Tension around market manipulation, memecoins, and accusations of selective treatment of certain projects has resurfaced on the Base network, the L2 solution supported by Coinbase. Against this backdrop, project creator Jesse Pollak publicly rejected calls to interfere with token pricing.
In a post on X, Pollak stated that the core Base team will not “support the chart.” He directly responded to community members who suggested using the network’s internal capital to pump certain tokens.
According to Pollak, covert coordination or using funds to move an asset’s price toward a desired outcome puts other tokens at a disadvantage, undermines trust in the ecosystem, contradicts the principles of a free and open Base market, and, with high probability, breaks the law.
He added that the team will continue to improve visibility and distribution mechanisms for applications and assets created on the Base network. At the same time, price formation should remain organic and fully transparent.
Traders Wonder Why Base Has No Flagship Token
Pollak’s comments came amid growing dissatisfaction among some traders who believe that the Base ecosystem lacks a breakthrough token capable of sustaining speculative interest for the long term.
The host of a popular broadcast dedicated to Base claimed that the network supposedly lacks the resources and influence to bring a project to a capitalization of hundreds of millions of dollars. He also suggested shifting attention to other blockchains.
Other users disagreed. In their view, the problem is not unique to Base and reflects a broader crisis in the crypto market, where memecoins and speculation have turned into a zero-sum game based on short-term pumps.
Pollak’s response was supported by part of the community, but many continued to debate how exactly blockchain networks should compete for user attention.
See also: The Crypto Market Is Losing Venture Interest: Capital Is Moving to AI and Robotics
Some participants in the discussion said that Base could have rallied around certain tokens but did not. As an argument, they cited projects that, in their opinion, could have become the network’s flagship assets.
Pollak acknowledged that he understands this dissatisfaction but emphasized that in the long run, price manipulation only leads to repeated losses. According to him, it is honest markets that allow participants to learn, adapt, and ultimately succeed.
He also noted that Base will continue to work in the interests of creators, developers, applications, and memecoin culture within the network. At the same time, the Base application is gradually moving toward a more trading-oriented experience to better highlight the activity of the entire ecosystem.
At the same time, Pollak clearly distinguished between promotion and manipulation. He stated that secret coordination for the sake of inflating prices is incompatible with the role of Base as open infrastructure and the obligations of Coinbase as a public company regulated in the US.
The Old Memecoin Scandal Still Haunts Base
The discussion also once again drew attention to earlier incidents that shaped perceptions of Base‘s role in the memecoin market.
In 2025, Base faced a wave of criticism after the network’s official account on X published the phrase “Base for everyone,” and then a tokenized version of this post appeared on the Zora platform.
Although the Base team stated that the token was just a creative experiment and not an official product, this episode led to accusations of covert endorsement and increased calls for stricter regulatory oversight.
In a broader context, pump-and-dump style activity remains a chronic problem for Base. Low fees and high transaction speeds have made it easier for bad actors to launch tokens, hype up interest, and exit positions in just a few hours.
See also: Gold Surpasses $5,300: Tether Increases Reserves, Coinbase Bets on Futures
Research conducted during peak memecoin hype periods showed that a significant portion of new tokens on the Base network had serious vulnerabilities or malicious mechanics. These included honeypot contracts and unbacked liquidity.
Such conditions led to major losses among retail traders and increased demands for clearer standards and rules.
Pollak’s statements appear to be an attempt to distance Base from such practices while maintaining space for structured and transparent incentives.
In responses to users, he noted that open mechanisms, such as public contests or pre-described liquidity programs, may be considered in the future, provided they are implemented openly and on equal terms for everyone.
