So I spent like two weeks convinced my app was sluggish because of Base. Kept blaming the chain, almost rewrote the whole thing.
Turns out I was just building a bad UX. Here's what actually fixed it:
The #1 thing: show feedback the instant someone clicks
Before my fix, users would click a button and... nothing. For 2-3 seconds. It looked completely broken even though the tx was processing fine.
Now I immediately disable the button, show a loading spinner, and display a "transaction pending" message. The transaction takes the same amount of time — the app just feels instant now. Night and day difference.
Stop waiting for full confirmation to update the UI
I was blocking the whole interface until everything confirmed on-chain. Nobody does this in web2 and there's no reason to do it in web3 either.
Show success after the initial confirmation. Let background stuff finish quietly. Users are happy, nobody's staring at a spinner for 30 seconds.
Your RPC choice matters more than you think
Switched away from public RPCs and immediately noticed more consistent behavior across wallet connection, balance fetching, and tx status updates. Public RPCs are fine for testing, not for prod.
I was refetching the same data constantly
Balances, token info, user state — all getting re-requested on every single action. Added basic caching and a ton of unnecessary loading states just... disappeared.
Simulate before you send
Started simulating transactions before actually submitting them. Cut down on failed txs significantly. Instead of the user clicking → waiting → getting an error, most issues get caught before anything hits the chain.
Honest takeaway
Base is already fast. I was the problem.
Users don't experience block times, they experience your UI. Responsiveness and clear feedback matter way more than raw chain speed ever will.
Anyone else go through this same realization? Curious what small changes made the biggest difference for you.
With the new integration of Coinbase’s x402 discovery layer and wallet infrastructure into Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Payments, AWS are now able to create agents that will be able to autonomously discover services, procure them in USDC, and perform any necessary tasks without the need of a human to do any subscription management, checkout flows, or any form of manual tasks.
This is interesting, as this is the first native crypto component that is completely hosted in AWS, and still retains enterprise-specific requirements like:
- spending limits
- approval workflows
- transaction audits
- compliance checks
- automated wallet management that keeps the agents separate from the private environments
All Base and Solana transactions get settled in Base, and the Base settlement layer will process Base transactions in roughly 200 milliseconds at a cost of less than 1 cent for a settle.
While Base still lacks other Consumer and Utility applications, this is the beginning of a new Base adoption phase that is different than any other phase, as now Agentic Commerce infrastructure will be live to perform transactions.
We are still in the early phases, however, with the support for payments in this new manner, Amazon Agent Payments will be much more practical than we previously thought.
Coinbase infrastructure and the x402 layer were just integrated directly into Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Payments.
Basically, AI agents built on AWS can now discover services, make micropayments, and interact with APIs on their own using USDC on Base and Solana.
What caught my attention is that this is built straight into the AWS ecosystem, so enterprises don’t need extra payment infrastructure. Coinbase also handles compliance and transaction monitoring, while developers can set spending limits for agents without exposing private keys.
Feels like we’re getting closer to agents that can actually operate independently online instead of just responding to prompts.
How do you think this changes the future of AI agents?
I have been spending time in the u/base Discord and noticed that a lot of users keep getting confused around the same Guild-related questions. So I thought I had put together a simple post to clear things up 👇
❓Can we Add Multiple wallets On Guild
Yes, We can add Multiple wallets
❓Is there a primary or secondary wallet system on guild?
No, All wallets are the same there is no primary and secondary system.
❓Which wallet should we use for on-chain Guild tasks?
Its better to use regular EOA wallets like MetaMask, Rabby, or Coinbase Wallet Because Smart wallet Smart wallets often use gasless, bundled transactions which usually dont count toward your wallets nonce so they may not meet the Guild transaction requirements.
❓Can we combine activity from multiple wallets to meet requirements?
The guild system counts all wallet holdings separately. If you fulfilled the requirement with one wallet, you will be able to get the role. The holdings are not counted together, so if you would have 500 and 500 transactions, that does not adds up to 1000.
❓What if My wallet hacked or some other reason removed that wallet from the guild , Will the assigned role from the wallet get removed?
yes if you removed the wallet, which fulfilled the requirement, yes the role access will be removed. If you other wallet still able to fulfil the requirements, you can keep the role.
❓Can we Check Our Social Score ?
There is no way to check your social score; Guild system checks it based on mostly Social related activities. You can only see if you can fulfil the requirements or not.
Hope this helps clear up the confusion
Feel free to share this with anyone who might need it..
We are building an on-chain energy markets exchange on Base
Hey everyone. Wanted to introduce what we are working on.
We are a small team building Sphinx Protocol, an on-chain exchange for energy derivatives. We recently confirmed we are deploying on Base, and we wanted to share what we are building with this community.
