Comparison and Analysis of Base and BSC Ecosystem Development

In this round of cryptocurrency market trends, the Base ecosystem has performed impressively, while BSC appears to be somewhat quiet. By comparing the development strategies of the two ecosystems, we can gain insight into their differences.

The success of Aerodrome on the Base chain demonstrates its strong ecological incentive capability. The project adopts the ve(3,3) model, which amplifies the incentive effect for liquidity providers by offering bribes to veAero holders. This model not only improves the capital utilization efficiency of the project party but also creates a virtuous cycle: the rise in Aero price promotes higher incentives, which in turn attracts more projects and users to participate, ultimately feeding back into the increase in Aero value.

More importantly, this model realizes permissionless incentives for the ecosystem. Any project can amplify its incentive effects through Aero, and this openness brings tremendous vitality to the Base ecosystem.

In contrast, although there are similar or even better projects on BSC, such as Thena and the Pancake+Cakepie combination, they have not achieved the same results. The main reason lies in the differences in ecological incentive strategies.

A certain trading platform has insufficient support for the BSC ecosystem, and even has negative impacts in some areas. For example, in the Pancake project, certain addresses are suspected of holding a large amount of veCAKE, which directly competes with ecosystem projects for limited dividend and incentive resources. This approach not only fails to support the ecosystem but also undermines the effectiveness of the ve(3,3) model.

In addition, a certain trading platform's investment focus on BSC seems to deviate from projects that can bring positive externalities to the ecosystem. In contrast, Base has chosen to focus on supporting projects like Aero that can drive the development of the entire ecosystem, achieving efficient resource utilization.

This strategic divergence has begun to affect developers' choices. Some outstanding teams that were originally active on BSC, such as Thena and Magpie, have started to shift their focus to other ecosystems. This talent drain could further weaken BSC's competitiveness.

Overall, the main differences between Base and BSC are reflected in the following points:

1. Resource Allocation: Base concentrates resources on projects that can bring positive externalities to the ecosystem, achieving high efficiency in the use of funds.
2. Developer Attraction: Base's strategy helps to attract and retain quality developers, while BSC faces the risk of developer loss.
3. Ecological Incentive Mechanism: Base has established a more effective ecological incentive mechanism by supporting projects like Aero.

Although the trading platform behind BSC still has advantages in terms of coin prices, further potential can be released only by making adjustments in on-chain ecological construction. In the future, the development trends of the two ecosystems are worth continuous attention and evaluation.