Unexpectedly, the discussion surrounding exchange listing fees has begun again. Someone has come up with a Binance listing offer, including a 1% Alpha airdrop + a 3% additional airdrop + 1% marketing bonus + 1 million TVL + 250,000 yuan in margin + 3% BNB holder rewards +... I still hold the view that listing fees are essentially a purely commercial decision, a decision made by Binance that no one can change. It's strange that such private commercial terms have been exposed. Clearly, this reflects the anger of some Builders who have been devastated. Some Builders have worked tirelessly on technology, product development, and ecosystem development, only to discover that the barriers to listing on an exchange are incredibly high and represent a massive financial black hole. This means that teams without prestigious VC backing and deep pockets are shut out. Instead, high-FDV VC coins with ample funding, strong narratives, and sophisticated capital operations have become the "guests of honor." The result is predictable: a vicious cycle. Exchanges complain that these high-profile VC coins peak immediately after launch, swindling users and blaming the exchanges. Project owners also feel aggrieved, believing that with the high prices charged by exchanges and the high costs of future uncertainty, they're better off with short-term, quick-in, quick-out strategies. Users, with a look of innocence, criticize the exchanges, the projects, and themselves for taking over and messing around. So, what's the root of this problem? I believe it's precisely this value-based selection mechanism, where "whoever has the money gets in." Of course, exchanges can assume that all the collected funds are distributed to users, and that the series of margin requirements are intended to protect them. However, the problem is that if they screen purely based on "capital thresholds," they will inevitably exclude promising projects that are dedicated to development, product polish, and genuinely innovative, but lack funding. Instead, they will recruit a group of traders skilled in capital operations and short-term cash-outs. This distorted two-way mechanism, which equates "funding level" with "innovative value" and "cash flow" with "ability to execute," ultimately creates a situation where both sides are blaming each other. Therefore, I argue that exchanges' high listing thresholds and their push to create a comprehensive suite of products are systematically stifling innovation on the blockchain. This creates a misguided incentive structure, leading project developers to stop focusing on the product itself and instead prioritize "how to secure an exchange," "how to craft a story," and "how to attract investors." Technological innovation becomes secondary, while financing and listing on an exchange become primary priorities. When developers spend more time crafting operations than writing code, what is the future of this industry? I understand the profitability of exchanges as commercial entities, and they've all weathered the storms of the industry to get to where they are today. However, the exchanges' biggest backer is not only the platform users of their online services, but also the vast ecosystem of crypto technology innovation behind them. When the entire crypto ecosystem becomes reduced to mere capital games and mutual exploitation, the exchanges' "shovel business" will also lose its foundation.
Catherine
