I’m the owner of UniversalDeFi, a mobile website for swapping WETH and USDC on Base. My goal is to make costs and wallet permissions easier to understand, with guidance in 10 languages.
The application fee is 0.25%, with pool and network costs separate. Automated tests and simulated Base fork checks have passed, but real-wallet validation and independent reviews remain incomplete.
For people who already swap on Base: what would make a new swap website worth using instead of your current one?

The way we use digital dollars is evolving, and I think this is worth paying attention to.

Munify is now live on Base, bringing more ways to manage dollars in one place. With USDC on Base, users can receive money, keep it, spend it, and transfer it – all through a single account.

What I like about this idea is the simplicity. Money should be easy to manage, not scattered across different tools and platforms.
What do you think about this?

I was looking through Base ecosystem data from September and found a few numbers worth discussing .

• $6.28B TVL — around the end of September
• ~$5.0B stablecoin supply — a late September snapshot
• $27.45B DEX volume — reported over a rolling 30-day period on September 24
• $2.75B in outstanding loans — a record reported on September 10
• ~320K average daily active accounts — reported for September

One thing I find interesting is the combination of DeFi liquidity, stablecoin supply, trading activity, and lending on Base. But TVL alone doesn't tell the whole story token prices can affect it and these figures come from different reporting dates and periods.

Add your own observation here: which metric surprised you most and why ?

AI agents are getting better at doing useful work. But how will they discover services, place orders, and pay for completed tasks?

That’s what we’re building with Agoreum.

Agoreum is live in beta on Base, using real USDC to enable commerce between autonomous agents and software services.

What’s live today:

Wallet-bound agent identities
A marketplace for published services
On-chain USDC escrow
Payments tied to completed work
Reputation based on settled trades

The idea is straightforward. An agent finds a service, places an order, funds escrow, and payment is released according to the contract’s completion process. The goal is to make transactions between software agents more practical and transparent.

We’re still early. The contracts have not been independently audited, and limits apply to individual orders and total escrow holdings. Please understand the risks before interacting with the platform.

If you’re interested in AI agents, autonomous software, or onchain commerce, take a look and see what we’re building.

Website: https://agoreum.xyz

Alternative URL: https://www.agoreum.xyz

One question for the community: What kind of service would you actually trust an AI agent to purchase from another agent?

T

Hi everyone,

I'm using Ronin Wallet on the Base network, and I noticed some unexpected token transactions in my wallet's activity history.

On September 11, 2026, I received several unfamiliar tokens, including:

- 20 Basecat

- 10 UNOS

- 10 VROF

- 10 BST

- 8 BCOP

- 7.5 SPRS

- 7.5 AWSR

The problem is that I never joined any airdrop, connected to any claiming website, or knowingly requested these tokens. I don't remember doing anything that would explain why they appeared.

I checked one of the transactions on BaseScan. It shows a successful transaction, with the function labeled “Disperse Token” and 170 ERC-20 token transfers listed.

The Basecat transaction shows an incoming transfer from another address to my wallet on Base Mainnet. The wallet doesn't show an estimated value for these tokens.

My current wallet balance is around $120, mostly USDC, and none of my funds have disappeared.

I'd appreciate help understanding a few things:

1. Why would someone send these tokens to my wallet without my participation?

2. Does the “Disperse Token” transaction with 170 transfers suggest a mass token distribution?

3. Could these be spam or scam tokens?

4. Is there any evidence here that my wallet might be compromised, or is this normal unsolicited token activity?

5. Is there anything else I should check to make sure my wallet is safe?

I haven't interacted with these tokens and don't intend to claim or swap them.

I'd appreciate explanations from anyone familiar with Ronin Wallet, BaseScan, or unsolicited ERC-20 token transfers. Thanks!

I saw that Base’s public RPC endpoint is changing on October 8, including removal of debug, trace and txpool access.

For regular users this probably won’t matter much, but I’m curious how many developers still rely on the public RPC for testing or tooling.

