Base e Solana: strategic collaboration or masked plundering? The cross-chain bridge at the center of the storm

The launch of the interoperable bridge between Base and Solana sparked one of the most heated disputes in the crypto ecosystem in December 2025. While supporters describe it as an essential tool for multichain interconnection, Solana community leaders accuse it of representing a true “vampire attack” — a value-draining strategy disguised as mutual benefit.

The context: two incomparable positions in the liquidity hierarchy

The root of the conflict lies in the fundamentally different positions that Base and Solana occupy within the blockchain ecosystem. Base, as a Layer 2 built on Ethereum, inherits the security and credibility of the mainnet but must compete with it to capture user activity. Solana, on the other hand, is an independent Layer 1 blockchain with its own consensus mechanism, validators, and autonomous economic model.

This structural difference creates a critical asymmetry: when Solana assets flow to Base through the bridge, Solana directly loses transaction fees, Maximum Extractable Value (MEV), and staking demand. Conversely, Base immediately captures the economic activity and network effects associated with these assets — without having to offer anything equivalent in return.

The promise of bidirectionality and its contradictions

Jesse Pollak presented the bridge as a “bidirectional tool”: Base applications need access to SOL and SPL tokens, while Solana developers require liquidity from Base. The infrastructure, built on the Chainlink CCIP protocol and Coinbase’s infrastructure, took 9 months of development — a timeline that underscores the technical commitment behind the project.

However, this narrative was quickly challenged. Vibhu Norby of DRiP pointed out that during September’s Basecamp, Alexander Cutler of Aerodrome stated that Base would “overtake Solana,” becoming the largest blockchain network. Akshay BD, a key figure in the Solana ecosystem, responded even more directly: the “worded” bidirectionality does not match the economic reality. A bridge between two economies always has a net flow determined by promotion and integration methods — and the strategic intent behind the launch is anything but neutral.

Who is really extracting value?

Initial integrations speak for themselves: Relay, Zora, Aerodrome, Virtuals, and Flaunch all started the bridge toward Solana — but all are native Base applications. No significant Solana application has been integrated in parallel, nor has there been an announced reverse migration of dApps to the Solana ecosystem.

This pattern reveals the true nature of the exchange. If the bridge only allows Base applications to import Solana liquidity while transaction execution and fee capture remain on Ethereum’s Layer 2, then Solana functions as a “provider of assets” while Base acts as an “aggregation hub.” Solana validators receive no compensation for this capital depredation; SOL and SPL tokens enter Base contracts to be used in DeFi protocols like Aerodrome, generating profits that vanish into the Ethereum ecosystem.

Anatoly Yakovenko, co-founder of Solana, proposed the ultimate test: if Base were sincere, it should migrate its applications to Solana for execution, allowing Solana validators to manage transaction linearization and capture the related value. Only this would constitute true reciprocity.

The detailed economic asymmetry

The dispute centers on a matter of net capital flows. Pollak claims that Base announced the project as early as May and sought collaborations with Solana projects, but most were uninterested. Only a few meme projects like Trencher and Chillhouse joined.

But this is precisely the critical point, according to the Solana side: the lack of genuine collaboration with the Solana Foundation, the exclusive integration of dApps aligned with Base, and the complete absence of incentives for Solana developers to build on Base reveal that this is a “predatory attack” disguised as neutral infrastructure.

The concrete risk is that Solana shifts from “independent blockchain with a vibrant ecosystem” to “capital supply chain for centralized DeFi on Base and Ethereum.” If the bridge becomes a unidirectional funnel, Solana will provide liquidity without receiving any transaction fee income or economic value in return.

Base’s hidden strategy

Anatoly Yakovenko also noted a double standard in Base’s positioning: the platform does not openly admit its competition with Ethereum — if it did, it would have to acknowledge that it is cannibalizing mainnet activity — so it presents itself as a “neutral interoperability layer.” Similarly, toward Solana, Base positions itself as an “infrastructure hub” when in reality it is aggressively competing to attract user activity and liquidity from the opposing ecosystem.

This narrative asymmetry is the true heart of the controversy: Base does not declare its competitive intentions, so the bridge is not presented as a strategic acquisition tool but as an “ecosystem synergy” infrastructure. If competition had been openly declared, the sector could benefit; but by disguising it as collaboration, Base undermines cross-chain trust.

The next 6 months will be decisive

The final outcome of this dispute will depend on observable indicators in the coming months:

Scenario of genuine reciprocity: If Base applications start executing transactions on Solana, if native Solana projects launch integrations that bring liquidity to Base contracts on Solana, and if Solana validators begin capturing value from cross-chain activity, then the bridge can genuinely be considered a tool for collaboration.

Scenario of confirmed predation: If capital flows remain unidirectional — Solana assets to Base with value capture remaining solely on Layer 2 — then the accusation of an “economic vampire attack” will be fully justified.

The real test will be whether Base encourages its developers to build on Solana, or simply guides Solana users to transfer assets onto its network. The difference between these approaches is not semantic: it determines whether the bridge represents true progress for global interoperability or just a sophisticated territorial acquisition strategy disguised as neutral infrastructure.

In the next six months, on-chain data and developer movements will reveal whether this is truly an “ecosystem synergy” or the most elegant predation operation ever attempted in the sector.