Editor | Wu Talks about Blockchain
In this AMA, Binance co-founder He Yi and relevant employees and project representatives jointly responded to recent negative comments, covering Binance's internal governance, employee violations, and the management of the coin listing process. The total duration of this AMA was 6 hours.
Binance employees were investigated, fired, and 30 million in illegal gains were recovered in the past two years
He Yi: Hello everyone, this is Binance's Chinese community, I am Binance's chief customer service representative He Yi. It's been a long time since I last chatted with you.
Actually, since yesterday, many professional PR personnel and friends in the cryptocurrency circle have suggested that I should just not respond, because the market sentiment is bad, and it seems that no matter what I say, it is wrong. And the article is not actually directed at me directly. People just say that you just need to fire the people around you and calm down the storm, and that's it. But my personal opinion is that I have always believed that problems should be dealt with positively. Over the years, I feel that there is nothing that cannot be said, so I still want to answer everyone positively, whether it is about this article or about the current doubts and suggestions of the entire community on Binance. Therefore, I opened this AMA today, and I hope to speak freely with everyone in this AMA.
First of all, I would like to talk about some of the issues mentioned in the article. As mentioned in the first paragraph, I have publicly released Binance's reporting methods in the past. Has anyone reported it? Have the reported cases been handled fairly, openly and equitably? What I hope everyone knows is that Binance is actually monitored by two US law enforcement agencies. In the past two years, Binance's internal investigation department has conducted in-depth investigations into internal employees, including bribery, information leaks and other violations. In the past two years, this department has handled more than 120 investigations, of which 60 employees were fired for violations.
There are many violations, and they are not just about the transfer of benefits as everyone imagines. Some of these violations may be inadvertently committed by employees at work, such as not disclosing some information, or having some personal relationships (such as friends or relatives) when working with suppliers, but not disclosing them internally, which will also result in dismissal. Of course, there are also some other more serious violations.
So far, we have recovered more than $30 million in illegal gains. At the same time, we have more than two cases in the litigation stage or in the process of pursuit. You may think that this information is not disclosed in public channels, but the main reason is that these reports are submitted to US law enforcement and monitoring agencies, but these details are not made public.
Binance has zero tolerance for employee violations, including investigating user information without formal approval. Such behavior will be warned, and serious cases will be handed over to judicial authorities for criminal prosecution. Therefore, our reporting channel has always been open, with a maximum reward of up to $5 million. Any former employee involved in corruption, project or fund will be blacklisted by Binance. To ensure transparency, we have also made HR contact information public. If you are recruiting Binance employees, you are welcome to conduct background checks on former employees. Our reporting channel has always been open, and the reporting email address is audit@binance.com.
Clarifying the independence of Binance Labs and Binance
He Yi: Regarding Binance Labs, many colleagues and friends may be confused. They may wonder if Labs is equal to Binance? Does it mean that all projects invested by Labs will be listed on Binance? But in fact, if friends in the media or other friends find that in the history of Binance, Labs has invested in thousands of projects, but only a few of them can actually be launched. Labs has always been a very independent team since joining Binance. In fact, in 2018, Labs had a lot of disputes with Binance's listing team during the process of listing coins.
For example, there are some projects that Labs think are good, but the listing team thinks they are not good; or some projects, although they have been launched on Binance, Labs think they are not as good as a certain project I invested in. This is actually a common situation in Binance's development process. Therefore, there is no so-called situation where Labs can directly obtain or transfer benefits.
Reflection on Binance’s current problems
He Yi: Of course, Binance has had some problems over the years. For example, everyone feels that Binance's current products, especially in the Web3 wallet area, may not keep up with the times and are a bit slow. This is a very objective and very effective criticism and suggestion. In the past one to two years, we have spent a lot of time on compliance work and a lot of resources on filling some historical loopholes. Therefore, we found that in terms of product competitiveness, especially in the competitiveness of some emerging products, it is actually relatively ineffective. But compared with the lag of the product, I think the more serious problem may be the problem of no wealth effect after listing the currency.
