The @avax ecosystem saw a surge in RWA activity in Q4 2025: > BlackRock BUIDL fund allocated $500m to the chain > TVL rose 68.6% in Q4; 950% in 2025 > Third largest chain for tokenized US treasuries > RWAs included: fine wine, real estate, commercial paper, treasury products https://t.co/d3s6FcfeSV

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

Unpopular Opinion: Farcaster didn’t make it because not everyone got a DEGEN airdrop. If more people would’ve made a ton of money off airdrops, more people would’ve be using it. https://t.co/6yHIUhnrcy

Name & Symbol: Degen ($DEGEN)
Address: 0x4ed4e862860bed51a9570b96d89af5e1b0efefed

EIL is going to solve the fragmentation problem that Ethereum has with its L2s, while doing it trustlessly via AA The XLPs are the second killer feature that make this seam all possible Join L2Beat for a deep dive into the intricacies of what was shared at Devconnect in BA

Name & Symbol: ARAI ($AA)
Address: 0x01bf3d77cd08b19bf3f2309972123a2cca0f6936

(Note: I HODL SOL and Base brought me back to Ethereum after years of writing off ETH. So, I am generally positively biased towards both these ecosystems.) What happens when a competitor launches a bridge to another chain without direct collaboration or communication with its Foundation? All hell breaks loose. This week, Base launched a bridge to the Solana ecosystem. Representatives from the Solana Foundation and the Solana community were extremely unhappy. The Story On December 4th, Base’s account Tweeted: “The Base-Solana bridge is now live.” On launch, dApps such as Aerodrome, Virtual, Flaunch, and Relay Protocol were natively supported, as well as the ability to send assets (i.e., SOL, CHILLHOUSE, TRENCHER) from Solana to Base. The Base bridge to Solana is secured by Chainlink’s CCIP, an interoperability protocol that enables secure communication and asset transfer between different blockchain networks. What should’ve been viewed as an industry win for cross-ecosystem pollination turned into a show of tribalism in the trenches of Crypto Twitter. Vibhu Norby, the head of product marketing at the Solana Foundation, responded to the announcement of the bridge, stating, “These are not partners; if they had it their way Solana would not exist.” Norby’s response included a reTweet of an on-stage conversation that took place in September, in which a panel participant (a core contributor to Aerodrome) exalted that Base was seeking to flip Solana and become the #1 chain in the world. Tensions began running high at this point, with many from the Solana ecosystem jumping into the defense of not only Norby, but also to attack the manner in which Base launched the bridge. Examples include: @vibhu: “You didn’t set up a single Solana partner for launch, didn’t talk to Solana foundation marketing or ops, just dropped a repo” @akshaybd, a Solana community member: “Jesse — we’d be happy to engage you in a genuine commercial conversation… just not a performative one with platitudes that don’t mean much.” @aeyakovenko, co-founder of Solana Labs: “Migrate base apps to solana so they execute on solana and the transactions are linearizes by solana staked block producers. That would be good for solana developers. Otherwise it’s alignment bullshit.” The problem with the launch of the bridge, wasn’t the technology itself, but rather the lack of bi-directional conversation between the Base camp and the Solana Foundation. Team Solana saw the launch of the bridge as a vampire attack on the network. Base, a competitor for mindshare and users in the blockchain landscape, directly launched a way to siphon resources from the Solana ecosystem to its own. (What’s a Vampire Attack? According to Grok, it’s “an aggressive tactic where a new protocol—often a fork of an established one—entices users and liquidity providers away from a competitor by offering superior incentives, rewards, or yields, effectively "siphoning" the original project's TVL.”) @jessepollak reiterated that this wasn't an attack on Solana, but rather something the Base and Solana communities have clamored for. He said: we built this as a two way bridge. the whole point is to unlock movement both ways because we are hearing from Solana teams they want access to Base and from Base teams they want access to Solana. we want to make that possible. Norby wasn’t shying away from sharing his true thoughts on Base’s strategy, or that