The Base-Solana Bridge Dispute: "Vampire Attack" or Multichain Pragmatism?

The root of the conflict lies in the fact that Base and Solana occupy completely different positions in the "liquidity hierarchy."

Written by: Gino Matos

Translated by: Saoirse, Foresight News

On December 4, 2025, Base launched a cross-chain bridge connecting Solana; within hours, the most outspoken developers in the Solana ecosystem accused Jesse Pollak of using "interoperability" as a pretext to carry out a "vampire attack" (referring to the act of siphoning resources from other ecosystems through improper means).

This cross-chain bridge is built on the Chainlink CCIP protocol (Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol) and Coinbase's infrastructure, allowing users to transfer assets between Base and Solana. Currently, applications such as Zora, Aerodrome, Virtuals, Flaunch, and Relay have completed early integration, all of which are developed based on the Base ecosystem.

Pollak defines the bridge as a "bidirectional utility": applications in the Base ecosystem need access to SOL tokens and SPL tokens, while applications in the Solana ecosystem also need to access Base's liquidity. Therefore, Base spent nine months building this connection architecture.

However, Vibhu Norby, founder of Solana creator platform DRiP, holds a completely opposite view. He posted a video of Aerodrome co-founder Alexander Cutler—at the Basecamp event in September, Alexander Cutler stated that Base would "surpass Solana" and become the world's largest blockchain network.

Vibhu Norby interpreted it as follows:

"They are not partners at all. If things go their way, Solana shouldn't even exist."

Pollak responded that Base built this cross-chain bridge to Solana simply because "Solana's assets should be able to enter the Base economic system, and Base's assets should also have the opportunity to enter the Solana ecosystem."

Vibhu Norby immediately countered, saying that Base had neither prepared for the integration of native Solana applications nor carried out any collaboration with the Solana Foundation's marketing or operations teams.

When Akshay BD, a core figure closely connected to the Solana Superteam, spoke out to Pollak, the debate escalated further. Akshay BD stated:

"Just saying 'bidirectional' doesn't make it truly bidirectional. This is essentially a bridge between two economies, and the net inflow/outflow of funds ultimately depends on how you promote it. I don't object to your competitive spirit... but I resent your dishonesty."

Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko also joined the discussion and offered the sharpest criticism:

"If you are truly sincere, migrate Base's applications to Solana—let these applications run on Solana and let Solana's staked block producers handle transaction linearization. That would benefit Solana's developers. Otherwise, so-called 'ecosystem synergy' is all nonsense."

The core of this debate is that "interoperability" presents an inherent incentive mismatch for Ethereum Layer2s and other independent Layer1s.

Base believes that this cross-chain bridge can unlock shared liquidity and optimize cross-chain user experience (UX) without relying on third-party infrastructure.

Pollak stated that Base announced the cross-chain bridge plan as early as September, began communicating with Anatoly Yakovenko and others in May, and has always emphasized its "bidirectionality." He insists that both Base and Solana developers can benefit from integrating with each other's ecosystems.

However, the Solana camp refutes this, arguing that Base's approach to launching the cross-chain bridge—only integrating applications aligned with itself, not partnering with native Solana partners, and skipping communication with the Solana Foundation—exposes its true strategy: siphoning Solana's funds into the Base ecosystem while packaging it as "reciprocal infrastructure."

The Nature of Asymmetry

In Anatoly Yakovenko's view, this cross-chain bridge is only "bidirectional at the code level," not "bidirectional in terms of economic gravity." If the bridge only allows Base applications to import Solana assets but keeps all transaction execution and fee revenue on Base, it is plundering Solana's value without compensation—this is the core basis of the "vampire attack" argument.

Pollak counters that "interoperability" is not a zero-sum game. He believes that Base and Solana can both compete and collaborate, and developers on both sides have a need to access the other's ecosystem. He mentioned that during the nine-month development process, Base tried to engage Solana ecosystem participants, but "most projects were not very interested," with only meme coin projects like Trencher and Chillhouse participating in the collaboration.

