Written by: shaofaye123, Foresight News
The listing fees of exchanges have always been a focus of industry attention, and discussions about whether there are indeed exorbitant listing fees are not new. In 2018, Binance was questioned for requiring a 1 million USD listing fee to list tokens. Other exchanges have also become involved in the topic, with claims of 10 ETH, 20 BTC, and 500,000 Tokens, making it difficult to determine what is true and what is false. Binance also announced in October 2018 that it would make listing fees transparent and donate them to charity. In 2022, due to the MITH deposit refund incident, Binance's listing fees fell into the whirlpool of public opinion once again. Recently, with the CEO of Moonrock Capital exposing a 100 million USD listing fee on Twitter, rumors and condemnation of Binance's exorbitant listing fees have once again become the center of discussion.
Chronology of the Incident
On November 1st, the CEO of Moonrock Capital, a native cryptocurrency consulting and investment firm, spoke on Twitter. He claimed that Binance requires a potential project to provide 15% of its total token supply to ensure its listing on a centralized exchange, which accounts for 15% of the total token supply, worth approximately 50 million to 100 million USD.
The incident then began to ferment, with the post's views exceeding one million, and more and more KOLs started to participate in the condemnation or support.
Brian Armstrong, co-founder of Coinbase, also released a statement on this matter, claiming: "Listing on Coinbase is free."
Coinbase, which intended to showcase decentralization and fairness through this matter, was quickly exposed; not only does it charge listing fees, but the amount is also significant.
Andre Cronje, co-founder of Sonic Labs, claimed on Twitter, "Binance does not charge listing fees, but Coinbase has repeatedly requested fees, quoting 300 million USD, 50 million USD, 30 million USD, with the latest quote being 60 million USD." This response has sparked widespread discussion and the incident has escalated. Some questioned whether Andre might have contacted fake Coinbase listing workers, while Andre stated he could provide all evidence for public verification. "I have not signed a confidentiality agreement, so I am very willing to provide relevant proof (the price requests came from multiple employees/departments of Coinbase over the years through email, Telegram, and Slack). Coinbase can argue that this is not a listing fee, but a profit fee (Earn Fee), but this will still translate into the project's listing costs."
Response from He Yi
The discussion has remained hot, and Binance co-founder He Yi also responded by stating that there is no so-called listing fee, and that the airdrop ratios and rules for cooperation with project parties are clear and transparent, and will not be determined by whether the project party provides tokens. Furthermore, Binance has a strict listing screening mechanism.
He Yi stated on Twitter, "
FUD: If a project does not pass the screening process, no matter how much money or what percentage of tokens it has, it cannot be listed on Binance.
DYOR: The projects that Binance has already listed have clear introductions in the token distribution section. Please analyze the percentages yourself to see if there is really a so-called 20%, 15%, etc.
Airdrop: The rules for airdrops in Binance's launchpool and other listings are transparent and clear, but this does not mean that any project willing to give away airdrops can list on Binance. If you have 20% of tokens that you want to cooperate with Binance for an airdrop, feel free to collaborate with our web3 wallet.
FUD will never disappear, but it makes us stronger. Gossip is easy to gain traction, and business competition is always filled with dark sides; when you understand the rules that govern the operation of this world, you will no longer be easily swayed by rumors, thus gaining the ability to think independently.
It is people like AC, who dare to speak the truth amidst the noise, that the community truly respects.
As for the listing fees, KOLs and the public have differing opinions. Some believe that listing fees are a part of the exchange's operations and can serve as a way to filter the quality of projects. Others argue that listing fees might hinder some potential projects with insufficient funding from being listed, thus affecting market diversity and competitiveness.
Looking at the industry development from the perspective of listing fees
In 2018, 2022, and 2024, it seems that the controversy over listing fees will be raised again every once in a while. Cryptocurrencies are centered around the spirit of decentralization, while the listing fees of centralized exchanges always shroud it in a layer of fog. From a business perspective, it may be reasonable for exchanges to charge certain listing fees, as they need to invest resources to evaluate projects, ensure compliance, and maintain platform operations. However, the collection of fees should be transparent and fair, and excessively high fees should be avoided as they may hinder innovation.
The controversy over listing fees continues, and we see a strong demand from practitioners for transparency and fairness. Binance's proactive response has alleviated market concerns to some extent, further highlighting the necessity for exchanges to be more transparent and fair in their listing policies. However, industry development should not be limited to listing fees; project parties should pay more attention to the quality and sustainability of their projects. Each phase of attention to listing fees reflects the demand for a fairer and more transparent market environment. This often signifies the emergence of new turning points, where the industry needs truly valuable projects to stand out.