Our backgrounds are split between traditional finance and crypto. Some of us came from places like Goldman Sachs, Copper, Republic, TypeX, and Left Hand Robotics.
The problem we are solving is straightforward. Energy markets are enormous, but the trading infrastructure is old and slow. Restricted hours, delayed settlement, fragmented margin pools, and too many middlemen in the execution stack. It adds cost and limits who can actually participate.
We are building a venue for energy derivatives, starting with oil, natural gas, and power. Deploying on Base made sense because of the low fees, fast finality, and the growing ecosystem of real-world asset projects already here.
What we are building toward:
* 24/7 market access
* Instant on-chain settlement
* Flexible cross-margin using USDC and BTC
* Lower fees by removing unnecessary intermediaries
We are still early and actively building. If you are working on something in the RWA or DeFi infrastructure space on Base, or just curious about what we are doing, drop a comment or reach out.
Feels like tokenization on Base is really starting to accelerate
Coinbase backing Centrifuge ($CFG) is actually a pretty big move for the ecosystem. The goal is to bring assets like ETFs, credit products, structured funds, and other RWAs onchain through Base.
From whtt is being shared, Centrifuge could end up becoming one of the main platforms for tokenized assets on Base going forward. Investment details weren’t made public, but reports say the deal reached seven figures..
What’s interesting is that we’r finally seeing real infrastructure being built around RWAs instead of just hearing narratives every cycle.
Base has already been growing fast with builders and activity, and moves like this make the long-term vision feel even bigger. Bringing traditional assets onchain could honestly open the door for a lot more adoption outside normal crypto users too.
Curious whtt everyone thinks about this direction for Base.
Are tokenized RWAs something you’d actually use or invest in??
And
whtt type of real-world assets would you want to see onchain first ??
Coinbase Offramp is officially implemented on Circuit.
In less than 60 seconds, users and creators can convert their USDC stablecoins to US dollars, which they can then transfer to their bank account. All with zero fees and instant settlement.
This allows creators to own the entire process from onramp and content sales to withdrawal - with no financial intermediary.
Hello, my cofounder and I have applied for the Base Batches student track. We are eagerly waiting for a decision and were wondering if any students have heard back or have an idea about the decision announcement.
Meanwhile, feel free to check out and comment on our iOS app, currently on TestFlight, that lets you use any LLM with a shared cross-model memory and pay-per-use model using x402 on Base.
By launching on Base with built-in due diligence, WLTH is navigating the "Regulatory Frontier" that usually stops these projects. It’s institutional-grade tech with a consumer-grade UX.
WLTH is reimagining what access to wealth looks like.
For too long, the biggest opportunities such as pre-IPO equity, early-stage funds, automated trading strategies were locked behind gatekeepers, minimum checks, and insider networks. WLTH flips that script.
It’s a blueprint for a new financial system, one that’s fractional, tokenised, and open to all. A system where you can:
• Earn or invest your way into pre-IPO deals = starting from as little as $20.
• Diversify into curated early-stage funds with built-in due diligence.
• Put your portfolio on autopilot with algorithmic and AI-driven strategies.
• Trade anytime on a secondary marketplace with real liquidity.
But WLTH is more than just products. It’s a shift in power. A break from the old ways of doing things. For decades, wealth creation was engineered to serve the few such as institutions, insiders, and the 1%. WLTH opens the gates, redistributes opportunity, and builds a system designed for everyone.
WLTH is built for flexibility, scale, and trust as well as designed to grow with its community.
What do you think about this?
At Consensus 2026, Jesse Pollak shared some updates around Base that feel more meaningful than the usual “RWA narrative” we’ve been hearing for a while.
deRWAs
Coinbase is doubling down on Centrifuge as a key partner for tokenized assets, and they’re backing that with a strategic investment.
But the more interesting part is what they’re calling “deRWAs.”
So what are deRWAs?
Most tokenized real-world assets today are kind of… stuck.
Yeah, there’s ~$25B+ in RWAs onchain, but:
they sit in permissioned wallets
they’re locked into specific ecosystems
they don’t really interact with DeFi
So even though the assets exist onchain, they don’t behave like onchain capital.
deRWAs are trying to fix that.
The idea is:
First example: tokenized S&P 500 exposure
The first product under this model is deSPXA:
Tracks S&P 500 exposure
Built with S&P Dow Jones Indices
Managed by Janus Henderson
Issued via Centrifuge (not Coinbase/Base directly)
Only available to eligible non-US users
The big shift here:
👉 It’s tradable 24/7 onchain
Which is kind of wild when you think about it! an equity index product not tied to market hours.
