows helps avoid describing all investors as acting together. November’s stronger demand case would have to account for the amounts and the pattern, not just report that a product family remains in existence.

A large treasury sale is already disclosed

SkyAI said in an October 19 SEC exhibit that it had sold all of its SOL as of October 16 and held approximately $223.8 million of cash. The company is pursuing a cash tender offer to repurchase securities. Its completed disposal is a fact about October supply and one corporate strategy, not a forecast that every Solana treasury will sell in November.

SkyAI once held more than 2 million SOL, making its treasury exit and cash tender a sizable reversal of the strategy it had promoted. In its October 14 update, the company said sales of liquid and locked tokens through named service providers averaged $107.51 per SOL after fees. The figure describes the transactions in that update; other corporate holders may face different prices, terms and reasons to act.

The company did not identify the ultimate buyers in the October 14 update. A reported corporate sale therefore cannot be translated directly into an exchange order-book shock on one date. Over-the-counter execution, multiple venues or counterparties can alter how and when the market absorbs a large position. What November needs to establish is whether other companies publish completed transactions, not infer a wave of liquidation from SkyAI’s one filed change.

SkyAI’s October 14 update showed approximately 210,000 locked SOL and $204.6 million in cash. By its October 16 measurement, the token balance had gone to zero and cash stood at $223.8 million. The $19.2 million change in cash should not be divided by 210,000 to manufacture a sale price: costs and other account movements can affect the balance, while the company’s reported average of $107.51 applies to the transactions it identified in the earlier update.

The company now has no direct SOL reserve to benefit from a November token rally under the October 16 balance it reported. It can still pursue a Solana-related business plan, but a business relationship is separate from ownership of the coin. A later filing could change that position. The latest completed disclosed action is the sale, and the date of that fact should accompany any mention of it.

The $125 case needs a working network and buyers

Alpenglow could strengthen a November recovery if validators complete the handoff, apps remain usable and the live measurements show substantially faster finality. Faster settlement may appeal to traders, payment applications and infrastructure providers. Its benefit becomes more persuasive if actual application activity persists, rather than being inferred from a protocol target or the first minutes after deployment.

The ETF market would have to stop pulling capital at its recent pace to make an upgrade-led price narrative convincing. A change from repeated redemptions to positive multiweek flows would identify one group of buyers. Direct spot volume and disclosed treasury purchases could add evidence. A price rally without those records may still happen, but the explanation would have to be narrower than “funds bought the upgrade.”

Moving from $106 to $125 requires $19 per SOL, a 17.9% gain. Before that, the $120 to $121 early-October area would be a meaningful recovery marker. The upside case becomes stronger if the market reclaims it and holds there after the initial upgrade reaction, particularly if fund subscriptions improve. A brief intraday spike to $125 followed by a reversal would be a different outcome from sustained acceptance near that price.

The October 28 Federal Reserve decision is a separate input. SOL is a risk-sensitive asset, and rates can change investors’ willingness to finance positions in crypto. The October vote may be read against expectations rather than in isolation. A relief move in all large tokens would make it harder to assign SOL’s entire gain to Alpenglow. Relative performance and onchain activity could help identify whether the network upgrade added token-specific demand.

Successful technology alone does not require a higher price. Developers can improve user experience while existing holders sell, funds redeem shares and traders reduce leverage. The constructive case explicitly needs both the measured network result and an observed change in demand. It would be weakened if the validator transition struggles, finality falls short in live conditions or ETF withdrawals continue through November.

The $90 case does not require an upgrade failure

SOL could decline even if Alpenglow reaches its technical targets. Its October weakness and fund outflows precede activation, and some traders may already have paid for the expected performance improvement in advance. Once the event passes, attention can return to macro conditions, liquidity and applications’ actual use. A working protocol milestone does not protect the token from a market-wide risk reduction.

The adverse path begins with renewed pressure under the mid-October low around $101.69. A sustained break of $100 would make a $90 stress case more plausible. From the $106 reference, the move is $16 or approximately 15.1%. The $90 figure is a transparent scenario boundary beyond the recent low, not a verified concentration of resting buy orders.

A difficult handoff would add a token-specific risk to that path. Validators running incompatible software or without the required vote-account balance may fail to participate as intended. RPC nodes could deliver finality information with a delay. An isolated service interruption would need to be distinguished from a consensus failure, with timestamps and network measurements rather than a rumor attached to a price candle.

