The rivalry between Base and Solana has taken on a new dimension with the introduction of the Base-Solana bridge. The latest episode goes back to September 2025, when Aerodrome’s co-founder Alex Cutler boasted at Basecamp that Base would “flip Solana,” attracting the attention of Solana’s famous defender, Mert Mumtaz, the CEO of Helius Labs.  The […]The rivalry between Base and Solana has taken on a new dimension with the introduction of the Base-Solana bridge. The latest episode goes back to September 2025, when Aerodrome’s co-founder Alex Cutler boasted at Basecamp that Base would “flip Solana,” attracting the attention of Solana’s famous defender, Mert Mumtaz, the CEO of Helius Labs.  The […]

Solana devs say Base is siphoning capital, not collaborating

2025/12/07 01:18

The rivalry between Base and Solana has taken on a new dimension with the introduction of the Base-Solana bridge. The latest episode goes back to September 2025, when Aerodrome’s co-founder Alex Cutler boasted at Basecamp that Base would “flip Solana,” attracting the attention of Solana’s famous defender, Mert Mumtaz, the CEO of Helius Labs. 

The tension has since escalated after Base launched the bridge to Solana on December 4, with Solana’s most vocal builders accusing Jesse Pollak of disguising a vampire attack as interoperability.

The rivalry of ‘healthy competition’

The bridge, which uses Chainlink CCIP and Coinbase infrastructure to let users move assets between Base and Solana, was launched with early integrations in Zora, Aerodrome, Virtuals, Flaunch, and Relay. 

They are all applications native to Base, and while Pollak framed the move as bidirectional pragmatism, Vibhu Norby, founder of Solana creator platform DRiP, called it out for being anything but. 

He took to X with footage of Aerodrome’s Alexander Cutler at Basecamp, claiming that Base would “flip Solana” and become the largest chain in the world. Norby’s response was pointed: “These are not partners; if they had it their way, Solana would not exist.”

The post apparently rubbed Jesse Pollak the wrong way. His response post started the discourse on what the bridge really means for both chains. In his reply, Pollak claimed that Base built a bridge to Solana because “Solana assets deserve to have access to the Base economy and Base assets should have access to Solana.”

However, Norby replied with allegations that Base deliberately passed on Solana-based applications for launch, nor did they liaise with the Solana Foundation marketing or operations team.

Akshay BD, a popular voice linked to Solana’s Superteam, chimed in, “Calling it bidirectional doesn’t make it so. It’s a bridge between two economies that has net import/export result based on how you roll it out. I don’t mind that you’re competitive… I mind that you’re being dishonest.”

In response to that, Pollak acknowledged that the team could have “improved the way we communicated to the Solana Foundation, but the idea that there’s some conspiracy here is just ungrounded in reality.” 

Solana’s Toly was also skeptical of the Base bridge

By then, the thread had already garnered an audience and caught the attention of Anatoly Yakovenko, Solana’s co-founder. 

“Migrate Base apps to Solana so they execute on Solana and the transactions are linearized by Solana staked block producers,” he wrote. “That would be good for Solana developers. Otherwise, it’s alignment bullshit.”

Throughout the debate, Pollak repeatedly pointed out that Base announced the bridge in September and began discussing it with Yakovenko and others in May, and that it is bidirectional, which means Base and Solana developers will benefit from access to both economies.

However, reputable voices on Solana argue that the method Base used to launch the bridge is proof that its main function is to siphon Solana capital into Base’s ecosystem while marketing it as reciprocal infrastructure.

However, if the bridge only lets Base apps import Solana assets while keeping all execution and fee revenue on Base, it ultimately extracts value from the SOL ecosystem without giving anything back, which is the vampire attack thesis people like Toly are going with. 

Pollak is convinced this is not the case and argues in the thread that both chains can compete and collaborate simultaneously, and that the bridge was a response to developers on both sides wanting access to each other’s economies.

He also claimed that Base attempted to engage Solana ecosystem participants during the nine months it took to build the bridge, but apparently, “folks weren’t really interested” with the exception of some meme projects like Trencher and Chillhouse, who chose to collaborate.

Norby and Akshay countered that talk by arguing that dropping a repo without coordinating launch partners or working with the Solana Foundation reeks of tactical extraction dressed up as open-source infrastructure.

What doesSolana gain from the Base bridge?