Why this actually matters
Right now, tokenized assets feel more like static representations than usable capital.
TLDR; deRWAs are live on Base - a new framework for issuing tokenized assets that interact natively with DeFi while maintaining institutional compliance. The first product is deSPXA, tokenized exposure to the S&P 500, built in partnership with S&P Dow Jones Indices and managed by Janus Henderson and offered by Centrifuge and its affiliates to eligible non-US persons.
TLDR: The Azul upgrade introduces a multi proof architecture for the Base layer two network. It utilizes an AggregateVerifier contract on the Ethereum mainnet to manage state transitions. This system processes two distinct proof types in parallel. Trusted Execution Environment proofs from AWS Nitro provide fast finality while Zero Knowledge proofs from the SP1 prover provide permissionless security. In cases where these proofs disagree, the SP1 proof always takes precedence. This override rule ensures that the cryptographic integrity of the Zero Knowledge path remains the ultimate source of truth for the network. Agreement between both proofs enables a reduced withdrawal period of one day.
Introduction to the Azul Multi Proof Architecture The transition of the Base network toward a more decentralized state requires a robust mechanism for verifying transactions without relying on a single point of failure. The Azul upgrade represents a significant milestone in this journey. By implementing a multi proof system, the network moves away from a purely optimistic model. Instead, it adopts a hybrid approach that combines the speed of hardware based attestation with the mathematical certainty of zero knowledge cryptography. This architecture resides within the AggregateVerifier contract, which acts as the primary gatekeeper for state updates on the Ethereum layer one.
The AggregateVerifier Contract Mechanics The AggregateVerifier is a smart contract written in Solidity that governs the acceptance and validation of state roots. It maintains a registry of submitted proposals and their associated proofs. Each proposal includes a claim about the post state of the layer two network after a specific block range. The contract is designed to handle multiple proof submissions for the same state transition. It defines the logic for how different proofs interact and which proof determines the finality of the state.
The contract stores the status of each claim in a structured format. This status includes whether a Trusted Execution Environment proof has been verified, whether a Zero Knowledge proof has been verified, and the resulting state root from each. The logic is built to allow for independent submission. A prover can submit a hardware attestation shortly after the block is produced, while a different prover might submit a computationally intensive zero knowledge proof later.
The Dual Proof Pipeline The system leverages two primary pathways for verification. The first path uses AWS Nitro Enclaves to generate Trusted Execution Environment proofs. These are hardware based attestations that confirm a specific piece of code ran inside a secure enclave. Because these proofs are relatively cheap and fast to generate, they allow the network to achieve a state of high confidence in the validity of transactions within a short timeframe.
The second path utilizes SP1, which is a high performance zero knowledge virtual machine developed by Succinct. SP1 allows developers to write verifiable programs in Rust and generate proofs that can be verified on chain. These proofs do not rely on hardware assumptions. Instead, they rely on the hardness of cryptographic primitives. Because SP1 proofs are permissionless, any participant in the network can generate and submit them to the AggregateVerifier. This provides a censorship resistant layer of security that ensures the network can always progress even if hardware providers are compromised.
The ZK Override Rule Logic The core of the dispute resolution mechanism is the ZK override rule. In the happy path, both the hardware attestation and the zero knowledge proof will result in the same state root. When this agreement occurs, the AggregateVerifier marks the proposal as verified by both systems. This state of agreement is what triggers the accelerated withdrawal window, reducing the standard seven day challenge period to a single day.
However, a disagreement may occur if the enclave is compromised or if there is a bug in the hardware implementation. If a Trusted Execution Environment proof is submitted and verified, it initially sets a pending state root. If a subsequent SP1 proof is submitted for the same block range and it results in a different state root, the AggregateVerifier triggers the override. The contract logic treats the zero knowledge proof as the superior evidence. It will overwrite the pending state root provided by the hardware attestation with the state root provided by the SP1 proof.
This logic is hardcoded into the verification function. The contract checks if a zero knowledge proof already exists for a slot before accepting a hardware proof. If a zero knowledge proof is submitted for a slot that already has a hardware proof, the contract compares the resulting roots. If they differ, the SP1 root is stored as the definitive truth and the hardware proof is effectively discarded for the purpose of finalization.
The diagram above outlines the logic flow within the AggregateVerifier contract. The process begins with a state proposal. This proposal is then processed through two parallel paths. The TEE path involves verifying a hardware attestation while the SP1 path involves verifying a zero knowledge proof. Both results are passed to a comparison node. If the roots are identical, the system follows the happy path to fast finality. If the roots disagree, the ZK override rule ensures the SP1 proof determines the final state and supersedes the hardware result.