We have discussed this issue many times internally. Many projects regard listing as the ultimate goal of their entrepreneurship, just like going to NASDAQ for IPO. How can we solve this problem and let users feel the wealth effect? As you can see, we have made some new attempts this year (or last year), such as MegaDrop and pre-market, but the effect is not ideal. On the other hand, when LaunchPad was first launched, its listing effect was very strong because LaunchPad has pricing. When a project is sold on Binance, there is a price when users subscribe. When we conduct some activities like LaunchPool, these tokens are directly distributed to users, and the price is determined by the market.
As I told you before, Binance has no direct influence on prices in the past. Therefore, when the market opens, we have no way to intervene in how prices fluctuate. Instead, we are more focused on monitoring the market, and if there are any abnormalities, we need to report them to regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. So, some users may find that their accounts are frozen or receive investigation letters requesting information during Binance trading. In fact, these are all part of our compliance work. We have invested a lot of manpower and material resources in compliance, which can indeed be said to be too heavy.
Listing process and basis for project selection
He Yi: I think in a free market like the cryptocurrency circle, I am also reflecting on whether Binance's "strict selection" mechanism is a bit outdated? In fact, last year, from after New Year's Day to before the Spring Festival, I pushed our coin listing department to make some changes. Although in the past, the KPI of our coin listing department was open to everyone, I would like to share with you a few benchmarks on whether the review standards or the definition of coin listing are good or not.
The first benchmark is actually quite simple. After listing, we cannot directly influence the price performance of the token, but if the quality of the token is good, its market performance should be better than the market average. Therefore, our so-called "ROI of listing price" is to use the average price on the first day of listing, and then compare it with other CEX trading platforms every quarter. If the price performance of the listing team is better than other platforms, it means that it is a good choice for listing. If the performance is not good, it means that there may be errors or deviations in our selection of tokens, or there may be problems with the timing of listing.
The second criterion for listing coins is whether the project we choose can bring breakthroughs to the industry and whether it can add new users. The new addition here actually refers to the new users brought by the project itself, rather than the influence of other factors in the market. You may have seen some projects, such as Telegram's mini-games, which have indeed brought a lot of new users to the entire industry. Of course, whether these new additions can be effective in the long term, whether these users will truly become cryptocurrency users, cryptocurrency users, or just become registered users of Binance, we may not have a clear definition of this. We are more concerned about whether these users can truly become long-term users of the blockchain.
Third, you may see some very hot projects in the market with very high valuations. So why does Binance still choose to list these projects? I think this may also be affected by our third KPI. Our requirements for listing coins also care about the performance of the project on spot and other major CEX trading platforms, that is, its share of trading volume. If the hot projects in the market are not launched, especially those with high technical concepts or popularity, but also high valuations, Binance may lose some market share.
So this is our main criterion for listing coins. Based on these three criteria, we can basically cover all types of projects, whether they are those hot VC coins, or coins that may have prospects from the perspective of logical value, including a large number of memecoins, because they are indeed hot, have their rationality, and even have wealth effects.
In addition, you will also see that some projects will try to "break the circle". Regardless of whether these breakthroughs are successful or not, we still hope that they can bring some new atmosphere to the entire industry. Just like when StepN first started, it brought some freshness and breakthroughs to the industry. Although these attempts have successes and failures, they have also brought new thinking.
In addition, as Binance develops, I think the team is indeed getting bigger and bigger. So in many cases, the response speed may be slower. For example, we need to do a security investigation or data investigation, but in this process, the processing speed often lags behind. In this regard, many members of the public and ordinary users have also made criticisms and suggestions. We have certainly heard these criticisms and will seriously think about how to improve them. But we do have to think about whether these adjustments and innovations are really effective and whether they can keep up with the development of the times.
From 2014 to now, the structure of the entire industry and users has been changing. We can see that more and more professional players are entering the market, and project owners and VCs are also changing. From the initial ICO to the current VC investment, many VCs have become difficult in this process. Some VCs may invest in some projects at high valuations, but may not be able to exit smoothly.
At the same time, there are also some project parties who may sign contracts with market makers, who will lend out coins. Although the price of coins may be very low depending on how they are traded in the market, these coins will eventually be returned to the project parties. This situation is visible in the market. Of course, there are other stronger market makers among the market makers, and they will compete with these project parties. The market is always changing and iterating, and the competition is becoming more and more brutal.