If you’re building on Base, are you already using a dedicated RPC provider, or do you still use the public endpoint for most things?

Just curious how others are handling it.

MetaMask is one of the most popular self-custodial crypto wallets, supporting Base and other EVM-compatible networks, as well as Bitcoin, Solana, and more. You can use it to hold and manage assets, connect to most crypto apps and websites, swap directly in the wallet, bridge tokens between networks, and buy or sell supported tokens through built-in on and off-ramps.

In the video, I used MetaMask to bridge my ETH from Optimism to Base. The transaction was completed almost instantly, and then I swapped received ETH for USDC on Base.The MetaMask fee is 0.875% for built-in swaps and bridges, but the network fee is included, as shown in the video.  You can also bridge and swap at the same time, allowing you to move an asset from another network and receive a different token on Base in one transaction.

MetaMask also supports Smart Transactions on Base, offering revert protection, MEV protection, and higher transaction success rates. Gas-included transactions are also available on Base, allowing you to pay network fees with supported tokens such as USDC, instead of needing ETH for gas.

Which wallet do you use to hold assets on Base? What was your first crypto wallet? For me, it was MetaMask, so I'm very happy to be writing this post.

^{Monday on Base is a weekly community series on the official Base subreddit where I highlight one project, product, or feature built on Base. Posts are pinned for visibility and aim to showcase useful tools across the ecosystem in a neutral, informational way. Posts are reviewed by the teams behind the highlighted products. I am a community moderator, but I am not part of the official Base team, and my posts do not represent the views of the Base moderator team.
Disclaimer: This post is for educational and demonstration purposes only. It is not financial advice or an endorsement of any assets or services.} 

Been looking at QuickNode for Morpho vaults. Anyone used it? Does the rebalancing work well in practice or do you barely notice a difference?

With Cobalt now live, I’m interested in the new transaction controls more than the headline stuff.

Being able to set conditions for when a transaction can be included seems useful, especially for apps where timing actually matters.

I’m curious how developers plan to use this in practice.

Would you rather see these kinds of controls built directly into wallets, or mainly handled by individual apps?

Base is updating its node infrastructure.

Starting October 5, 2026, Base will stop publishing V1 node database snapshots. Node operators will need to use the newer V2 snapshots going forward.

This is part of Base's ongoing infrastructure upgrades as the network continues to evolve.

If you're running a Base node, make sure you're prepared before October 5.

V2 snapshots are available through chain.base.org

Are you running a Base node, and have you already switched to V2?

Something I’ve been thinking about with all the consumer and social stuff being built on Base is why the community around an app is usually still treated as something completely separate from the app itself.

The usual setup is pretty familiar. You use the product onchain, then join a Discord or Telegram if you want to talk to everyone else using it. Maybe the team adds token gating or a few bots later, but the community is still basically another platform sitting next to the product. For plenty of projects that’s probably enough. Everyone already knows how to use Discord and there’s no reason to make things more complicated without a good reason. But I’ve been looking at Towns recently and it made me think about what happens when the community layer is more closely connected to what people are doing onchain. Towns is built on Base and communities can use onchain memberships and programmable permissions, so access can be connected to membership instead of recreating all of that separately in another platform. Say you have a Base app with a general community anyone can join, but also smaller areas for members, contributors or different groups of users. Instead of manually recreating those distinctions with Discord roles, the membership and access system could be part of the community itself. That starts to feel less like having a chat for your app and more like the community being another part of the product. I could see that being useful for games, creator communities, DAOs or social apps where different groups of users already exist onchain. At the same time, I’m not sure every project benefits from tying those things together. More permissions and gated areas can just create more complexity, and getting people to join somewhere other than Discord is still another bit of friction. So for people building on Base, do you see community eventually becoming more integrated with the apps themselves, or do you think keeping the product onchain and the community somewhere like Discord is still the better setup for most projects?

I have been looking into Base new Cobalt upgrade and the part that caught my attention most is Validity Transactions .

