Crypto community hits Base cofounder over Soulja Boy meme token promotion

Community debate over the base cofounder intensified after a Soulja Boy-related meme token promotion on Base raised questions about ethics, risk, and reputational fallout.

Community criticism over Soulja Boy token promotion

Jesse Pollak, a cofounder of Base, is facing sharp criticism after publicly promoting a meme token tied to rapper Soulja Boy.

The post, shared on X, highlighted a creator payout feature on Base and directed users to a newly issued token on the network. However, the reaction turned heated almost immediately, with many questioning why a senior figure at a Coinbase-backed chain would spotlight a celebrity with a controversial crypto history.

The debate spread quickly across the ecosystem, pulling in developers, on-chain investigators, and long-time traders.

At the center of the backlash is trust in Base as a serious on-chain environment. Moreover, critics argued that promoting a base meme token linked to past scandals undermines the network’s positioning as institutional-grade infrastructure.

ZachXBT revives Soulja Boy’s crypto track record

Blockchain investigator ZachXBT directly challenged Pollak’s decision to amplify the token. He questioned why Soulja Boy was being given visibility at all and resurfaced his own 2023 research, which documented 73 crypto promotions and 16 NFT launches associated with the rapper. According to that investigation, many of those initiatives later collapsed or were flagged by observers as alleged scams.

Those old threads and screenshots quickly circulated again on social media. Moreover, critics reposted excerpts to emphasize that this history has been public for years and is difficult to overlook.

For many, the issue was framed less around legality and more around responsibility. Giving fresh exposure to someone repeatedly tied to failed projects, they argued, risks drawing new users into the same harmful cycle.

Some commenters went further and said platform leaders should apply higher standards than everyday users. That said, they stressed that newcomers frequently interpret signals from prominent builders as implicit endorsements, especially when those signals highlight specific tokens rather than infrastructure in general.

Permissionless ideals versus leadership influence

Defenders of Pollak leaned on a familiar principle: Base is a permissionless environment. Anyone can deploy contracts or launch tokens. Anyone can promote their own projects. In their view, the tools remain neutral, regardless of who uses them.

However, that explanation did little to calm critics who drew a sharp distinction between neutral infrastructure and a cofounder personally boosting a meme asset.

Many users argued that leadership attention is qualitatively different from standard user activity. Once a senior figure highlights a Soulja Boy token, they claimed, the line between describing network usage and endorsing a specific asset blurs. Moreover, some suggested this episode exposes deeper permissionless platform ethics issues that the industry has yet to resolve.

Others noted that Base collects fees on activity regardless of whether a token performs well or ultimately fails. In that framing, chaos on-chain can still be profitable for the underlying network, while accountability remains diffuse. The sarcasm in replies was heavy, and memes spread rapidly.

Some users also pointed out that Pollak had previously launched his own creator coin, fueling accusations of double standards and selective concern.

Reputational stakes for Base and its builders

This controversy underscores a broader crypto reputation risk for public builders. Permissionless systems promise open access, yet high-profile figures inevitably carry outsized influence. For leaders like the base cofounder, the line between stating “anyone can use this” and effectively saying “I endorse this” can be thin. Once that line appears crossed, reactions tend to be fast and unforgiving in on-chain communities.

Importantly, no regulator intervened in this case, and no token on Base was halted or censored. Nevertheless, reputational damage in crypto rarely relies on formal enforcement. Instead, it spreads socially through replies, reposts, and commentary, as illustrated by the revival of ZachXBT’s 2023 threads. Moreover, this episode may serve as a cautionary tale for other network leaders considering highly visible jesse pollak promotion campaigns tied to speculative assets.

Ongoing debate over responsibility and neutrality

As of now, Pollak has not issued a detailed response addressing the criticism or clarifying his position. Meanwhile, the discussion continues across X and developer channels. Some market participants dismiss the uproar as overblown drama around a single meme token. Others argue it is another warning sign about how influence and incentives interact on-chain.

Either way, the message from many community members is clear. Infrastructure may claim neutrality, but influence does not. In practice, when a prominent builder highlights a specific asset, users interpret that as a meaningful signal. For Base and its leadership, the long-term challenge will be balancing permissionless ideals with the ethical expectations that come with visible authority.

In summary, the clash between neutral tooling and public influence has pushed Base into an uncomfortable spotlight. The Soulja Boy promotion debate has shown how quickly trust questions can escalate, and it has reminded builders that, in crypto, social judgment can be as powerful as any on-chain mechanism.