Coinbase’s SocialFi ambitions on its Base network are under renewed scrutiny after a high-profile creator token experiment reignited debate over whether onchain social platforms can move beyond short-lived hype and deliver lasting user engagement.
Coinbase’s push to turn its Ethereum layer-2 network, Base, into a hub for onchain social activity is facing growing skepticism, as traders and builders question whether viral attention can realistically be converted into lasting blockchain engagement.
Key takeaways
- A high-profile creator token launch on Base failed to generate sustained onchain activity
- Most trading volume came from existing speculators rather than new users
- Critics argue the experiment exposes structural weaknesses in SocialFi models
- Builders are increasingly questioning Base’s incentives and long-term strategy
The latest flashpoint came after YouTuber Nick Shirley experimented with launching a creator token via Zora, a platform positioned at the center of Base’s SocialFi narrative. The token briefly surged to a fully diluted valuation of roughly $9 million before retreating toward $3 million, with trading activity dominated largely by existing crypto traders rather than an influx of new users. For critics, the episode highlighted a familiar pattern: short-lived hype followed by rapid decay.
I’m still in disbelief over this whole $thenickshirley fiasco.
Base / Zora finally got their opportunity to prove that their creator coin model can work and they just did… nothing?
This was their moment. Everyone on here recognized it, except the ones that could actually do…
— AJC (@AvgJoesCrypto) December 31, 2025
One of the most widely circulated critiques came from trader and content creator notthreadguy, who argued that Shirley represented a best-case scenario for creator tokens — and still failed to generate durable demand. In his view, if a highly visible figure with a large audience could not sustain interest, the broader model itself may be flawed. He described trading activity around such tokens as largely circular, driven by the same small pool of speculators rather than genuine creator-fan participation.
The backlash has not emerged in isolation. Other Zora-linked launches on Base have followed similar trajectories, posting sharp early gains before liquidity thinned and attention moved on. Collectively, these outcomes have fueled doubts about whether SocialFi, at least in its current form, can deliver more than fleeting engagement.
Shirley’s profile has also expanded beyond crypto circles in recent weeks, after unverified allegations he raised about daycare fraud were amplified by high-profile figures including Elon Musk and senior members of the Trump administration. The claims later surfaced in broader political discussions tied to a federal freeze on child care funding in Minnesota, further increasing scrutiny around his online influence.
Big SocialFi Numbers, Weak Retention
Base has increasingly been framed as a decentralized social layer, following earlier experiments like Friend.tech and more recent platforms such as Farcaster and Zora. Industry forecasts paint an optimistic picture, with projections suggesting the SocialFi market could surpass $10 billion by 2033, supported by double-digit annual growth.
Yet historical data paints a more uneven reality. Friend.tech, once a flagship SocialFi success story, saw daily active users climb to around 80,000 at its peak before falling back below 10,000. For critics, this gap between headline projections and actual user retention underscores a core weakness: attention is easy to attract, but difficult to sustain.
Builders Question Base’s Direction
Inside the Base ecosystem, frustration is growing. Some developers argue that repeated promotion of high-profile creator tokens — including internal “team” tokens and Zora launches amplified through official channels — has created an uneven playing field.
According to these critics, visibility and liquidity often flow toward a narrow set of narratives, leaving independent builders exposed when hype fades.
One builder summed up the concern bluntly: without alignment to favored projects, incentives to build on Base begin to erode. The perception of selective amplification, they argue, risks undermining the network’s long-term credibility among developers.
Coinbase leadership has begun responding to the criticism. Brian Armstrong acknowledged the debate publicly, noting that he had spoken directly with notthreadguy and received what he described as constructive feedback and ideas. Whether those conversations translate into structural changes remains an open question.
For now, the controversy surrounding Shirley’s token has become a broader referendum on Base’s SocialFi ambitions. It highlights a central challenge facing onchain social experiments: turning fleeting cultural moments into sustained economic activity — and proving that creator tokens can attract more than just the same traders chasing the next spike.
The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
Source: https://coindoo.com/coinbases-base-network-faces-pushback-over-socialfi-model/