Ecological Differences between Base and BSC: Analysis of DEX Development under the ve(3,3) Model

Recently, the Aerdrome project within the Base ecosystem has attracted widespread attention, with its market capitalization reaching 1 billion USD at one point, fully demonstrating the potential of the Base ecosystem. In contrast, the BSC ecosystem performed mediocrely during the same period. The reasons behind this disparity are worth exploring in depth.

Aerdrome adopts a DEX system based on the ve(3,3) model, which effectively amplifies the incentive effects of the project. In the traditional model, the incentives provided by the project party are directly distributed to miners. However, in the ve(3,3) model, these incentives are used to bribe veAero holders, who then vote on how to allocate Aero tokens to miners. This mechanism not only increases the actual earnings of miners but also creates a positive feedback loop: the rise in Aero prices brings higher incentives, thus attracting more projects to participate, ultimately driving the development of the entire Base ecosystem.

This model has a significant positive impact on the Base ecosystem. It enables permissionless incentives for on-chain projects, allowing any project to amplify its incentive effects through Aero. This approach is more effective and fairer than direct incentives from the official.

In contrast to the BSC ecosystem, although there are similar projects such as Thena and the Pancake+Cakepie combination, they have not achieved the same level of success. This is mainly due to a lack of sufficient support and a reasonable governance structure. Especially in the Pancake project, a large amount of voting power is held by addresses related to Binance, which has somewhat suppressed the development space for ecological projects.

What is even more concerning is that some excellent development teams on BSC have begun to shift their focus to other public chains. For example, the Thena team is developing a new project IntentX on Base, while the Magpie team has also shifted its focus to the Ethereum ecosystem. This brain drain could further weaken BSC's competitiveness.

Overall, there are significant differences in the ecological development strategies of Base and BSC. Base effectively promotes the development of the entire ecosystem by supporting projects with positive externalities, such as Aerdrome. In contrast, BSC appears to be less reasonable in resource allocation and has not fully leveraged the advantages of the ve(3,3) model, and in some ways, has even hindered the development of ecological projects.

Although BNB's price performance remains strong at present, BSC needs a more flexible ecological strategy in the long term to further unleash its potential. How BSC adjusts its strategy in the future and balances the interests of all parties will be a topic worth continuous attention.