The founder of Base, Jesse, has recently been firing off tweets, directly targeting a certain CEX that charges a 2-9% token listing fee, calling for the industry to "go to war." Although he didn't name names, it's clear to anyone paying attention that he is criticizing a certain exchange often mentioned by OKX's Xu Mingxing.

In my view, the listing fee is just a pretext. The listing fee, as a quality screening mechanism, logically holds water—CEXs provide traffic and exit channels, while market makers provide liquidity support. In business terms, it is entirely reasonable to charge a listing fee.

Jesse's real anxiety is not about the 9%, but rather about the mysterious Eastern power that has constructed a complete "platform" + "exit mechanism" combo.

The Alpha observation zone has built a platform, and some small projects can go live as long as they generate some buzz; allowing users to earn Alpha points in place of market makers essentially shifts some market-making risks onto retail investors, but as an incentive, a certain percentage of Airdrop is given. Additionally, after launching contracts, project parties can also hedge their exit by shorting.

Thus, going on BN Alpha—pumping—> opening Perps to short becomes the optimal strategy?

This mechanism seems to benefit a large number of small projects, reigniting new possibilities for ICOs, but in reality, it creates an incentive trap where short-term monetization is prioritized over long-term development.

To some extent, BN's monopoly is not just about attention and liquidity, but about changing the entire industry's rules of the game—replacing "long-term development" with "quick exit."

This is the core of Jesse's true anxiety.

Because Coinbase/Base's listing strategy is very clear: on-chain priority → projects cold-start on-chain (Base DEX, community tools) → establish real users/holders → then list on CEX for distribution.

Jesse repeatedly emphasizes "permissionless on-chain listings" and "build aligned holders from Day 1," with the core idea being to encourage project parties to root themselves in long-term on-chain development from the very beginning, rather than treating CEX as a "quick exit channel."

Originally, the on-chain + off-chain project screening and incentive innovation paths of Base and Coinbase were very effective, allowing them to enjoy almost an entire cycle of attention and traffic dividends.

However, BN's "all-in-one" approach, which uses exchanges as the entry point, tacitly acknowledges that the era of focusing heavily on the on-chain ecosystem has passed.

For Base and Coinbase, the narrative of permissionless on-chain innovation has completely lost its appeal! If one can exit by simply going on BN Alpha in a month, why take the time to slowly build a community ecosystem on Base?

To reiterate, this is the true point of Jesse's criticism of BN.

From Jesse's perspective, if this continues, won't the value discovery path of on-chain innovation be completely replaced by the mass production lines of CEXs? Has all the effort Coinbase/Base put into building on-chain infrastructure just become a wedding dress for others?

So, do you all understand?

This is not a moral judgment about whether to have a "listing fee," but rather a life-and-death showdown between two different philosophies of crypto exchange ecosystems from the East and West.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。