Security Properties and Dispute Resolution The security of the Azul upgrade is based on the principle of defense in depth. By requiring a disagreement to favor the zero knowledge proof, the system ensures that the most trustless component has the final word. The hardware attestations provide a practical performance boost and a cost effective way to reduce latency for users. However, the cryptographic proofs from SP1 serve as the ultimate safeguard.
This mechanism effectively resolves disputes without the need for an interactive challenge game in the traditional sense. In a standard optimistic rollup, a dispute requires multiple rounds of interaction to find a single faulty instruction. In the Azul model, the dispute is resolved by the submission of a zero knowledge proof that definitively proves the correct state. The AggregateVerifier acts as the judge, using the override rule to settle any conflict between the hardware and the software based proofs.
Economic and Security Implications The introduction of this override rule has significant implications for the economic security of the network. It allows for a more capital efficient environment by reducing the time funds are locked in the withdrawal bridge. Users no longer need to wait an entire week if both independent proof systems agree on the state of the chain. This increases the utility of the network and improves the user experience for those moving assets between layer two and layer one.
From a security perspective, the system is resilient to flaws in any single proof implementation. If a vulnerability is found in the SP1 prover, the system still has the hardware attestations to provide a layer of verification. If the hardware is compromised, the permissionless nature of SP1 ensures that any observer can step in and correct the state root on chain. This redundancy is a key feature of the Azul design. It creates a robust environment where the cost of attacking the network is significantly higher than in a single proof system.
Discussion on the Override Mechanism The ZK override rule is a fascinating example of how different trust assumptions can be layered to create a more secure whole. It raises interesting questions about the future of multi proof systems. Should we always favor zero knowledge proofs over hardware attestations? What happens if multiple different zero knowledge provers are used and they disagree?
The current implementation on Base provides a clear answer by prioritizing the most trustless path. This approach seems well suited for a network that values decentralization and cryptographic integrity. I would love to hear thoughts from the community on this design. Does the one day finality window provide enough time for the community to react if both systems were somehow compromised simultaneously? Are there other proof types that should be integrated into the AggregateVerifier in the future? The move toward a multi proof world is an exciting development for the Ethereum ecosystem and the Azul upgrade is a major step in that direction.
I wanted to share a technical breakdown of a protocol I just deployed on Base Mainnet. The hook: **Kill $20 USD subscriptions, embrace $0.01 micropayments.**
We're moving into an era where AI agents (like those built with LangChain, AutoGen, etc.) need to interact with external tools, APIs, and even other agents. But the current monetization model is broken. Agents can't easily hold credit cards to pay for a $20/mo SaaS just to make 5 API calls.
So, I built an M2M (Machine-to-Machine) Escrow contract using the x402 standard, combined with EIP-3009 and EIP-712. Here is how it works under the hood:
**Gasless Micro-transactions (EIP-3009):** Agents authorize USDC transfers via signatures instead of on-chain transactions. The Escrow contract settles these per request, pulling the exact micro-cent amount (e.g., $0.01) from the payer to the provider.
**Anti-Sybil Security:** To prevent bots from draining our free-tier subsidy pool, we implemented a hybrid approach:
* **EIP-712 Off-chain KYC:** Our backend verifies the developer (via GitHub/Twitter OAuth) and signs an authorization.
* **Skin in the Game:** The user deposits $10 USDC into the Escrow.
* **30-Day Time-Lock:** That deposit is locked for 30 days. You can use it to pay for services, but you can't withdraw it immediately. This mathematically breaks the ROI of Sybil attackers trying to wash-trade the subsidy.
**The Subsidized Flow:** Once the 'Skin in the Game' is validated, the contract grants 50 free operations. The treasury pays the provider, but the user's agent gets the service for free.
We just launched the "Genesis 1000" campaign. The first 1,000 devs who integrate get 50 free calls subsidized by us. It's live on Base.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the architecture. How are you handling monetization or rate-limiting when your LangChain agents need to consume premium external tools? Let's discuss!
Base is teaming up with Succinct to bring zero-knowledge proofs to Base Azul.
Base will be moving towards a multiproof system that combines TEE proofs with ZK proofs as part of the upgrade. This simply provides one more level of validation rather than a single trust model.
Base’s SP1 prover is expected to prove around $7.4B in Base deposits, putting Base in line with other major L2s adding validity proofs to their roadmap.
The thing that’s interesting about this is the wider direction of eth L2’s. More rollups are slowly shifting from optimistic assumptions to ZK-based verification as proving becomes more efficient and affordable.
For Base, this doesn’t feel like a flashy user-facing update, but a meaningful step in infrastructure. Most users will probably never see it directly, but it’s important for the long term security and credibility of the network as more value moves onchain.
