Author | Jiawei @IOSG
Source: Jon Charbonneau
Some time ago, I couldn't help but laugh when I came across Jon Charbonneau's tweet. When Base is referred to as the "BNB Chain for white people," what exactly is this teasing implying?
Haseeb's article "Blockchains are cities" compares Ethereum to New York and Solana to Los Angeles. If we use the same analogy:
BNB Chain is a bustling port city that never sleeps, carrying immense traffic from Binance. Cargo ships come and go, the market is noisy, and street vendors stand side by side with exchanges. Here, it doesn't matter where you come from; what matters is whether you can participate immediately. Gas fees are low, the pace is fast, new projects launch every day, some people make money, and others exit. You don't need to understand urban planning or subscribe to a particular ideology—just knowing where the action is and where the opportunities lie is enough to survive.
In contrast, Base is a new city that inherits Ethereum's values and is rapidly being constructed. The roads are still being paved, the community is taking shape, and the rules are being discussed repeatedly. There is no chaos and congestion of a port, but it has attracted a large number of engineers, creators, and institutions to settle in early. They are not in a hurry to make quick money; instead, they are contemplating: if there are truly mass-market on-chain applications in the next decade, where should they be born?
In the same crypto world, different cities, residents, and lifestyles are emerging.
Understanding the differences between these two cities may be far more important than debating which chain is better.
Two Parallel Cultures
If we place BNB Chain and Base on the same map, they may seem to be in competition; however, if we shift our perspective to users and culture, we find that this is more like the parallel growth of two worldviews.
BNB Chain and Base essentially represent two different user structures, sources of traffic, and growth logics. The former is rooted in Asia and emerging markets, while the latter has grown within the developer community in Europe and America. Rather than simply understanding them as competitors, it is more accurate to say they are the result of the natural stratification of crypto users.
▲ Source: bnbchain.org
The user profile of BNB Chain is very clear.
A large number of users come from the retail base accumulated by Binance over the years, many of whom are using on-chain products for the first time. They are primarily located in emerging markets such as Southeast Asia and the Middle East, and they are not obsessed with whether decentralization is pure; their focus is extremely pragmatic:
Is the gas fee low enough? Are transactions fast enough? Can I participate in popular projects right away?
For these users, the chain is not an ideology but a tool. As long as it is useful, cheap, and can make money, whether it is centralized or semi-centralized is not the primary concern. This also explains why the ecosystem of BNB Chain has always revolved around efficiency, scale, and application density.
▲ Source: base.org
The user base of Base, on the other hand, is different.
They are more likely to be Coinbase users and the "overflow crowd" from the Ethereum ecosystem, often possessing a deeper understanding of blockchain and being more willing to discuss underlying design issues. These users care about the relationship between Base and the Ethereum mainnet, the degree of decentralization, the technical route of L2, and even whether the culture and narrative are orthodox.
In their eyes, blockchain is not just a tool for completing transactions; it is also a space for self-expression, community building, and creative experimentation.
It is precisely this difference in user attributes that profoundly shapes the distinctly different cultural genes of the two chains.
BNB Chain has chosen a path closer to the Web2 consumer internet: integrating the ecosystem and concentrating as many functions, applications, and scenarios into one system as possible. For users in emerging markets, this "everything-in-one" model greatly reduces decision-making costs and learning thresholds, making the on-chain experience more akin to the internet products they are familiar with.
In contrast, Base resembles an open experimental field, willing to provide developers and creators with enough space and patience. It is not in a hurry to cover all scenarios but prioritizes allowing the right culture and tools to settle first.
From this perspective, BNB Chain and Base are not competing for the same group of users; rather, they are growing in their respective soils where they excel.
They are not opposites but two reasonable answers given by the same industry under different cultural backgrounds.
Similarities and Differences in Vertical Integration
In the past few years, major exchanges have almost simultaneously done one thing:
They are no longer satisfied with just being a "matching trading platform" but have extended their business reach to public chains and wallets at deeper levels.
The underlying business logic is not complicated.
If an exchange can only establish a relationship with users at the moment of "buy" and "sell," then user value is discrete and fleeting; however, once the exchange controls the chain and wallet, the user value path is elongated, transforming into a multi-touch, repeatable lifecycle.
When users complete deposits, go on-chain, use dApps, participate in new projects, and then return to the exchange for trading within the same system, the exchange is no longer just an endpoint but the starting and ending point of the entire on-chain journey. The more steps taken, the higher the switching costs for users, and the stickiness increases accordingly. This is precisely the result that vertical integration aims for: transforming one-time transactional relationships into long-term retention relationships.
More critically, this structure can directly amplify liquidity and trading volume.
The continuous emergence of new tokens and projects on-chain is essentially a capability for "continuously creating new assets." When an exchange controls both the chain and the listing and contract pricing rights, this on-chain "minting capability" can be seamlessly converted into spot trading pairs and derivative targets, ultimately solidifying into continuous fee income.
From this perspective, both BNB Chain and Base are typical examples of the vertical integration strategy of exchanges, but they amplify different advantages.
▲ Source: IOSG
The core competitiveness of BNB Chain comes from Binance itself.