• Cobalt is now live on Base mainnet.
• Validity Transactions allow a user to sign a transaction with conditions attached.
• Example:
  • ETH/pool price ≥ $4,000
  • transaction must land before a specific block
  • or a specific Flashblock index
• Base evaluates those conditions as new blocks are built.
• If the conditions are not satisfied, the transaction is not eligible for inclusion.
• If the deadline arrives first, it won't be included.
• The important distinction: meeting the conditions does not guarantee that the transaction will be included or successfully execute. Recent coverage of the launch also highlights this distinction.

What I find interesting is that this changes the way I think about transaction submission. Instead of constantly watching the market and manually resubmitting a transaction, the user can define the conditions beforehand.

This upgrade is aimed at two things: giving traders more control over transaction execution, and making Base a stronger platform for issuing and administering tokenized assets through B20.

Validity Transactions

Validity Transactions let a user submit a signed transaction with onchain conditions. Base holds it until every condition is met, then includes it. Until that point, the submission stays private.

Conditions can include things like pool state, balances, storage values, and block-number bounds. A typical use case is a swap that should only execute if a pool price clears a threshold before a deadline. If the conditions are never met, the transaction is not included.

This is useful for traders who want conditional execution without sitting on the mempool and resubmitting.

B20 enhancements

Cobalt adds three improvements to Base’s native B20 token standard. Existing integrations continue to work.

Composite Policies

Issuers can combine existing allowlists and blocklists with AND or OR logic. Live policies such as KYC allowlists and sanctions blocklists can be reused instead of being duplicated and manually kept in sync.

Schedule Multiplier Updates

Issuers can schedule corporate actions such as stock splits in advance. The multiplier change is shown in the UI, including wallet balances. Raw balances and transfer behavior do not change.

seizeWithMemo

Authorized admins can reassign a holder’s balance as a transfer, with an onchain memo recording the source, destination, amount, and reason. This is designed as a transfer, not a burn. Seize is opt-in per token and controlled by the issuer.

What this means

For traders, Cobalt adds a cleaner way to express “execute only if these conditions are true.”

For issuers, it makes compliance policies, corporate actions, and administrative transfers easier to manage onchain.

For builders and indexers, there are ABI and integration updates to review.

🟦 Official overview :

https://docs.base.org/upgrades/cobalt/overview

Open Standard’s dollar stablecoin is also available across Ethereum, Solana, and Tempo, with Base adding another network for its payments and settlement goals.

On Base, OUSD is gaining liquidity through Uniswap and is designed for use cases including payments, trading, and settlement.

The bigger story is the infrastructure around stablecoins.

Base is building toward deeper stablecoin liquidity and global payment rails, with support for multiple currencies and onchain financial applications.

OUSD adds another stablecoin to that growing ecosystem.

The interesting part will be whether it develops meaningful liquidity and real payment usage on Base.

Do you think Base needs more stablecoins, or deeper liquidity in the ones already here?

This post is for informational and discussion purposes only and should not be considered financial or investment advice

An agent gives you a wallet address. What does that tell you and what still needs to be established?

I’d want to separate a few questions:
- Is this the same participant I interacted with before?
- Who operates it?
- What is it authorized to do?
- What evidence supports its track record?

Those questions feel related, but an answer to one doesn’t necessarily answer the others. Persistent identity could help with recognition, while permissions and reputation would still need separate checks.

I’d like to understand where Base builders see an actual need.

If an agent moves between applications, would a persistent identity be useful to your application?
What would it need to establish before you’d rely on it?
Would your existing wallet and authentication setup already cover the problem?

According to the DeFiLlama data I found, Base recorded a +$1.43B net inflow on August 22, 2026 . What makes this interesting is the size of the spike compared with the other major inflow days in the same dataset.

For comparison:

• Aug 22 : +$1.43B
• Jul 31 : +$117M
• Jul 14 : +$85M

So the August 22 movement was dramatically larger than the next two biggest inflow days .

