On December 4, 2024, Base stirred controversy by bridging to Solana, leading to accusations of a vampire attack hidden within interoperability. Utilizing Chainlink's CCIP and Coinbase's ecosystem, this infrastructure aims to streamline asset transfers between the two blockchains, sparking a heated debate on Base's true intentions and the multichain ecosystem's power dynamics.
The Base–Solana bridge was launched with integrations limited exclusively to applications built on Base Zora, without any participation from native Solana projects. According to Vibhu Norby (DRiP), neither the Solana Foundation nor its teams were consulted, reinforcing the perception of a unilateral launch. This asymmetry raises questions despite the “bidirectional” vision championed by Jesse Pollak. According to which Base wants to access SOL and SPL tokens, while Solana could benefit from Ethereum liquidity.
The issue lies in the timing and methodology: launching a bridge without balanced partnerships with the target ecosystem looks more like a liquidity extraction strategy than genuine collaboration. Many view it as a vampire attack designed to drain SOL assets to Base while offering minimal access in return. The absence of reciprocal integrations fuels distrust.
The bridge relies on Chainlink’s CCIP and Coinbase infrastructure, secure but centralized solutions that raise questions about the model’s true decentralization. If flows concentrate primarily in the Solana to Base direction, the SOL ecosystem could face significant pressure on its liquidity. The coming months of on-chain data will be crucial to verify whether the value exchange is truly bidirectional.
🎄 Christmas Special: Get your Ledger at 50% off to protect your crypto!
The controversy reveals a structural contrast: Base is an Ethereum Layer 2, backed by ETH security and liquidity, while Solana is an autonomous Layer 1, entirely dependent on its on-chain activity. This creates asymmetric economic incentives: Base can attract external assets without risking its own security, whereas Solana risks weakening if outflows exceed inflows.
Within this framework, liquidity becomes a strategic issue. If the bridge primarily facilitates SOL outflows without notable reverse flows, Solana could be weakened. Conversely, if Solana applications progressively adopt the bridge and flows become balanced, Pollak’s pragmatic multichain vision would gain legitimacy. Everything will depend on the direction of transfer volumes.
The situation illustrates tensions in an ecosystem where competition for liquidity is increasingly fierce. Solana developers, already competing with Ethereum, perceive this bridge as a threat rather than an opportunity. Their swift reaction reflects a determination to protect an L1 ecosystem against potentially harmful strategies in a constantly evolving multichain landscape.
Related articles:
Passionate about cryptocurrencies since 2019, I cover the latest news through clear and accessible articles. My goal is to make crypto understandable for everyone, with reliable and well-researched content.
DISCLAIMER
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice. Trading cryptocurrencies involves risks, and it is important not to invest more than you can afford to lose.
InvestX is not responsible for the quality of the products or services presented on this page and cannot be held liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused by the use of any product or service featured in this article. Investments in crypto assets are inherently risky; readers should conduct their own research before taking any action and invest only within their financial means. This article does not constitute investment advice.
Risk Warning : Trading financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies carries a high level of risk, including the possibility of losing all or part of your investment. It may not be suitable for all investors. Cryptocurrency prices are highly volatile and can be influenced by external factors such as financial, regulatory, or political events. Margin trading increases financial risks.
CFDs (Contracts for Difference) are complex instruments with a high risk of rapid capital loss due to leverage. Between 74% and 89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. You should assess whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.
Before engaging in financial or cryptocurrency trading, you must be fully informed about the associated risks and fees, carefully evaluate your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk tolerance, and seek professional advice if needed. InvestX.fr and the InvestX application may provide general market commentary, which does not constitute investment advice and should not be interpreted as such. Please consult an independent financial advisor for any investment-related questions. InvestX.fr disclaims any liability for errors, misinvestments, inaccuracies, or omissions and does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information, texts, graphics, links, or other materials provided.
Some of the partners featured on this site may not be regulated in your country. It is your responsibility to verify the compliance of these services with local regulations before using them.
