The Competition Between Base and BSC Ecosystem Development: ve(3,3) Model Applications and Impacts

In the recent cryptocurrency market, the Aerdrome project of the Base ecosystem has performed impressively, with a market capitalization reaching 1 billion USD at one point, fully demonstrating the potential of the Base ecosystem. In contrast, the BSC ecosystem has shown mediocre performance in this round of market conditions, failing to create much of a ripple. The reasons behind this difference are worth exploring in depth.

Aerdrome adopts the ve(3,3) model, which effectively amplifies the project's incentive effect. In the traditional model, the project party provides a $2 token incentive, and miners may earn another $1 from transaction fees, totaling $3. However, in the ve(3,3) model, this $3 is used to bribe veAero holders, who allocate higher value (, such as $9 ) Aero tokens, to miners through voting. This mechanism forms a virtuous cycle: Aero price increases → incentive effect strengthens → Base ecological projects benefit → projects provide more bribes to Aero → Aero revenue increases → price further rises.

In addition, support for Aerdrome and Base has enabled permissionless incentives for the ecosystem. Any project can amplify its incentive effects through Aero, which is more attractive than direct incentives from the official and also avoids potential unfair distribution issues.

In contrast, the BSC ecosystem actually has stronger related products. Thena is an upgraded version of Aerodrome, supporting V3 concentrated liquidity. The combination of Pancake and Cakepie has greater potential and theoretically can generate a stronger flywheel effect. However, BSC seems to have failed to fully leverage these advantages.

One key reason for this situation is the insufficient support from a certain trading platform for these projects, which may even have had a negative impact. There are signs that addresses associated with this platform have locked a large amount of veCAKE, directly competing for interests with ecological projects. This practice not only fails to support the ecosystem but also undermines the effectiveness of the ve(3,3) model.

The model ve(3 has been widely applied and validated in the cryptocurrency field. From the early competition between Yearn and Convex, to the Terra/Luna project utilizing CVX to control Curve governance, and now the current Pendle and Aero, all prove the importance of this model.

Currently, we have seen some excellent developers begin to shift their focus to other ecosystems. For example, the Thena team is developing a new project, IntentX, on Base, and Magpie's new subDAO will also focus on the Ethereum system. Although the profits from these projects may eventually flow back to BSC, in the long term, it will be difficult for the main development teams to remain on chains that lack collaborative synergy.

In summary, Base and BSC have significant differences in their ecological development strategies:

1. Base focuses its resources on projects that have positive externalities for the ecosystem, achieving efficient resource utilization and attracting more优秀 developers.

2. BSC seems to be spreading resources across projects that lack positive externalities, with insufficient support for key ecological projects, which may lead to the loss of excellent developers.

Although BSC has not issued a separate token, the token of a certain trading platform has maintained a performance stronger than the market due to frequent listings. However, to further enhance its potential, BSC needs to make improvements in its on-chain ecosystem. In the future, we will continue to pay attention to the development trends of the two major ecosystems.

![Crypto Talk: Base Up, BSC Down])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-3b8ab5acf432a9999e26ec3715c15383.webp(