Binance's response strategy and thinking when facing a market downturn
He Yi: I agree with one point, that is, if you can't keep up with the changes of this era, you will eventually be abandoned by users. Users will still vote with their actions. So, this is why I chose to stand out when the market is down, do this AMA during the down phase, and face these problems.
I think if you don’t deal with problems head on, face them, or find ways to improve them, then burying your head in the sand will actually only make the entire industry lose confidence. We will see that in this cycle, some very passionate early entrepreneurs will also voice their opinions, such as “blockchain is dead” and that blockchain has not created effective value in the past 10 years. Yesterday I wrote a longer article explaining the independence between Binance and Labs.
In addition to explaining that Binance and Labs are two completely independent teams, and that Labs' influence on Binance is not as strong as everyone imagines, I also want to appeal to some friends. I know that sentiment is not very useful, and what everyone really wants is the wealth effect, that is, making money. But I still hope that there will be some entrepreneurs who can still look up at the stars even if they are in trouble, and believe that blockchain technology can still bring some changes.
Blockchain can change more industries, such as games, social networking, and even more industries, just like BNB changed the entire trading platform. I think everyone has grown up in a freer era, so why can't we use these emerging technologies and concepts to change those already very rigid industries and create better distribution methods and better entrepreneurial models? But in the end, we still have to go back to the starting point: have you really created value? If you can't continue to create value for users in this process, then it is inevitable that users will abandon Binance.
I think I have said too much, which may affect the free AMA later. So next, I will talk about the content in the article. There are some accusations in the article that our employees have transferred benefits. In fact, for many years, I have also been considered by others because I am a woman. They don’t understand why I can sit at this table. They may think that I am an accessory, or that I must have used ulterior motives to sit in this position. But in fact, if you insist on something, you will eventually affect the interests of others.
The world is essentially a place driven by interests. Wherever there are interests, there will be rivers and lakes and disputes. Whether it is Binance or Binance employees, you don’t need to do the so-called "upward management", but corruption is absolutely zero tolerance. So, next I will find out those involved in corruption, or at least let them stand up and explain to everyone, including the project parties we cooperate with.
During the launch of the Catizen project, an employee was fired for irregular operations
Colin Wu: I would like to ask a few questions that I did not answer in the question-and-answer session. The first question I want to ask is, I just mentioned that Catizen had irregular behavior during the IC process, which led to someone being fired. Can you tell me more about this?
He Yi: Regarding the independence of Catizen from Labs during the listing process. First of all, I want to clarify that the listing process of Catizen is completely independent of Labs. Specifically, during that period, Dana was on maternity leave, and when she came back, she found that Catizen had been invested in IC, and she did not know it in advance. When she went to check the IC's documents, she found that the documents were not written in a standardized manner, and she was not notified in time. During this process, the discussion of IC was very hasty, and in fact some IC members were absent. This is the so-called irregular operation in the listing process of Catizen, but this is actually an incident within Labs, not an incident of Binance as a whole, because I am a shareholder of Labs, so I know about it.
Hook co-founder explains personal relationship with Dovey. Dovey, as a Hook investor, owns 2% of tokens.
Colin Wu: The second question is, I would like to ask the founder of Hook whether he is in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship with Dovey, and what percentage of the coins Dovey owns in this project, and whether she provided any help in the process of listing the coin on Binance?
Jason: Yes, I will respond directly. This question has been asked since the first day our project was launched. Dovey and I were ex-boyfriend and ex-girlfriend, which is actually known to many people in the industry. For the project side, they certainly don’t want the founders’ personal relationship to become a PR topic that everyone often discusses, so we have not responded to this question directly.
The second point is about the proportion of Dovey or Primitive in the Hook project. Primitive is the first round of angel investors in our project, with a proportion of about 2%. Therefore, Dovey and Primitive hold a total of 2% of the tokens, and the entire release cycle is completely consistent with the investment terms of other investors, including Sequoia and Binance Labs.
I would also like to reiterate that there are actually four people in our Hook founding team, and we are not anyone's "white gloves". The decision-making of the entire project is coordinated by several of our founders.
Colin Wu: What specific help did he provide during this process? Including the process of listing coins, etc.
