Base, as the Ethereum Layer 2 launched by Coinbase, once attempted to tell a different story with creator tokens: allowing content creators to mint their influence into tokens and directly manage community economics on-chain. This narrative of "content tokens" revolved around Base for over a year, only to be officially halted by the team itself. Recently, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong uniquely lowered his stance on X, candidly admitting that the creator token strategy had not succeeded, stating, "We messed up, it's time to move on," and revealed that the Base team had completed an internal pivot earlier this year. The new roadmap has been condensed into three words: trading, payments, and agency (including AI agency), with the vast majority of resources being unhesitatingly directed towards the most traditional and practical path of "trading" — as for the AI agency direction, which has been contentious within the community, he chose to retain it under pressure as part of the core vision. Recognizing the failure of the content token experiment and rewriting the narrative around a pragmatic path focused on trading and payments, this pivot serves both as a reckoning for the trial-and-error of the past year and a clear footnote on how leading Layer 2s can quickly overturn old answers and re-bet on new directions.

The Truth About the Year-Long Gamble on Content Tokens Failing

If we rewind to the initial stage after the launch of Base, the story it told externally was not about "being the fastest, cheapest transaction chain," but about packaging itself as a Layer 2 that serves the creator economy and community tokens. Creator tokens and content tokens were placed front and center: attracting content creators, moving fan relationships and community consensus on-chain as much as possible, and rewriting the path of "creation — distribution — monetization" with a new incentive structure. This was not a small side business attempt, but rather the differentiated narrative from Base's early public positioning, where almost all external promotions revolved around "creators" and "community economics," betting on content and tokens forming positive feedback on this chain.

However, this gamble did not last too long. According to the currently only publicly cited source, this creator token route persisted for over a year, yet the final assessment was a cold few words — poor market response or ecological development not meeting expectations. More intriguingly, the research brief did not provide any hard metrics: there was no TVL, no trading volume, no user retention curves, and not even the names, symbols, or market caps of the creator token projects that had been bet on appeared in the public information. In the absence of detail and data breakdowns, the outside world could only deduce from Brian Armstrong's later comment, "We messed up, it's time to move on," the actual effect of this experiment: content tokens failed to leverage the creator and community economy as anticipated, instead becoming a burden that Base needed to shed quickly, marking the real starting point for its subsequent pivot towards more pragmatic scenarios like trading and payments.

We Messed Up: A Signal of the CEO Admitting Defeat

When Coinbase co-founder and CEO Brian Armstrong wrote on X, "We messed up, it's time to move on," he was not just sharing a community's complaint; he was personally marking the conclusion of the early narrative around creator tokens for Base. For a leading compliant exchange, such bluntness is almost equivalent to an official announcement: it is not "still exploring" or "needs optimization," but rather a clear acknowledgment that this path is unviable. More critically, this statement did not come with any immediate compensation or reimbursement arrangements, but only a directional review and attitude declaration, essentially telling all participants: this content token experiment has ended, and moving forward, please understand Base according to the new script.

Armstrong added in the same post — the team had actually completed a strategic adjustment earlier this year, moving its focus to trading, payments, and agency (including AI agency) well in advance, and allocating most resources towards trading. This indicates that his "acknowledgment of error" is not a reactive admission under pressure but a public explanation afterward: we have changed directions; we are just now formally clarifying that externally. On one hand, this attitude of "acknowledging mistakes quickly and taking early action" helps to solidify the brand's image of execution capability, demonstrating that Base will unhesitatingly distance itself from the narrative of failure; on the other hand, it also indirectly raises the overall tolerance for trial and error within the entire sector — in traditional internet companies, similar failures are often quietly hidden, while in leading Layer 2s, narratives of this level involving creator tokens can be publicly tested, publicly acknowledged as failures, and quickly switched to new main lines of trading and payments; this frequency of shifting lanes is becoming the norm in the era of crypto infrastructure.

Focusing Resources on Trading and Payments: Base's Business Pivot

After publicly admitting the failure of content tokens, Brian Armstrong immediately provided Base's new triangle: trading, payments, and agency (including AI agency), clearly stating that most resources would be directed towards trading. He effectively pulled Base back from being a "creator community testing ground" to the domain that Coinbase is most familiar with — trading activities themselves. As a centralized exchange, Coinbase's primary revenue heavily relies on trading activities, and its accumulation in fiat on- and off-ramping, compliance, and risk control positions it to convert advantages in scenarios involving "buying and selling assets, transferring in and out," making it more aligned with its foundational business than carrying a bunch of content tokens.