As an exchange with the largest user base and trading depth in the world, Binance has a strong ability to distribute traffic instantly. New projects launched on BNB Chain do not need to start from scratch to educate the market and rarely experience long cold-start periods. A large number of users can directly transition from the exchange to participate on-chain and quickly return to the exchange for trading after completing interactions. This "frictionless back-and-forth" path makes BNB Chain more like a high-speed channel created for applications.
Behind this model is Binance's strong exchange gene:
Quick response to market trends, deep understanding of user behavior, and highly mature traffic operations. BNB Chain does not pursue slow, meticulous ecological construction but is better at pushing a new narrative to maximum scale in a short time.
▲ Source: IOSG
Base's vertical integration path is distinctly different.
It does not attempt to replicate the speed of BNB Chain but instead relies on Coinbase's long-term accumulation of a compliant brand, fiat entry, and institutional credibility in the U.S. market to build a completely different trust structure. As the first publicly listed cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S., Coinbase's survival experience within the regulatory framework is itself a scarce resource. This also gives Base a naturally "institution-friendly" label.
For institutional investors, enterprise-level applications, and developers sensitive to compliance boundaries, Base provides an environment where they can confidently experiment and build long-term. Coupled with Coinbase's long-term deep involvement in the Ethereum ecosystem and continuous investment in developer tools and infrastructure, Base has gradually formed a distinct "builder-friendly" culture.
If BNB Chain is more like an efficient commercial testing ground, then Base is closer to a future-oriented infrastructure platform.
The former excels at quickly converting traffic into scale, while the latter is adept at slowly solidifying trust into an ecosystem.
From the perspective of exchanges, there is no right or wrong in these two paths; they simply amplify their respective strengths.
It is this very difference that makes BNB Chain and Base the two most noteworthy and representative samples in the current vertical integration of exchanges.
Wallets—The Final Battle?
▲ Source: IOSG, TokenTerminal
From the community's perspective, Binance Web3 Wallet is not very popular, but it undeniably leads the first-tier traffic. For many Binance users, the first time they use a Web3 Wallet often comes from a very specific scenario: wanting to participate in a new project, wanting to claim an airdrop, or wanting to get involved in a popular project that is temporarily not on the exchange.
Thus, the built-in wallet of the exchange emerged.
You don't need a mnemonic phrase, you don't need to understand complex account models, and you don't even need to be fully aware that "I am now using an independent wallet."
From deposits, currency swaps, to cross-chain transactions, authorizations, and interactions, the entire process is an extremely smooth and easy path.
Behind this is Binance's consistent ability: simplifying complex financial operations.
Because of this, Binance Web3 Wallet naturally adapts to the ecological characteristics of BNB Chain—
Trends come quickly, project density is high, and user behavior is highly concentrated within short cycles.
In an on-chain statistic in 2025, the daily trading volume of Binance Wallet once reached approximately $92.6 million, accounting for nearly 57.3% of the decentralized wallet trading market share, a figure that even exceeds the total of all independent wallets.
Users do not need to remember mnemonic phrases or exit existing apps to complete cross-chain transactions, swaps, mining, and airdrop participation; this frictionless experience is something many independent wallets cannot easily replicate.
Coinbase Wallet (Base App) has a completely different temperament. According to the latest market statistics, the user base of the Base App has reached approximately 11 million, ranking among the top in the global self-custody wallet ecosystem.
It was designed from the beginning as a product that can exist independently of exchanges. This also results in a significantly higher learning cost for the Base App.
However, once this process is completed, the user's mindset shifts: this is "my wallet," rather than "I am using Coinbase." This design is highly consistent with Base's overall direction. Base is not in a hurry to quickly direct all users to a single popular application; instead, it cares more about whether there are users willing to stay long-term, using the same wallet and the same address to repeatedly build their on-chain identity.
Therefore, you will see that deep users of the Base App are often also: early application users on Base, core participants in NFTs, social, and creator tools, and a group that is more sensitive to product experience and long-term narratives.
In the Binance Web3 Wallet ecosystem, it is easier to develop applications with strong financial attributes, short cycles, and high-frequency interactions that can quickly absorb traffic from the exchange. In the Base App + Base ecosystem, it is easier to grow products that are user retention-oriented, more sensitive to UX, community, and long-term relationships, not in a hurry to monetize, but willing to slowly accumulate real users.
Conclusion
▲Source: IOSG
The author believes that the most likely future in the industry will feature two types of ecosystems:
CEX-dominated super ecosystems (Binance, Coinbase)
Community-driven large public infrastructures (Ethereum, Solana)
BNB Chain and Base will not replace each other.
Global crypto users are not a homogeneous group. Emerging markets need low barriers, high efficiency, and strong applications; while the European and American markets require compliance, developer-friendliness, and cultural identity. These two demands will not disappear in the foreseeable future.
The more realistic situation is that infrastructure such as wallets, cross-chain, and account abstraction will gradually smooth out usage differences; users will no longer "belong to a single chain," but will flow between different ecosystems.
From this perspective, BNB Chain and Base are more like two nodes in the same system: one responsible for pushing Web3 to a larger scale, and the other for pushing Web3 to a more mature form.
If the early competition among public chains was like vying for "the only operating system," then the current competition is closer to "different platforms collaboratively building the internet ecosystem." The true winners may not be a specific chain itself, but those applications and teams that can simultaneously understand these two ecosystems and switch freely between them.
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。