Jason: The only help she provided us in the early stage was to introduce some of the earliest investors and help us contact other investment institutions. But during the entire listing process, Dovey was completely unaware. I remember that in the Binance Labs listing group, we were emphasized every day: "Don't tell anyone about this." Including our other partners, they actually knew that our coin had been launched on the day the listing announcement was released.
Analysis of the coin listing decision-making process, voting and approval mechanism of IC members
Colin Wu: Could you please introduce the decision-making process of listing a coin? For example, how many people vote, whether anyone has the right to veto, etc. I think if the overall process can be as transparent as possible while complying with the regulations, it should make the community clearer. Otherwise, everyone will speculate, which will not be a good idea.
He Yi: Yes, I agree with Colin's point of view. First of all, let me introduce our coin listing framework. The KPI mentioned above has been explained, so we have a research team that is responsible for project screening. This team will capture all the hot projects in the market through social media, on-chain data, and community discussions. As long as there is a project that is discussed and concerned in the market and is under development, even if there is no TGE, but if there are many VC-invested projects, we will conduct an investigation. You can understand that we have a huge database, which is classified according to different industries, categories, and tracks, and matches the data of these projects.
The first key point is that we will screen through data. If we consider a project for discussion, it must pass this series of analysis and evaluation. Although the amount of data involved in this process is huge, our team will conduct detailed investigations during the screening process and may ask questions to the project party.
Therefore, some information leaks occasionally occur during this process. For example, if we inquire about 20 projects, only 2 projects may be able to enter the IC for approval. Second, when we think a project is worth further discussion, such as it has no serious security issues or data fraud, or although there are some flaws, the market is very hot and the number of users is large, we will continue to negotiate with the project party.
In fact, I think the negotiation process was quite "radical". As a commercial organization, Binance's BD team, especially several of its colleagues, did ask the project parties to make some concessions during the negotiation, such as asking them to take out tokens for airdrops or let them participate in LaunchPool. In this case, it may indeed put pressure on some project parties. However, there are also many project parties who are willing to accept such conditions, especially token airdrops. If they think the project is worth promoting, they are willing to list it on Binance.
All these clauses will eventually enter the IC. There is a veto in the IC process. That is, any IC member has the right to veto a project. We will check the flaws of each project. For example, if the founder of the project has participated in a failed project, or the tokens of the project are highly concentrated, perhaps concentrated in 30 addresses, we will search for this information. Although it seems that our screening mechanism is already perfect, this process is actually built up step by step, after many iterations and improvements.
If you look closely, you will find that many projects on the market have problems. But in fact, it is like the process of "picking up the tallest among the short ones". As a trading platform, if you don't participate, you will actually lose market share. For example, other platforms may launch hundreds of coins a year, and if you don't participate, your market share will continue to decline. So, why did we finally define the KPI of listing as the listing price on the first day, and then compare it with other trading platforms every quarter to consider the return on investment. This is the core basis for our evaluation of listing projects.
The so-called "percentage" is a percentage, such as how much the price of the token has risen or fallen, and the ROI is calculated in this way. In simple terms, the project information submitted by many people will be screened regularly, and we will also check all the VC projects that have received investment in the market and compile a list. In this list, for example, projects that are preparing to launch TGE or projects that have been traded in the market will be included in the data analysis and will eventually enter the IC review.
You may find that if you follow this process, the speed of project launch is often slow. By the time the project is actually launched, the price of the token has been pushed up by the market heat. So this is our current decision-making process for listing coins. In this process, we also try to make some adjustments. For example, the attempt of the "pre-market market" aims to suppress the price of newly launched projects to a more reasonable range and ensure a healthier trend of the coin price. But I don't think this is a very successful attempt. Although there are some successful cases, there are also some failures.
The second is the situation of LaunchPool. As a more mature product, we think that LaunchPool is at least good in terms of token performance, but when it becomes LaunchPool, we can no longer control its price. The only thing we can negotiate with the project is whether they are willing to take out a certain percentage of tokens for airdrop.
