Blog

Whoa, this chain moves fast. I was staring at a pending transaction and my first thought was where the fee went. Solana feels instant until something weird happens and then you’re left digging through logs. Initially I thought RPC latency or a bad client call, but after some digging I realized the issue was a combination of recent runtime changes, token mint quirks, and poor UI feedback that hid the real cause from an everyday user who just wanted to move funds. On one hand you get incredible throughput and low fees, though actually when accounts are rent-exempt and a program uses CPI chains the complexity spikes and the surface area for confusion grows much faster than you expect.

Really? That surprised me. My instinct said check a blockchain explorer first before blaming your wallet or RPC node. So I pulled up Solscan and the raw logs, which told a clearer story than the UI did. I’ll be honest—solscan has saved me more times than I can count because it exposes inner instruction flows and inner transfers, and when you trace a token movement across PDAs and cross-program invocations the trail is often undeniable even if it’s buried under layers of program accounts. Something felt off about how some explorers represented inner instructions though; different tools show different slices of the truth depending on their indexers, their commitment levels, and how they normalize accounts, and that nuance matters when you’re debugging a stuck swap or auditing a token mint.

Hmm… I felt that. Check this out—raw transaction parsing shows which program signed what and when. You can see the transfer instructions, but more importantly you can see the inner instructions and rent changes. When debugging I often step through the transaction by slot and signature, looking at account diffs, balance changes, and logs that show program emit events, because that timeline helps me build a hypothesis about why funds didn’t show up in the expected account after a CPI cascade. On a technical level, inner instructions are not uniformly surfaced by every explorer and sometimes they require a deeper RPC method or even an archive node snapshot to reconstruct historical state, which is why choosing the right tooling matters for audits and incident response teams alike.

Where to start when a transaction looks wrong

Okay, so check this out—. If you’re tracking transactions or tokens on Solana, an explorer exposing inner instructions helps root-cause analysis. I usually tell devs to paste a signature and get a step-by-step execution view. For a lot of day-to-day work I rely on a web explorer that not only shows transactions and token balances but also resolves PDA addresses, decodes instruction data when possible, and links to program source or ABI-like decoders, because that context lets you move from suspicion to a fix much faster than guessing. If you want a starting point, try this solana explorer: solana explorer.

Here’s what bugs me. People misread failed transactions and assume their funds disappeared, which is very very common. Watch for partial successes; a swap can consume funds and leave temporary tokens pending cleanup. Another common trap is trusting default RPC commitment levels—if you query at a lower commitment you might see a different balance than a validator that has finalized the slot, which leads to confusing race conditions across services and wallets that don’t sync state in the same way. Finally, always check the token mint and metadata accounts when NFT or SPL transfers look wrong; mismatched authorities are surprisingly common.

Try this workflow. First, paste the transaction signature and view the instruction list. Second, expand inner instructions and account changes to see subtle token movements. Third, if the explorer’s decoding is incomplete, copy the raw instruction data and decode it locally with your program’s Borsh schema or use a decoder that understands the program layout, because that can reveal a missing signatory or a misaligned data field that explains the failure. Finally, correlate slot time with cluster status and known upgrades or downtime to rule out broader network effects.

I’m biased, okay. I once chased a phantom transfer that was actually an old rent-exempt reclaim. That felt embarrassing at first, but it taught me to always look at account lamport deltas before panicking. Initially I thought a malicious program had siphoned tokens, but after tracing inner instructions and checking multisig owners I re-evaluated my assumptions and realized the contract’s cleanup routine had a bug that kicked in under certain timing conditions. I’m not 100% sure, but that exercise probably saved users a lot of needless fear (oh, and by the way… sometimes the logs are terse and you have to infer stuff).

Be pragmatic about tooling. Integrate explorer checks into CI for important operations like token mints or treasury moves. Automate signature tracking and alert on unexpected account creation or authority changes. If you’re running an indexing or archival node you can offer richer historical queries for your app, but realize that storage and replay costs rise quickly and you’ll need pruning or compaction strategies to stay affordable, which is a trade-off teams often underestimate. Also consider UX—if a wallet shows pending state without a transaction link, users will freak out.

Okay, here’s the ending. At first I was annoyed by explorer inconsistencies; then I accepted them as trade-offs for speed. Now I’m more curious than angry and that’s a healthier stance. So when you next chase a ghost transaction, take a breath, open an explorer that decodes inner instructions, follow the lamport deltas, and remember that the chain is deterministic even when the UI lies to you—work through the contradictions and you’ll usually find the answer. Good luck, and be careful…