Base Token Launch: What Expert Say About Airdrop

TheCryptoTimesPublished on 2025-10-08Last updated on 2025-10-08

Jesse Pollak, head of the Base network development team, recently invited the crypto community to share ideas and feedback on a potential Base token. One response that stood out came from Messari researcher AJC, who said any airdrop should boost Coinbase shareholder value while also rewarding users.

On October 2, Pollak posted on X that the team wanted to learn from users and was “blown away” by the response in just two weeks.

The open call has sparked wide discussions across the cryptocurrency space, especially on how Coinbase, a publicly traded company, might approach a token launch differently from typical crypto projects.

AJC’s perspective on the airdrop

A Messari researcher, AJC, shared feedback noting that a BASE token launch would be unprecedented, marking the first time a publicly traded company introduces its own cryptocurrency.

Traditionally, token launches and airdrops are used to give early investors and team members liquidity, often aiming to boost the token’s price at launch. AJC highlighted that the main goal of a potential BASE airdrop would likely be to increase Coinbase shareholder value, not simply to reward users.

“$COIN shareholders presumably are not going to give up the rights of the BASE token without getting anything in return; otherwise, they would demand 100% of the allocation for themselves,” AJC wrote. “From a shareholder perspective, it only makes sense to give up a portion of the rights to the $BASE token if you think that by doing so, it will increase shareholder value.” 

He stressed that the purpose of the BASE airdrop will be to increase shareholder value, not just reward base users. The best airdrop design would be the one that achieves a balance between rewarding users and benefiting shareholders.

AJC suggested Coinbase might focus less on DeFi measures such as trading volume or total value locked, whereas Base already performs strongly, and more on social and consumer engagement. Activities like launching creator coins, using Base’s social app, and participating in community projects could create lasting value for both Coinbase and the Base ecosystem.

Jesse Pollak thanked AJC on X for his feedback and said the team is excited to “explore the frontier.” AJC responded, expressing his own anticipation and support for what Base will develop.

Also Read: Coinbase Applies for OCC Charter to Scale Crypto Services


Mobile Only Image

Related Reads

Alibaba 'Stocks Up', ByteDance 'Trains'

"In late May, two closely timed events in China's AI industry clearly revealed the divergent strategic approaches of two tech giants: Alibaba and ByteDance. Alibaba is aggressively integrating AI into its existing commercial ecosystem, prioritizing immediate monetization. Its Qwen App now fully integrates with Taobao, leveraging the platform's 4-billion-item database for AI-powered shopping features like virtual try-on and price comparison. Internally, Alibaba has reorganized to incentivize AI-driven business growth, notably through the 'Agentic Commerce Trust Protocol' to enable AI-agent transactions. Financially, it emphasizes ROI, with CEO Daniel Wu stating every AI chip purchased is generating revenue. Alibaba's strategy bets that foundational AI model capabilities won't be leapfrogged in the next five years, allowing its 'AI-as-a-utility' approach to succeed. In stark contrast, ByteDance's Seed division focuses on pushing the frontiers of AGI with a long-term, research-oriented mindset. Its video generation model, Seedance 2.0, topped international benchmarks. The division, led by researchers Wu Yonghui and product head Zhu Wenjia, is tasked with 'exploring the upper limits of intelligence,' even considering open-sourcing its models—a rare move among Chinese firms. ByteDance is investing heavily, with reports of its 2026 capital expenditure plan being nearly triple that of 2024, funded by its substantial private profits. This allows it to pursue projects like an 8-month research paper questioning if video models are true 'world models,' devoid of immediate commercial pressure. The core divergence is less about corporate philosophy and more about structural constraints. As a publicly traded company, Alibaba is bound to quarterly financial expectations, forcing a pragmatic, revenue-focused AI integration. As a private entity, ByteDance has the luxury to fund long-term, high-risk foundational research without answering to public markets. The article concludes that the true determinant of a Chinese company's AI path is its IPO status, suggesting that if ByteDance were public, or if Alibaba were private, their strategies might well be reversed."

marsbit54m ago

Alibaba 'Stocks Up', ByteDance 'Trains'

marsbit54m ago

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

Editor's Note: As AI Agents become cheaper and easier to use, a new constraint emerges: the cost isn't in launching more Agents, but in the human attention required to manage, judge, and integrate their outputs. This hidden cost is called the "orchestration tax." The article argues that a developer's cognitive bandwidth is the key bottleneck—a serial, non-parallelizable resource akin to a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL). While many Agents can run concurrently, their results ultimately require human judgment for review, conflict resolution, and final integration. Therefore, more Agents don't automatically mean higher productivity; they can simply create longer queues, lead to cognitive fatigue, and create the illusion of busyness without real output. The core solution is to design workflows around this scarce human attention. Key strategies include: scaling the number of Agents to match review capacity (not UI capacity), categorizing tasks (delegating independent ones, keeping complex judgment-heavy ones serial), batch reviewing results to minimize context-switching costs, automating verifiable checks to reserve human judgment for critical decisions, and protecting focused, uninterrupted thinking time. Ultimately, the critical skill is not launching many Agents, but architecting systems that respect the fundamental limit of human attention. Unpaid "orchestration tax" accumulates as both technical and cognitive debt, undermining system understanding and quality. True productivity comes from thoughtfully managing the single-threaded resource—your focus.

marsbit2h ago

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

marsbit2h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit9h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit9h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片