Regarding the issue of listing fees, as mentioned in the article, the so-called "overbearing terms" or Binance's "overbearing terms", I think what Binance may need to do in the future is to be transparent from today. At the beginning, Binance's listing fees were donated to charity, but later for various reasons, they were stopped for a long time until we changed the listing team, and then this fee was charged again.
I hope everyone understands that the listing fees charged by Binance are not a very large number, but in many cases, they become the focus of everyone's doubts. So, starting today, we will openly and transparently indicate where each listing fee goes. We will return all these fees to users and the community. The current mature model is through LaunchPool. In the future, whether it is consulting fees or other activity fees, we will clearly state the specific use of these fees. For example, whether a certain coin's airdrop is used in LaunchPool or for other activities. We will also provide reports to the project party to clarify how these coins are distributed.
In general, what I can guarantee is that starting today, Binance's listing fees will truly become "zero".
Colin Wu: Platforms like Coinbase have also been sentenced for employee insider trading. I believe Binance has also had various problems over the past eight years.
You just mentioned that nearly 60 employees have been fired for violations. Are there any violations that have left the deepest impression on you? For example, cases of "rat trading", insider trading, or bribery? If it is convenient, can you tell us in detail whether it involves a certain project party, etc.?
He Yi: Well, regarding the issue of employee violations, I think there are a few points that need to be clarified. First of all, Binance has strict restrictions on employees' participation in transactions. Therefore, most of the violations we have seen are not structural problems such as "rat trading". More often, they are, for example, accepting bribes or changing the company's coin receiving address to one's own address. We have filed lawsuits and reported to the police for similar behaviors, involving domestic and foreign cases. Because these cases involve some privacy, especially some lawsuits have not yet been formally judged, or the investigation process is still controversial, so I may not be able to disclose the specific names of employees before the legal procedures are completed. But I want to emphasize that Binance has always been serious about anti-corruption.
Will Binance consider making its internal investigation public? Can it introduce third-party law enforcement agencies?
Kuai Dong: Hello, I would like to ask you, I just mentioned that Binance has done a lot of internal investigations and dealt with some problems in the past. Among them, the most profound experience I have in the VC circle is the "rat warehouse" incident of the team in 2021. That incident caused a big fuss, but in fact, there have been several similar incidents in history. Everyone knew about it through internal information and did not see the results publicly disclosed by Binance. So has Binance considered learning from competitors like Coinbase and Tencent to announce the final investigation results, penalties, and whether the funds have been returned? Next, does Binance have a plan on how to deal with these problems and make aftermath? Thank you.
He Yi: Let me answer this first. First of all, we have several ways to deal with this kind of problem. The first is that if there is no direct evidence, it may be because there is a problem with the project where the person in charge is working, then we will also deal with it. In this case, although there is a problem with the project, the person in charge may not be able to explain the reason clearly, but they must be responsible for the problem.
Second, regarding the incident in 2021, everyone may think that it is some kind of adjustment of the team. In fact, the matter is very simple. At that time, during the IC review, a colleague hid the name of a shareholder. I think this is a matter of principle, because if the information is hidden, it means that we cannot confirm whether there are other problems. And if this document is not fully disclosed, and the members of the relevant team do not disclose it, then these people will also be punished and eliminated.
During the investigation, we actually did not find any problems regarding insider trading or other conflicts of interest. We can only explain that everyone should understand that during the investigation, we cannot manage rumors. We can only investigate facts, and we cannot make up stories at will. For example, I may not like a project for personal reasons, so I make up a story to influence the investigation. We always emphasize that we should deal with things based on facts and not let rumors influence us. For example, we investigate who is responsible for this project and what problems have occurred in this project. The people involved may be dealt with accordingly. This is the principle we currently follow in internal investigations.
Kuai Dong: Thank you. Actually, I have another additional question, because many results come from Binance's internal investigation. Have you considered introducing third-party law enforcement agencies and publishing the results of the investigation with them? For example, Coinbase announced a case in cooperation with the US Department of Justice and eventually prosecuted several internal employees. As a large global company, Binance has corresponding compliance departments in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, the United States, and Singapore. Do you consider moving in this direction in the future and jointly publishing the results of the investigation with third-party law enforcement agencies? Thank you.
