I seriously suggest that exchanges should implement a last-place elimination mechanism. For example, monthly stats could be used to identify projects with the lowest trading volume, lowest turnover rate, or those that have shown almost no meaningful movement for several consecutive months. Forget observation lists—just delist them directly. Because right now, there are a lot of tokens that aren’t just unpopular anymore; they’ve basically turned into 'stablecoins.' You say they’ll drop? Well, they barely drop. You say they’ll rise? Their monthly fluctuation might not even hit 1%. The trading volume looks like there’s something going on, but it’s mostly bots doing the work. Spot trading has no liquidity, and as for contracts—forget it. They don’t even have value for shorting. These kinds of tokens usually end up with one of two outcomes: 1. The project team has already half-abandoned ship—they just haven’t officially declared it dead. 2. The project team is quietly accumulating at the bottom. Once they’ve gathered enough tokens, they’ll pump the price for a wave, then dump it again. After that, the price stabilizes, turning back into a 'stablecoin,' and they wait for the next round of harvesting. Essentially, keeping these projects on exchanges serves no purpose for users. No liquidity, no trading value—it just provides the project team with a venue to repeatedly exploit existing users. On the other hand, if exchanges had clear delisting pressure, project teams might actually start acting like responsible entities. If they don’t market-make, don’t operate, don’t boost activity, and don’t provide updates, then they shouldn’t keep occupying a spot. Otherwise, bad tokens will never die—they’ll just become tools for exploitation.