The base launched a bridge to Solana on December 4, and within hours Solana’s most vocal builders accused Jesse Pollak of launching a vampire attack disguised as interoperability.
The bridge leverages Chainlink CCIP and Coinbase infrastructure to let users move assets between Base and Solana, with early integrations in Zora, Aerodrome, Virtuals, Flaunch, and Relay. These are all applications built on Base.
Pollak described it as bidirectional pragmatism: Base apps want access to SOL and SPL tokens, Solana apps want access to Base liquidity, so Base spent nine months building the connective tissue.
Vibhu Norby, founder of Solana maker platform DRiP, saw it differently. He posted a video from Aerodrome co-founder Alexander Cutler, who said at Basecamp in September that Base Solana would turn around and become the largest chain in the world.
Norby read:
“These are not partners; if they had their way, Solana wouldn’t exist.”
Pollak responded that Base just built a bridge to Solana because “Solana assets deserve access to the Base economy and Base assets should have access to Solana.”
Norby fired back, claiming that Base had not set up any Solana-based applications for launch, nor had they worked with the Solana Foundation’s marketing or operations team.
The thread escalated when Akshay BD, a top voice associated with Solana’s Superteam, told Pollak:
“Calling it bi-directional doesn’t make it that way. It’s a bridge between two economies that produces a net import/export result depending on how you roll it out. I don’t mind you being competitive… I do mind you being dishonest.”
Anatoly Yakovenko, co-founder of Solana, joined in to deliver the sharpest version of the criticism:
“Migrate Base apps to Solana so they run on Solana and the transactions are linearized by Solana’s staking block producers. That would be good for Solana developers. Otherwise it’s alignment bullshit.”
The debate highlights the discrepancy between what “interoperability” means for an Ethereum layer-2 and for an alternative layer-1 blockchain.
Base sees the bridge as unlocking shared liquidity and cross-chain UX without relying on third-party infrastructure.
Pollak said Base announced the bridge in September, started talking about it with Yakovenko and others in May, and consistently said the bridge works both ways.
He emphasizes that Base and Solana developers benefit from access to both economies.
Rather, Solana voices argue that the method Base used to launch the bridge, which involved only integrating Base-aligned apps, not coordinating Solana native partners, and skipping Solana Foundation outreach, reveals the real strategy: siphoning Solana capital into Base’s ecosystem and marketing it as reciprocal infrastructure.
The asymmetry
According to Yakovenko, the bridge is bidirectional in code, but not in economic gravity.
If the bridge simply lets Base apps import Solana assets while keeping all execution and fee revenue on Base, it is extracting value from Solana without giving anything back. That’s the thesis of the vampire attack.
Pollak’s counterargument is that interoperability is not zero-sum. He argues that Base and Solana can compete and collaborate at the same time, and that developers on both sides want access to each other’s economies.
He pointed out that during the nine-month construction process, Base tried to engage participants in the Solana ecosystem, but “people weren’t really interested.” However, meme projects such as Trencher and Chillhouse did work together.
Norby and Akshay challenge that framing, arguing that dropping a repository without coordination from launch partners or collaboration with the Solana Foundation is not true collaboration, but tactical extraction dressed up as open-source infrastructure.
The problem is that Base and Solana occupy different positions in the liquidity hierarchy.
Base is an Ethereum layer-2, meaning it inherits the security, settlement, and credibility of Ethereum, but competes with the mainnet for activity. Ethereum layer-2 blockchains must justify their existence by offering better UX, lower costs or differentiated ecosystems.
Meanwhile, Solana is a standalone Layer 1 with its own validator set, token economy, and security model.
When a bridge flows Solana assets to Base, Solana loses transaction fees, MEV, and stake demand unless these assets eventually return or generate reciprocal flows.
Base records the activity and economic interest. Yakovenko’s point is that true bidirectionality would mean that Base apps move execution to Solana and not just import Solana tokens into Base-based contracts.
Who wins what
Based on the debate, Solana’s key voices are suggesting that Base gain immediate access to Solana’s cultural and financial momentum. Solana has been the center of meme coin mania, NFT speculation and retail onboarding over the past year.
By integrating SOL and SPL tokens into Base apps like Aerodrome and Zora, Base can tap into that energy without waiting for organic growth.
Base also benefits from positioning itself as the ‘neutral’ interoperability layer connecting all ecosystems, reinforcing its story as the default hub for cross-chain DeFi.
Although Solana will be optional, it will not have a guaranteed value capture. If the bridge drives Base developers to experiment with Solana implementation or if Solana apps start using Base liquidity pools for bridged assets, the relationship becomes reciprocal.
However, if the bridge serves primarily as a one-way street that draws Solana’s assets into Base’s economy, Solana loses.
The risk is that Solana becomes a feeder chain for Base DeFi rather than a destination.
Norby’s accusation reflects that fear. If Base’s launch strategy was to integrate apps that extract value from Solana without giving anything back, the bridge is a competitive weapon, not a collaboration.
Furthermore, Yakovenko argues that Base cannot be honest about competing with Ethereum, so it frames itself as aligned with the broader ecosystem while actually siphoning off activities.
The same logic applies to Solana: Base cannot be honest about competing with Solana, so it considers the bridge as neutral infrastructure.
What happens next
The bridge is live and economic severity will determine the outcome. As Base apps start routing execution to Solana or as Solana-native projects launch integrations that pull Base liquidity into Solana-based contracts, the bridge becomes truly bidirectional.
If the flow remains one-way, with Solana assets going to the base and revenue remaining at Ethereum layer 2, the vampire attack theorem holds.
Pollak’s claim that Base and Solana “win together” hinges on whether Base treats Solana as a competitor or as a provider of assets and liquidity.
The difference is whether Base markets its own developers to build on Solana, or markets for Solana users to bring their assets to Base.
Yakovenko made the test explicit: compete fairly, and the bridge is good for the industry. Compete while pretending to collaborate, and it’s coordination theater.
The next six months will show which story is real.