Vibhu Norby and Akshay BD disagree with this view. They believe that simply releasing a code repository, without launching with partners or collaborating with the Solana Foundation, is not "real collaboration"—it's just disguising "strategic plundering" as "open-source infrastructure."

The root of the conflict lies in the fact that Base and Solana occupy completely different positions in the "liquidity hierarchy."

Base is an Ethereum Layer2 network, which means it inherits Ethereum's security, settlement capabilities, and credibility, but also needs to compete with Ethereum mainnet for user activity. For Ethereum Layer2 networks, they must prove their value by providing a better user experience, lower fees, or a differentiated ecosystem.

Meanwhile, Solana is an independent Layer1 blockchain with its own validator cluster, token economy, and security model.

When a cross-chain bridge allows Solana's assets to flow into Base, Solana directly loses transaction fees, MEV (Maximum Extractable Value), and staking demand—unless these assets eventually flow back or generate reverse capital flows.

Base, on the other hand, captures the activity and economic benefits brought by these assets. Anatoly Yakovenko's core view is that true bidirectionality should involve Base applications migrating to execute on Solana, rather than simply importing Solana tokens into Base contracts.

Who Are the Real Beneficiaries?

From the debate, it is clear that the Solana camp believes that Base, through this cross-chain bridge, can directly inherit Solana's ecosystem momentum and capital dynamics. Over the past year, Solana has been the core hub for meme coin booms, NFT speculation, and retail user inflows—integrating SOL and SPL tokens into Base applications like Aerodrome and Zora allows Base to "inherit" this vitality without waiting for its own organic growth.

In addition, Base can strengthen its narrative as the "default cross-chain DeFi hub" by positioning itself as a "neutral interoperability layer connecting all ecosystems."

For Solana, although it gains the "possibility of accessing the Base ecosystem," it does not gain a "guarantee of value capture." Only when the cross-chain bridge encourages Base developers to execute transactions on Solana, or prompts native Solana applications to use Base's liquidity pools to handle cross-chain assets, will this relationship become truly "reciprocal." Conversely, if the bridge becomes a "one-way funnel for Solana assets into Base," Solana will be the clear loser.

The biggest risk is that Solana may degrade from an "independent ecosystem destination" to a "liquidity supply chain for Base DeFi."

Vibhu Norby's accusations reflect this concern: if Base's launch strategy is to plunder Solana's value through integrated applications without giving anything in return, then this cross-chain bridge is not a "collaborative tool" but a "competitive weapon."

Additionally, Anatoly Yakovenko pointed out that Base does not dare to openly admit its competitive relationship with Ethereum, so it packages itself as "compatible with a broader ecosystem," while actually siphoning off activity. The same logic applies to Solana: Base does not dare to admit its competition with Solana, so it disguises the cross-chain bridge as "neutral infrastructure."

What Lies Ahead?

Currently, this cross-chain bridge has officially launched, and the final outcome will be determined by "economic gravity":

• If Base applications begin migrating transaction execution to Solana, or native Solana projects launch integration features and bring Base's liquidity into Solana contracts, then this bridge will become a true "bidirectional tool";
• If capital flows remain one-way—Solana assets flow into Base, but the profits stay on the Ethereum Layer2 network—then the "vampire attack" argument will be confirmed.

Whether what Pollak calls "win-win between Base and Solana" is realized ultimately depends on whether Base sees Solana as an "equal partner" or merely as a "provider of assets and liquidity." The difference lies in whether Base guides its own developers to build on Solana, or guides Solana users to transfer assets to Base.

Anatoly Yakovenko proposed a clear test: if there is open competition, the bridge benefits the industry; if there is a pretense of collaboration while secretly competing, then it is just an "ecosystem synergy performance."

In the next six months, the actual direction of asset flows and ecosystem collaboration will reveal the truth behind this controversy.