he believed there to be malicious intent behind the launch of the bridge. He said: “Bridge goes both ways” but partnered only with base-aligned apps that want Solana dead, no solana apps support this from day one, no marketing coordination w solana It’s pretty obvious what this is, I’m not stupid!” While the Solana camp was frustrated, the arguments they shared go against the entire premise of decentralized, permissionless systems. That is to say, these systems are designed so that anyone can launch anything on top of open-source systems. A developer doesn’t need to ask for permission to build; they can just go out and do things. So what exactly is the problem? The real problem lies in the perception of the bridge, the perceived intent behind its development, and the pressure that one ecosystem might be exerting over another. To the Solana builders, this was an egregious attack aimed at siphoning users and liquidity from Solana to Base. To the Base builders, this was a fantastic opportunity for users and creators between the two blockchain ecosystems. Who’s right? Hard to say. Pistachio founder @BSmokes_ did a very good job at painting a neutral image of the situation from the perspective of both side. Brian’s perspective probably outlines the alignment and stances of the two ecosystems most neutrally, and the intent behind their positions. However, I’d like to conclude with my opinion. What do I think is happening? I think Solana is feeling the crunch and is frustrated that another ecosystem that currently has more mindshare has built a direct connection to their ecosystem. For users, this is viewed as a simpler way to transfer assets between chains. For Solana, this is viewed as a direct attack to siphon assets from their ecosystem. I’ve been working in the Neo ecosystem since 2018, and when Neo was at its most popular in 2017/18, it was dubbed the first “Ethereum killer.” Back then, Neo could do no wrong. It was a Top 10 coin, made a significant amount of money for many token holders, and was one of the top networks for a project to launch an Initial Coin Offering. Though, as the years went on, activity diminished, developer attraction and retention rates dropped, and the price action has been absolutely abysmal. I’ve witnessed firsthand what happens to an ecosystem that feels like it's losing its losing its. Many in the community are mad. Many of the builders in the community spring forward to defend the network and ecosystem. This could explain the animosity that camp Solana brought to the table. Solana was largely a recipient of success from the memecoin craze that was crypto’s killer use case in 2024. The SOL token reached its all-time highs in January 2025 freshly off the heels of the memecoin narrative. Since the launch of TRUMP, MELANIA, and LIBRA memecoins in early 2025 (which has since failed spectacularly) the memecoin meta has sharply fallen, and so has the primary differentiator of activity on Solana. Solana was faster and cheaper than Ethereum, and won the battle of on-chain memecoin activity. However, now that there is no memecoin meta, Solana has no edge over the rest of the blockchain networks. As memecoin activity has waned, Solana has joined the ranks of other L1s and L2s competing for attention and activity. The network’s Cinderella moment is over, and the reality of the situation is settling in. And the reality is: it’s fucking hard to attract and retain long-term users in an industry that places such a premium on short-term attention. The Solana attacks towards Jesse and Base stem from a place of fear and frustration. The ad hominem attacks aren’t grounded in facts, and that’s what happens when emotions run high. Perhaps I’m holding the mirror up to myself when I say this, but I’ve seen it play out firsthand in the ecosystem I’ve been a part of for eight years. I don’t think Solana is dead, or that Base is going to eat its lunch. I do think that Solana’s ecosystem is now feeling the pressure of having to go out and onboard users, developers, and apps, just like every other blockchain ecosystem is currently doing. And, to a chain that was eating everyone’s lunch for nearly a year and a half, that’s probably a source of consternation and frustration. Ultimately, the real winner of this tiff was the CT lurker who loves drama, and the builder, creator, or user who wants to move more seamlessly between Solana and Base.

