Base vs Solana: Fair Collaboration or Liquidity Vampire Strategy?

December 4, 2025 marked a tense moment in the crypto ecosystem. Base launched a cross-chain bridge integrating Solana, enabling asset flow between both networks. Built on Chainlink CCIP(Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol) and Coinbase infrastructure, the bridge connects applications like Zora, Aerodrome, Virtuals, Flaunch, and Relay with the Solana ecosystem.

The reaction was immediate and blunt: Solana developers accused Jesse Pollak of executing a “vampire attack”—a strategy that captures resources from other ecosystems under the guise of interoperability. But this critique touches on a deeper issue: is this genuine collaboration or strategic appropriation disguised as such?

The two opposing narratives

Base’s defense:

Jesse Pollak argues that the bridge is genuinely “bidirectional.” His premise is pragmatic: Base applications need access to SOL and SPL tokens, while Solana projects require liquidity from Base. Investing nine months to build this architecture responds to a real need.

Pollak adds that Base communicated the project since May with key figures like Anatoly Yakovenko, and the plan was publicly announced in September. He emphasizes that both Base and Solana developers can benefit from entering each other’s ecosystems.

The accusation from Solana:

Vibhu Norby, founder of DRiP, was categorical. In September, Alexander Cutler(co-founder of Aerodrome) publicly stated that Base “will surpass Solana” and become the world’s largest blockchain network. For Norby, this statement contradicts all claims of fair partnership.

When Akshay BD, a close figure to the Solana superteam, joined the debate, the criticism intensified:

“Saying ‘bidirectional’ doesn’t mean it really is. The net capital inflow/outflow depends entirely on how it’s driven. What bothers me is their lack of honesty.”

Anatoly Yakovenko, co-founder of Solana, delivered the most incisive argument: if true collaboration existed, Base would migrate its applications to Solana, allowing Solana’s block processors to execute transactions and capture fees. Otherwise, it’s “mere lip service.”

The economic asymmetry: the core of the conflict

The real breaking point isn’t technological but economic. Anatoly identified something crucial: the bridge is bidirectional at the code level but not at the level of “economic gravity.”

Consider the mechanics:

• A Solana user sends SOL or an SPL token to a Base application(Aerodrome, Zora)
• The application captures value: generates transaction fees, channels MEV(max extractable value), demands staking
• All this value flow remains in Base, an Ethereum Layer2
• Solana loses fees, activity, and value capture opportunities

Unless capital returns or an equivalent reverse flow is generated, Solana is providing assets while Base captures benefits. This is precisely the pattern of a “vampire attack”: liquidity appropriation without fair return.

The structural positions of both networks

The root of the disagreement lies in occupying different levels in the liquidity hierarchy:

Base as an Ethereum Layer2:

• Inherits security and credibility from Ethereum but competes directly with mainnet and other Layer2s
• Needs to differentiate through better UX, lower fees, or a unique ecosystem
• Depends on attracting external activity to justify its existence
• Access to Solana is an immediate strategic asset

Solana as an independent Layer1:

• Has its own set of validators, token economy, and security model
• Generates revenue from transaction fees on its network
• Over the past year, has been the epicenter of meme coins, NFTs, and retail user influx
• Loses attraction power if this flow shifts to other networks

In clear terms: a Layer2 needs to colonize; an established Layer1 fears migration.

Who truly benefits?

Incentive analysis reveals why Solana sees a vampire threat rather than an opportunity:

For Base:

• Directly absorbs the “vitality” of the Solana ecosystem: meme coin fever, speculation, retail activity
• Positions itself as a “neutral cross-chain DeFi hub,” capturing narrative and users
• Gains credibility as a bridge without waiting for organic growth
• Reinforces its role as the “default intermediary”

For Solana:

• Theoretically gains “access to the Base ecosystem,” but without guaranteed value capture
• Only benefits if:
  • Base developers migrate execution to Solana(improbable)
  • Native Solana projects create integration functions and transfer capital from Base to Solana contracts
• These scenarios haven’t occurred in the initial launch

The existential risk for Solana is descending from “independent ecosystem destination” to “capital supply chain for Base DeFi.” In other words: shifting from network to provider.

The lack of true commitment

Vibhu Norby and Akshay BD emphasize that Base did not establish partnerships with major native Solana projects, did not collaborate with the Solana Foundation, and integrated only applications it already controls or is allied with(Aerodrome, Zora).

Pollak counters that he tried to involve more Solana projects over nine months, but “most showed no interest,” with only exceptions like Trencher and Chillhouse.

But here’s the detail Solana highlights: publishing open-source code without forming strategic partnerships is design, not collaboration. It’s different from:

• Agreeing with the Solana Foundation on the bridge’s direction
• Facilitating migrations from Base to Solana
• Aligning economic incentives

The ultimate test: what will be seen in 6 months?

Anatoly Yakovenko proposes a clear evaluation criterion:

If the bridge is legitimate, we would expect:

• Base applications executing substantial transactions on Solana
• Native Solana projects launching integrations with liquidity from Base
• Bidirectional capital flow with comparable magnitudes

If it’s a “vampire attack,” we will see:

• Unidirectional flow: SOL and SPL toward Base
• All revenues and fees captured by Base
• Increasing migration of Solana applications toward Base, with no return

Pollak insists that Base sees Solana as an “equal partner.” The test will be whether Base encourages its developers to build on Solana or simply attracts Solana users to transfer capital to Base.

Conclusion: collaboration vs. disguised competition

The controversy exposes a fundamental tension: in the multichain blockchain world, interoperability is a variable-sum game, not a positive-sum. Value doesn’t increase by connecting networks; it redistributes.

For Base, the bridge is tactically brilliant: captures Solana liquidity without depending on its organic growth. For Solana, it’s strategically risky: opens its assets to drainage without guaranteed return.

Anatoly summarized the dilemma: “If there is sincere competition, the bridge benefits the ecosystem. If it disguises collaboration while secretly competing, it’s ecological theater.”

The data on capital in the coming months will reveal whether this was true cooperation or the refined execution of a vampire attack under the pretext of neutral interoperability.