From a user's perspective, if Base is crafted as the "underlying chain for trading and payments," the ideal picture is: after completing asset transactions within Coinbase, value can seamlessly land on Base, then be circulated on-chain by users through payments and transfers; for developers, building around matching, clearing, on-chain accounting, and various payment gateways is evidently easier to align with Coinbase's traffic and regulatory lines than designing narratives around creator tokens. Within this framework, "agency" — especially AI agency — is placed on a more distant horizon: the community has criticized this direction, but Armstrong made it clear that he does not agree and still sees it as one of Base's core bets. However, compared to the previously emphasized vision for creator communities, this pivot resembles a return to cash flow and business synergy that is commercially more pragmatic, but to some extent also dilutes the imagination of Base as a "new type of foundational infrastructure for creator economies."

AI Agency Criticized as Useless? Brian Chooses to Withstand Pressure

After the failure of creator tokens was announced, the community quickly shifted its focus to another "new narrative" listed by Base — agency, especially AI agency. The voices of skepticism are not hard to imagine: for many, trading and payments at least correspond to clear demands and revenue paths, while AI agency seems more like a vague, long-term promise. Following the candid acknowledgment of "we messed up, it's time to move on," some began to worry: could Base repeat its missteps in a similarly unreliable direction, betting on a concept that shows no short-term results and is even criticized as "useless"?

But Armstrong's attitude is entirely different. In the face of criticisms recorded in the research brief, he did not opt for an acknowledgment and withdrawal as with creator tokens, but explicitly indicated his disagreement and continued to place agency (including AI agency) as part of Base's core direction. On a narrative level, this means: after the cutting-edge track of creator tokens has been formally abandoned, AI agency became one of the few "long-term options" Base is still brave enough to retain. Trading and payments are responsible for quickly enriching the network and cash flow, while agency has been pushed to a longer timeline, expected to unlock the next round of growth — even though there is currently no public disclosure of project names, launch times, or performance metrics.

If we consider Base's current three pillars together, AI agency is not entirely divorced from trading and payments. The conceptual agency could continuously execute commands on-chain on behalf of users: automatically placing orders, intelligently routing between different applications, and completing transfers and settlements in various payment scenarios according to preset rules, all intertwined with trading and payments. Base is betting most resources on trading that can yield immediate returns, while still retaining AI agency as a long-term chip, essentially trying to construct a narrative curve with a temporal dislocation: while pragmatic trading and payments support actual business, whether agency can evolve from the concept of "being criticized as useless" to real, perceivable on-chain actions will determine if Base can tell a sufficiently imaginative new story in the future.

The Cost of Trial and Error for Leading Layer 2 and the Next Bet

Base's journey from betting on creator tokens shortly after its launch, to being forced to acknowledge failure after more than a year of experimentation, and then pivoting its focus to trading, payments, and agency (including AI agency) early this year, reads almost like a textbook curve: first grabbing attention with a sharp narrative, then turning the ship around under the cold feedback of reality. When Brian Armstrong recently stated on X, "We messed up, it's time to move on," he essentially marked the end of this trial-and-error phase personally, and allowed a leading Ethereum Layer 2 to publicly "acknowledge error" in front of global users — this is both the accelerated testing rights brought by capital and brand, as well as the credibility cost that must be borne. Moving forward, Base's deeper integration of trading and payments with Coinbase's existing business is the most natural and easily magnified path, while whether AI agency can evolve from a community-skeptical concept into genuine on-chain actions will remain a volatile bet. Public information has not provided a timeline or quantified goals for Base's next phase; its success or failure will only manifest in actual behaviors settled on-chain, while within a larger industry context, this also signals that the L2 competition will shift from telling a singular narrative to focusing on efficiency, application forms, and differentiated experiences across various specific scenarios. Whether Base can prove itself in this new round of bets will be a key reference point for the narrative evolution of leading Layer 2s from "engaging stories" to "practical scenarios."

Join our community, let's discuss and grow stronger together!
AiCoin's exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin's exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。