Base founder @jessepollak recently launched a concentrated attack on Twitter, targeting a certain CEX that charges listing fees amounting to 2-9% of a token's supply, and called for the industry to "go to war." While no names were mentioned, it's clear to everyone that this is a blast aimed at the one often on @star_okx's mind—the one referred to as "某安" (Binance):

In my view, the listing fee is just a smokescreen. As a quality screening mechanism, the logic behind listing fees holds water—CEXs provide traffic and exit liquidity, market makers provide liquidity support; in business, it's perfectly reasonable to charge a listing fee.

What Jesse is truly anxious about isn't really this 9%, but rather that entire set of combinations—"setting the stage" + "exit mechanism"—built by that mysterious Eastern force.

The Alpha Observation Zone sets the stage, allowing some small projects to get listed as long as they have hype; having users farm Alpha points instead of market makers essentially shifts part of the market-making risk onto retail investors, but offers a certain percentage of airdrops as an incentive; furthermore, after perpetual contracts are listed, projects can hedge and exit by shorting.

So, has "Get on BN Alpha -> Pump -> Open Perps Short" become the optimal strategy?

This mechanism seems to benefit a large number of small projects, rekindling new possibilities for ICOs, but in reality, it creates an incentive trap where short-term monetization is prioritized over long-term building.

To some extent, BN's monopoly isn't just about attention and liquidity; it's about changing the entire industry's rules of the game—replacing "long-term building" with "quick exits."

This is the core of Jesse's real anxiety.

Because Coinbase/Base's listing path is very clear: On-chain priority -> Projects cold-start on-chain (Base DEX, community tools) -> Build real users/holders -> Then list on CEX for distribution.

Jesse repeatedly emphasizes "permissionless onchain listings" and "build aligned holders from Day 1." The core idea is to make projects root themselves in on-chain long-term building from the very beginning, rather than treating CEXs as a "quick exit channel."

Originally, @base and @coinbase's on-chain + off-chain project screening and incentive innovation path were very effective, allowing them to enjoy attention and traffic红利 for almost an entire cycle.

But BN's "all-in-one" play, using the exchange as the entry point, essentially concedes that the era of emphasizing on-chain ecosystems is over.

For Base and Coinbase, the narrative of permissionless on-chain innovation completely loses its appeal! If you can just get on BN Alpha and exit within a month, why bother slowly building a community ecosystem on Base?

Let me reiterate, this is the real point of Jesse's anxiety behind blasting BN.

From Jesse's logical perspective, if this continues, won't the value discovery path of on-chain innovation be completely replaced by the CEX's mass production line? Wouldn't all the effort Coinbase/Base put into building on-chain infrastructure just be "preparing the bride's trousseau for someone else"?

So, do you all see it now?

This isn't a moral judgment about whether listing fees are good or bad. It's a "life-and-death duel" between two philosophies of Crypto exchange ecosystems—East vs. West.