Name & Symbol: Virtuals Protocol ($VIRTUAL)
Address: 0x0b3e328455c4059eeb9e3f84b5543f74e24e7e1b

(Note: I HODL SOL and Base brought me back to Ethereum after years of writing off ETH. So, I am generally positively biased towards both these ecosystems.) What happens when a competitor launches a bridge to another chain without direct collaboration or communication with its Foundation? All hell breaks loose. This week, Base launched a bridge to the Solana ecosystem. Representatives from the Solana Foundation and the Solana community were extremely unhappy. The Story On December 4th, Base’s account Tweeted: “The Base-Solana bridge is now live.” On launch, dApps such as Aerodrome, Virtual, Flaunch, and Relay Protocol were natively supported, as well as the ability to send assets (i.e., SOL, CHILLHOUSE, TRENCHER) from Solana to Base. The Base bridge to Solana is secured by Chainlink’s CCIP, an interoperability protocol that enables secure communication and asset transfer between different blockchain networks. What should’ve been viewed as an industry win for cross-ecosystem pollination turned into a show of tribalism in the trenches of Crypto Twitter. Vibhu Norby, the head of product marketing at the Solana Foundation, responded to the announcement of the bridge, stating, “These are not partners; if they had it their way Solana would not exist.” Norby’s response included a reTweet of an on-stage conversation that took place in September, in which a panel participant (a core contributor to Aerodrome) exalted that Base was seeking to flip Solana and become the #1 chain in the world. Tensions began running high at this point, with many from the Solana ecosystem jumping into the defense of not only Norby, but also to attack the manner in which Base launched the bridge. Examples include: @vibhu: “You didn’t set up a single Solana partner for launch, didn’t talk to Solana foundation marketing or ops, just dropped a repo” @akshaybd, a Solana community member: “Jesse — we’d be happy to engage you in a genuine commercial conversation… just not a performative one with platitudes that don’t mean much.” @aeyakovenko, co-founder of Solana Labs: “Migrate base apps to solana so they execute on solana and the transactions are linearizes by solana staked block producers. That would be good for solana developers. Otherwise it’s alignment bullshit.” The problem with the launch of the bridge, wasn’t the technology itself, but rather the lack of bi-directional conversation between the Base camp and the Solana Foundation. Team Solana saw the launch of the bridge as a vampire attack on the network. Base, a competitor for mindshare and users in the blockchain landscape, directly launched a way to siphon resources from the Solana ecosystem to its own. (What’s a Vampire Attack? According to Grok, it’s “an aggressive tactic where a new protocol—often a fork of an established one—entices users and liquidity providers away from a competitor by offering superior incentives, rewards, or yields, effectively "siphoning" the original project's TVL.”) @jessepollak reiterated that this wasn't an attack on Solana, but rather something the Base and Solana communities have clamored for. He said: we built this as a two way bridge. the whole point is to unlock movement both ways because we are hearing from Solana teams they want access to Base and from Base teams they want access to Solana. we want to make that possible. Norby wasn’t shying away from sharing his true thoughts on Base’s strategy, or that he believed there to be malicious intent behind the launch of the bridge. He said: “Bridge goes both ways” but partnered only with base-aligned apps that want Solana dead, no solana apps support this from day one, no marketing coordination w solana It’s pretty obvious what this is, I’m not stupid!” While the Solana camp was frustrated, the arguments they shared go against the entire premise of decentralized, permissionless systems. That is to say, these systems are designed so that anyone can launch anything on top of open-source systems. A developer doesn’t need to ask for permission to build; they can just go out and do things. So what exactly is the problem? The real problem lies in the perception of the bridge, the perceived intent behind its development, and the pressure that one ecosystem might be exerting over another. To the Solana builders, this was an egregious attack aimed at siphoning users and liquidity from Solana to Base. To the Base builders, this was a fantastic opportunity for users and creators between the two blockchain ecosystems. Who’s right? Hard to say. Pistachio founder @BSmokes_ did a very good job at painting a neutral image of the situation from the perspective of both side. Brian’s perspective probably outlines the alignment and stances of the two ecosystems most neutrally, and the intent behind their positions. However, I’d like to conclude with my opinion. What do I think is happening? I think Solana is feeling the crunch and is frustrated that another ecosystem that currently has more mindshare has built a direct connection to their ecosystem. For users, this is viewed as a simpler way to transfer assets between chains. For Solana, this is viewed as a direct attack to siphon assets from their ecosystem. I’ve been working in the Neo ecosystem since 2018, and when Neo was at its most popular in 2017/18, it was dubbed the first “Ethereum killer.” Back then, Neo could do no wrong. It was a Top 10 coin, made a significant amount of money for many token holders, and was one of the top networks for a project to launch an Initial Coin Offering. Though, as the years went on, activity diminished, developer attraction and retention rates dropped, and the price action has been absolutely abysmal. I’ve witnessed firsthand what happens to an ecosystem that feels like it's losing its losing its. Many in the community are mad. Many of the builders in the community spring forward to defend the network and ecosystem. This could explain the animosity that camp Solana brought to the table. Solana was largely a recipient of success from the memecoin craze that was crypto’s killer use case in 2024. The SOL token reached its all-time highs in January 2025 freshly off the heels of the memecoin narrative. Since the launch of TRUMP, MELANIA, and LIBRA memecoins in early 2025 (which has since failed spectacularly) the memecoin meta has sharply fallen, and so has the primary differentiator of activity on Solana. Solana was faster and cheaper than Ethereum, and won the battle of on-chain memecoin activity. However, now that there is no memecoin meta, Solana has no edge over the rest of the blockchain networks. As memecoin activity has waned, Solana has joined the ranks of other L1s and L2s competing for attention and activity. The network’s Cinderella moment is over, and the reality of the situation is settling in. And the reality is: it’s fucking hard to attract and retain long-term users in an industry that places such a premium on short-term attention. The Solana attacks towards Jesse and Base stem from a place of fear and frustration. The ad hominem attacks aren’t grounded in facts, and that’s what happens when emotions run high. Perhaps I’m holding the mirror up to myself when I say this, but I’ve seen it play out firsthand in the ecosystem I’ve been a part of for eight years. I don’t think Solana is dead, or that Base is going to eat its lunch. I do think that Solana’s ecosystem is now feeling the pressure of having to go out and onboard users, developers, and apps, just like every other blockchain ecosystem is currently doing. And, to a chain that was eating everyone’s lunch for nearly a year and a half, that’s probably a source of consternation and frustration. Ultimately, the real winner of this tiff was the CT lurker who loves drama, and the builder, creator, or user who wants to move more seamlessly between Solana and Base.