Fund redemptions continuing into November would weaken demand even without operational trouble. A company can sell a reserve for reasons specific to its shareholders, and a different company can buy. The market effect of treasury activity depends on completed transactions and execution, not a list of corporate names. SkyAI’s disclosed exit provides a concrete historical sale but does not authorize a forecast of an identical next seller.

The bear case weakens if SOL holds above $100 through the transition, recovers the $120 area and ETF flows turn positive over successive weeks. A single fund inflow or one day of faster measured finality would not settle all three conditions. The downside scenario depends on persistent demand weakness, whether or not the technology succeeds.

Measuring activity after vote transactions disappear

Alpenglow creates a data comparison problem precisely when investors will be looking for proof of adoption. Under the old system, validator votes appeared in the transaction record and contributed to broad headline counts. Moving those votes away from ordinary onchain transactions may reduce reported transaction totals without changing the number of users making payments or using apps. The post-upgrade number must be compared with a pre-upgrade count that excludes the votes, or the interpretation will be distorted.

Block times, finality and transactions per second are related but different. A block can be produced quickly while the network takes longer to treat it as irreversible. Finality around 150 milliseconds is a consensus target, not a claim that every wallet screen or exchange credit will update in that time. Application performance includes RPC delivery and the service’s own confirmation policy. Reporting a single stopwatch measurement without identifying where it was taken would exaggerate the user experience.

The Validator Admission Ticket offers another measure with limits. The fee is burned, but total burn depends on participating validators and epochs; the net token supply depends on other issuance and burn components. A lower vote fee for a particular validator does not automatically mean a lower total supply or a higher market price. The fee change may improve operating economics for some validators while changing the distribution of costs and the network’s recorded transactions.

A long-term value case could develop if fast, reliable finality attracts services that bring new users and fee-paying activity. November may be too short to prove a lasting change in adoption. A useful first report would compare user-originated transaction counts, app volume, observed finality and outage records over matched periods before and after activation, controlling for the voting-count change. The result could support or weaken an upgrade thesis without assigning a mechanical SOL price.

The Foundation’s guide provides specific operational instructions for validators. It does not offer a price forecast. A reader assessing claims in November can therefore check the primary upgrade documentation and the actual network record against any later assertion that $125 or $90 was inevitable because consensus changed.

November begins after the handoff

The upgrade is scheduled for October 21, while November starts 11 days later. That gap matters. If validators complete the change and the network runs normally into the new month, November’s price story will concern observed performance and demand after launch, not anticipation of a future activation. If the activation is delayed or encounters an issue, the starting condition will differ and the scenario needs to be updated.

U.S. fund flows are reported on business days, but Solana trades continuously and the epoch can begin outside U.S. market hours. Comparing an intraday price move at the switch to an ETF print from the previous session would misplace cause and effect. A completed October close, the first November fund week and contemporaneous network measurements provide a cleaner sequence.

Price data have the same time problem. CoinGecko’s October 20 close of $106.39 uses UTC daily boundaries, while an exchange might show a different local session. The round $106 reference in this story is deliberately not a real-time prediction point. Recalculate the percentage distance to $125 or $90 from the actual price when November opens rather than repeat 17.9% and 15.1% as if the market had been frozen since October 21.

The next Federal Reserve meeting falls on October 27 and 28, with minutes scheduled for November 18. Macro conditions can change between the Solana handoff and the beginning of November. The protocol result and the macro result are separate events, so the story should record both before asserting a cause for any price move. As of this draft, epoch 1064 remains the scheduled activation point in the Foundation’s guidance.

What to watch

• Epoch 1064: Confirm actual Alpenglow activation and validator participation rather than relying on an estimated clock time.
• Measured finality: Compare live network observations with the roughly 150 millisecond target and distinguish RPC delays.
• ETF demand: Track consecutive daily rows after October 20’s $2.6 million outflow, separating seed from new flows.
• Price levels: Recovery through $120 supports a $125 case; a sustained break below $100 strengthens the $90 case.
• User transactions: Exclude validator votes from before-and-after activity comparisons when they leave the onchain count.

FAQ

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 21, 2026.