This has led to a misguided incentive structure, where project teams no longer focus on the product itself.

Written by: Haotian

I didn't expect the discussion around the "listing fees" of exchanges to start again.

Someone brought out a quote offer for listing on Binance, which includes 1% Alpha airdrop + 3% additional airdrop + 1% marketing + 1M TVL + 250k margin + 3% BNBHolder rewards + …

I still hold the view that the amount of listing fees is essentially a purely commercial act, a choice made by Binance itself, and no one can shake that. What’s strange is that such private commercial terms have been exposed.

Clearly, there is some anger from the Builder community behind this.

Some Builders are putting in all their effort into technology, product development, and ecosystem building, only to find that the threshold for "listing" is so high, and it is a huge financial black hole.

This means that teams without a luxurious VC background or strong capital support are kept out. Instead, those with ample funding, good storytelling, and expertise in capital operations have become the "honored guests."

The result is predictable; a vicious cycle ensues. Exchanges complain that these well-funded VC projects peak upon listing, cash out users, and then shift the blame to the exchanges; project teams feel wronged, as the high asking price from exchanges and the costly uncertainty of the future make it more appealing to engage in short-term operations; users are left innocent, cursing the exchanges, the project teams, and themselves for getting caught up in the chaos.

So, where is the root of this problem? I believe it lies precisely in this value selection mechanism of "whoever has money gets listed."

Of course, exchanges may argue that the money collected is distributed to users, and that a series of margins are also meant to protect users. But the problem is, if the selection is purely based on "financial thresholds," it will inevitably exclude some projects that are genuinely innovative but lack funding, while welcoming those adept at capital operations and short-term cashing out.

This dualistic distortion mechanism that equates "funding level" with "innovation value," and replaces "ability to execute" with "financial capability," has led to the current situation where both sides are at each other's throats.

Thus, I say that the high listing thresholds of exchanges and the creation of bundled products are systematically stifling on-chain innovation.

Because this leads to a misguided incentive structure, where project teams no longer focus on the product itself, but instead invest a lot of energy into "how to deal with exchanges," "how to package the story," and "how to cater to capital." Technical innovation becomes a secondary goal, while fundraising and listing become the primary tasks.

I ask, when Builders spend more time on packaging and operations than on writing code, where is the future of this industry?

I understand the profit motives of exchanges as commercial entities; they have fought through the storms of the industry to reach where they are now. However, the biggest "backing" for exchanges is not just the platform users, but also the vast ecosystem of Crypto technological innovation behind them.

When the entire Crypto ecosystem is reduced to capital games and mutual harvesting— the "shovel business" of exchanges will also lose its foundation.

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。