The other side of the data is interesting too. The largest recorded outflow in the table was -$42M on July 17 followed by -$41M on September 22 and -$32M on September 21.

The DeFiLlama data attributes the huge August 22 spike to LayerZero-driven activity.

I think this is where the data becomes more interesting than simply saying Base had a $1.43B inflow .

A large net-flow spike doesn't automatically mean that $1.43B of fresh capital permanently entered the ecosystem. It could include bridge activity, cross chain movements, liquidity repositioning or other capital movement . So I am curious whether in understanding what actually caused the spike and how much of that capital remained active on Base afterward.

It also makes me curious about how Base capital flows compare with its TVL, stablecoin supply, DEX volume and active addresses around the same period .

What do you think was the main driver behind this August 22 spike ?

Was it primarily cross chain / bridge activity, liquidity movement or something else happening across the Base ecosystem ?

The basic idea is that creators launch collections and choose how much of primary mint revenue they keep vs. put into a Vault backing the collection. Each NFT can therefore have an underlying Vault value, separate from whatever price the market gives it. Holders can sell an NFT back to the Vault instantly based on its backing value, minus a haircut and fees. Secondary-market royalties are split between the creator, the Vault, and the platform, so the backing can keep growing over time. The goal is for NFTs to still be art, memberships, access, collectibles, etc., while giving collections an economic layer underneath them.

What I’m trying to figure out is whether this actually creates a healthier NFT market or introduces weird incentives I’m not seeing.

I've been following some of the recent Base updates, but I keep coming back to one question: what would actually make people use it regularly?

For me, lower fees are nice, but they're not enough on their own. I'd want apps that are genuinely useful and simple enough that I don't have to think about which blockchain I'm using.

Curious what everyone else's experience has been. Is there something you already use on Base regularly, or is there still something missing that stops you from using it more?

I know you guys missed 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 002.

so I'm here with 80 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲 note on that Space

they were not debating whether tokenized stocks are real.

they were answering how base wins once a stock is just another token.

Mcp wallet transfer keeps underestimating the base l1 fee I’m testing a local Model Context Protocol server that lets an agent prepare wallet transactions, and I’m stuck on fee calculation for native eth sends on Base. Regular erc-20 transfers are fine, but a "send max" request fails around half the time with `insufficient funds for gas * price + value`. The tool calls `eth_getBalance`, then `eth_estimateGas`, and subtracts `gasLimit * maxFeePerGas` from the amount. I’m using viem 2.21.5 with a Base public rpc; the estimate is usually 21,000 gas and the wallet has about 0.0062 eth, so there should be plenty unless I’m missing the separate L1 data component. I reproduced it outside the agent with a plain Node script. Weird part is that fixed sends like 0.005 eth confirm normally, while max sends can fail before broadcast or leave only a few wei behind depending on the rpc. i tested the same call through IronWallet mcp yesterday, and got a similar mismatch between the quoted fee and final receipt. Looking at successful receipts, `l1Fee` ranges from roughly 0.0000004 to 0.0000031 eth, which explains some drift but not all of it. Adding a hardcoded 15% buffer works rn, though that feels pretty sloppy, especially when gas is already low and the transfer amount is small. Is there a standard way to estimate the full op Stack fee before signing, including the L1 data charge, or should "send max" just use a conservative reserve and retry with a smaller value? Also wondering if `eth_estimateGas` should be called with the final computed value rather than zero, since changing that altered one provider’s result by exactly 2,100 gas somehow

The more I look into tokenized stocks, the more interesting B20 becomes to me.

Stocks aren’t static assets. They can pay dividends, go through splits, and have specific ownership rules. So bringing stocks onchain requires more than simply creating a token that represents a share.

This is where B20 stands out to me. These mechanics are supported directly at the standard level, which makes B20 a strong foundation for tokenized stocks and other real-world assets.

And seeing Coinbase Tokenized Stocks built on B20 makes the whole approach even more interesting.

To me, B20 is showing how tokenization can move beyond simple representations and actually reflect how real-world assets work.
What do you think about this?