Reputable voices on Solana claim that with the bridge, Base gains immediate access to Solana’s cultural and financial momentum, which is a lot considering how Solana has been the center of meme coin trading, NFT speculation, and retail onboarding for the past year.

By integrating SOL and SPL tokens into Base apps, Base gets access to all that energy and also benefits from being the “neutral” interoperability layer that connects all ecosystems. 

Solana advocates insist that the network only gains optionality, not guaranteed value capture. For the relationship to be truly reciprocal, the bridge will need to push Base developers to experiment with Solana execution or encourage Solana apps to start using Base liquidity pools for bridged assets. 

In the event that the bridge only serves as a one-way funnel that pulls Solana assets into Base’s economy, Solana risks becoming a feeder chain for Base DeFi rather than a destination, which makes it the losing party. 

Sharpen your strategy with mentorship + daily ideas - 30 days free access to our trading program

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers

Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers

The post Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On Dec. 2, Citadel Securities filed a 13-page letter with the SEC arguing that decentralized protocols facilitating tokenized US equity trading already meet statutory definitions of exchanges and broker-dealers, and regulators should treat them accordingly. Two days later, the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee convened a panel on tokenized equities that made clear the question is no longer whether stocks can move on-chain, but whether they can do so without dismantling the permissionless architecture that built DeFi. The gap between those two positions now defines the most consequential regulatory fight in crypto since the Howey test debates. Citadel’s letter arrived at the moment when tokenized equities stopped being a thought experiment. The firm welcomes tokenization in principle but insists that realizing its benefits requires applying “the key bedrock principles and investor protections that underpin the fairness, efficiency, and resiliency of US equity markets.” In other words, the document suggests that companies seeking to trade tokenized Apple shares must comply with Nasdaq rules, including transparent fees, consolidated tape reporting, market surveillance, fair access, and registration as an exchange or broker-dealer. The filing warns that granting broad exemptive relief to DeFi platforms creates a shadow US equity market in which liquidity fragments, retail investors lose Exchange Act protections, and incumbents face regulatory arbitrage from unregistered competitors. Within hours, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams fired back on X, calling Citadel’s position an attempt to “treat software developers of decentralized protocols like centralized intermediaries.” He invoked ConstitutionDAO, the 2021 crowdfunding effort that pooled $47 million in Ethereum to bid on a first-edition Constitution at Sotheby’s, only to lose to Griffin’s $43.2 million bid. Additionally, Adams zeroed in on Citadel’s fair-access argument, calling it “actual nerve” from the dominant player in retail order flow. The exchange captured crypto’s core narrative of permissionless code versus gatekeeper control and…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/07 02:32
RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved

RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved

The post RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Takeaways: Seven major Chinese financial associations issued a coordinated warning against RWA tokenization and all virtual-currency-related activity. Regulators stressed that no RWA tokenization projects are authorized in China, citing risks of fraud, speculation, and illegal fundraising. Institutions and individuals were told to avoid all forms of crypto involvement, while enforcement measures widen to include foreign firms serving mainland users. China has delivered one of its strongest signals yet that crypto-linked products, especially RWA tokenization remain firmly off-limits. A rare joint notice issued by seven national financial associations warns that emerging narratives around “stablecoins,” “air coins,” mining, and tokenized real-world assets are now being used as fronts for fraudulent fundraising, cross-border fund transfers, and market manipulation. Below is a structured, journalist-style breakdown of the alert, written uniquely, with expanded insights to help readers understand the regulatory landscape and its implications for global crypto markets. Read More: China to Shake Crypto Markets With First-Ever Yuan Stablecoin Plan Amid U.S. Dollar Dominance China’s Joint Warning: RWA Tokenization Not Approved and Considered High-Risk China’s latest advisory makes it clear that the rapid rise of RWA tokenization in global markets does not translate into tolerance at home. The notice states that financial regulators have not approved any RWA token issuance, trading, or financing activities inside the mainland. Officials emphasized that tokenizing traditional assets such as bonds, real estate claims, or corporate receivables introduces several layers of risk. These include: Fake or unverifiable underlying assets Operational and governance failures Speculative hype marketed as financial innovation Use of RWA tokens for illegal fundraising or unapproved securities issuance The message is unambiguous: any assumption that RWAs occupy a regulatory grey zone in China is incorrect. They are grouped alongside virtual currencies, mining schemes, and stablecoins as activities that can trigger criminal liability when conducted domestically. Why RWAs…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/07 02:40