Is Base’s Solana bridge a ‘vampire attack’ on SOL liquidity or multichain pragmatism?

Base launched a bridge to Solana on Dec. 4, and within hours, Solana’s most vocal builders accused Jesse Pollak of running a vampire attack disguised as interoperability.

The bridge uses 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 framed 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 creator platform DRiP, saw it differently. He posted a video of Aerodrome co-founder Alexander Cutler, who said at Basecamp in September that Base would “flip Solana” and become the largest chain in the world.

Norby’s read:

Pollak replied that Base just built a bridge to Solana because “Solana assets deserve to have access to the Base economy and Base assets should have access to Solana.”

Norby fired back, alleging that Base didn’t set up Solana-based applications for launch, nor did they align with the Solana Foundation marketing or operations team.

The thread escalated when Akshay BD, a top voice tied to Solana’s Superteam, told Pollak:

Anatoly Yakovenko, Solana’s co-founder, joined to deliver the sharpest version of the critique:

The debate highlights the incentive mismatch between what “interoperability” means to an Ethereum layer-2 and to 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, began discussing it with Yakovenko and others in May, and has consistently said it’s bidirectional.

He insists that Base and Solana developers benefit from access to both economies.

On the contrary, Solana voices argue that the method Base used to launch the bridge, integrating only Base-aligned apps, coordinating no Solana-native partners, and skipping Solana Foundation outreach, reveals the real strategy: siphon Solana capital into Base’s ecosystem while marketing it as reciprocal infrastructure.

The asymmetry

According to Yakovenko, the bridge is bidirectional in code but not in economic gravity.
If the bridge just lets Base apps import Solana assets while keeping all execution and fee revenue on Base, it extracts value from Solana without reciprocating. That’s the vampire attack thesis.

Pollak’s counterargument is that interoperability is not zero-sum. He argues that Base and Solana can compete and collaborate simultaneously, and that developers on both sides want access to each other’s economies.

He pointed out that Base tried to engage Solana ecosystem participants during the nine-month build process, but “folks weren’t really interested.” However, meme projects like Trencher and Chillhouse did collaborate.

Norby and Akshay dispute that framing, arguing that dropping a repo without coordinating launch partners or working with the Solana Foundation is not genuine collaboration, it’s tactical extraction dressed up as open-source infrastructure.

The friction is that Base and Solana occupy different positions in the liquidity hierarchy.

Base is an Ethereum layer-2, which means it inherits Ethereum’s security, settlement, and credibility but competes with the mainnet for activity. Ethereum layer-2 blockchains need to justify their existence by offering better UX, lower fees, or differentiated ecosystems.

Meanwhile, Solana is a standalone Layer 1 with its own validator set, token economics, and security model.

When a bridge lets Solana assets flow into Base, Solana loses transaction fees, MEV, and staking demand unless those assets eventually return or generate reciprocal flows.

Base captures the activity and the economic rent. Yakovenko’s point is that true bidirectionality would mean Base apps moving execution to Solana, not just importing Solana tokens into Base-based contracts.

Who gains what

Based on the debate, Solana’s top voices suggest that Base gains immediate access to Solana’s cultural and financial momentum. Solana has been the center of meme coin mania, NFT speculation, and retail onboarding for the past year.

Integrating SOL and SPL tokens into Base apps like Aerodrome and Zora lets Base tap that energy without waiting for organic growth.

Base also benefits from positioning itself as the “neutral” interoperability layer that connects all ecosystems, which strengthens its narrative as the default hub for cross-chain DeFi.

Although Solana gains optionality, it does not receive guaranteed value capture. If the bridge drives Base developers to experiment with Solana execution or if Solana apps start using Base liquidity pools for bridged assets, the relationship becomes reciprocal.

However, if the bridge primarily serves as a one-way funnel that pulls Solana 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 reciprocating, the bridge is a competitive weapon, not a collaboration.

Additionally, Yakovenko argues that Base can’t be honest about competing with Ethereum, so it frames itself as aligned with the broader ecosystem while actually siphoning activity.

The same logic applies to Solana: Base can’t be honest about competing with Solana, so it frames the bridge as neutral infrastructure.

What happens next

The bridge is live, and the economic gravity will decide the outcome. If Base apps start routing execution to Solana or if Solana-native projects launch integrations that pull Base liquidity into Solana-based contracts, the bridge becomes genuinely bidirectional.

If the flow stays one-way, with Solana assets into Base and revenue staying on the Ethereum layer-2, the vampire attack thesis holds.

Pollak’s claim that Base and Solana “win together” depends on whether Base treats Solana as a peer or as a supplier of assets and liquidity.

The difference is whether Base markets to its own developers to build on Solana, or markets to Solana users to bring their assets to Base.

Yakovenko made the test explicit: compete honestly, and the bridge is good for the industry. Compete while pretending to collaborate, and it’s alignment theater.

The next six months will show which narrative is real.

The post Is Base’s Solana bridge a ‘vampire attack’ on SOL liquidity or multichain pragmatism? appeared first on CryptoSlate.