The market capitalization of the Base ecosystem project Aerdrome has surpassed 1 billion USD. Ve(3,3) model successfully leads ecological development.

Recently, the price of project Aerdrome in the Base ecosystem experienced a round of pump, reaching a peak of 1 billion USD in market capitalization and 2 billion USD in fully diluted valuation, demonstrating strong rise momentum. This phenomenon not only highlights the strength of the project but also brings a positive impact to the entire Base ecosystem.

In contrast, the BSC ecosystem has performed mediocrely in the latest round of development, failing to generate significant waves even after some important events occurred. This contrast has sparked reflection on the differences in the development of the two major ecosystems.

Analysis shows that the success of Aerdrome is closely related to its unique incentive mechanism. Traditional projects typically provide incentives directly to DeFi miners, while Aerdrome adopts the Ve(3,3) DEX system, using incentives to reward veAero holders, who then allocate higher value $Aero tokens to miners through voting. This mechanism not only enhances incentive efficiency but also creates a virtuous cycle: the higher the Aero price, the greater the value of the incentives distributed, which in turn attracts more projects to participate, forming positive feedback.

In addition, this incentive model allows Base to support various projects within the ecosystem in a decentralized manner, including some small or community-driven projects, which is difficult to achieve through direct official incentives.

In contrast, the BSC ecosystem, although it has similar or even better products, such as Thena, which supports V3 concentrated liquidity, and the highly promising Pancake and Cakepie combination, these projects seem to have not received the support and attention they deserve.

Even more surprisingly, certain addresses are suspected of holding a large amount of veCAKE, which could lead to conflicts of interest with ecosystem projects. This practice not only does not support the ecosystem but may actually hinder its development.

The Ve(3 model has proven its effectiveness in the cryptocurrency space, from the early Curve War to the recent Pendle and Aero, all of which have adopted this model and achieved success. However, BSC seems to have failed to fully leverage the potential of this mechanism.

At the same time, some projects on BSC that have received investment and listing support, such as NFP, Cyber, ID, and Hook, have attracted attention, but still lag behind Aero in terms of ecological impact. These projects often lack positive externalities for the overall ecosystem, making it difficult to generate synergies.

It is worth noting that some excellent development teams have begun to shift their focus to other ecosystems. For example, the Thena team has started to pay attention to the new project IntentX on Base, and Magpie's new sub-DAO is also focusing more on the Ethereum ecosystem. This trend suggests that BSC may face the risk of talent loss.

In summary, the main differences between the two ecosystems lie in their resource allocation strategies and their understanding of the overall development of the ecosystem. One party focuses on projects that can bring positive externalities to the ecosystem, achieving efficient resource utilization; the other party appears to have a more decentralized approach to resource allocation and insufficient support for certain key ecological projects.

Although Base has not issued an independent token, BNB has recently outperformed the market due to frequent listing activities. However, in the long run, the flexibility and vitality of the on-chain ecosystem will be key factors in determining the value and growth potential of tokens. In the future, we will continue to pay attention to the development trends and changes of these two ecosystems.