Written by: Haotian

Base founder @jessepollak 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 this is a shot at @star_okx's frequent concerns about a certain platform:

In my view, the listing fee is just a facade. 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, charging a listing fee is entirely justified.

What Jesse is truly anxious about is not the 9%, but rather the mysterious Eastern power that constructs the entire "platform" + "exit mechanism" combo.

Alpha Observation Zone has built a platform where some small projects can go live as long as they generate interest; 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 teams can hedge their exit through short selling.

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 exits."

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 teams 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 nearly an entire cycle of attention and traffic dividends.

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

For Base and Coinbase, the narrative of permissionless on-chain innovation has completely lost its appeal! If one can exit directly from 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? All the on-chain infrastructure that Coinbase/Base has worked hard to build would end up benefiting others?

So, do you all understand now?

This is not a moral judgment about whether to have a "listing fee," but rather a "life-and-death showdown" between Eastern and Western philosophies of crypto exchange ecosystems.

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。