Name & Symbol: Aerodrome ($AERO)
Address: 0x940181a94a35a4569e4529a3cdfb74e38fd98631

Had a dream that @Austin_Federa and I were at a @doublezero conference that felt like DevConnect We were geeking out on the infrastructure that DoubleZero leverages for faster Internet speed and reduced latencies And I remember saying, "I'm gonna buy that token" before the end

Name & Symbol: DoubleZero ($2Z)
Address: J6pQQ3FAcJQeWPPGppWRb4nM8jU3wLyYbRrLh7feMfvd

This is ubiquitous across projects w/ heavy VC allocations It's the incentive mechanism many VCs enjoy about being early investors in young projects, and why they love crypto's liquidity If you believe in the long-term value of a new token, wait 6+ months post-TGE to buy

Name & Symbol: TokenFi ($TOKEN)
Address: 0x4507cef57c46789ef8d1a19ea45f4216bae2b528

Solo rip today. Talked about: 👀 Neo Core and Neo Council video updates #transparency 💚 The $NEO 4 roadmap 🏛️ On-chain #RWA continues to grow exponentially ⛓️ Why RWAs might save @Neo_Blockchain 📈 A surge in .neo NeoNS domain activity

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

The on-chain RWA chart has been up and to the right for years. Great to see you back. https://t.co/ui9OW5fHDA

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e