He Yi: I have actually mentioned this question before, but maybe you didn't understand it. As you know, Binance now has two monitoring agencies. These monitoring agencies are actually American financial companies, and they are responsible for supervising and managing us. They are directly connected to the US Department of Justice and the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission). So you can understand that all our internal investigation reports are currently submitted to these two monitoring agencies that are directly connected to the US Department of Justice, as well as other law enforcement agencies from the United States.
So, all of this information is actually reported to the U.S. Department of Justice. It's just that this information is not made public. As for why it is not made public, there are mainly the following considerations: First, there are indeed doubts and uncertainties in some investigations, so we choose to fire employees instead of further publicizing them. Second, if there is solid evidence during the investigation, we will submit the case to the Department of Justice and enter the formal law enforcement and litigation process. Some of the cases I just mentioned have indeed entered the litigation stage. If we win the lawsuit, the relevant information may be made public, similar to Coinbase, which will disclose more information at the end of the case, rather than at the beginning of the investigation or just when writing a report.
On the other hand, making this information public could be seen as negative news. So, in the past, even if there were such cases, we did not handle them publicly. This is also our current practice.
Suggestions on the custody mechanism and project achievement feedback mechanism after listing on Binance
Daidaidaibit: Hello everyone, hello Yijie, I won’t introduce myself, I am a retail investor in cryptocurrencies. Let me first talk about my impressions of what I just heard, especially from the perspective of the project side. Because I communicated with Yijie from the perspective of retail investors in the secondary market. We are in the secondary market, and we don’t actually understand many things in the primary market. After listening, I think a lot of what these project parties said is a bit empty. To be honest, everyone knows it in their hearts. Including Yijie interrupted one of the project parties several times just now, and everyone still knows it in their hearts. Why? Because from our perspective, we don’t care what school you graduated from, nor do we care about the AI boyfriend or AI girlfriend you mentioned. We care about the price of the currency, and we look at the K-line chart. The price of the currency has fallen by 90%, and it’s useless for you to say anything. From our perspective, we don’t completely deny these project parties, there are also excellent project parties.
What I want to ask is, in this case, can Binance also hold an AMA like today before each LaunchPool goes online to discuss the project's planning and roadmap to see if these project parties can fulfill their promises? For example, whether the coin price trend develops as they promised? I think this can be used as a suggestion. Is it feasible?
He Yi: This is very feasible. I think your suggestion is very good. At least before the launch, whether the project party can fulfill their promises should be shown. If what these project parties say is unreliable, then it is best not to buy it, and even if you get the tokens, sell them quickly. I think this is indeed a very effective suggestion. I wonder if all the projects launched should be regularly subject to public scrutiny, especially those coins that everyone thinks are problematic every month, which should be pulled out to respond to everyone's doubts.
DDDB: Yes, let’s not talk about the past anymore, those coins have already been launched. Today’s AMA is actually to let everyone understand the interaction between Binance and the project parties, especially how to supervise the performance of these projects after listing. In fact, everyone is more concerned about the future. What retail investors care about is whether Binance can bring money-making opportunities after listing coins.
For example, we didn’t criticize some of the projects I mentioned just now, such as ACT Punt. We only criticized the mistakes we made. After we made money, the price of the currency rose and then fell, which was our own business. No one blamed Binance for the price drop. What we care about is that after Binance went public, the price of the currency fell at every stage, which is what retail investors care about most.
For example, in 2022, although the price of the coin fell a lot later, it did have a strong wealth-creating effect and a strong process of pulling the price up. In the end, someone definitely made money, but no one would blame Binance for it. In 2021, every time we were listed on Binance, everyone went for the opening, without looking at the fundamentals at all, just looking at the K-line chart, and bought in directly.
Why? Because at that time, all coins had a wealth-creating effect, and there was a wave of price-pulling. But now, after Binance listed the coins, the price of the coins fell directly, and the project owners began to sell, and the entire market became a "leek-cutting" situation. Binance needs to consider how to control the listing process of these projects, especially the strong supervision of the project owners.
Retail investors are an important part of exchanges, and Binance has tens of millions of users. Even for innovative projects, the project owners essentially want to make money by listing coins, and no matter how good the project is, the project owners must want to earn returns from their own projects. So I think Binance should have stronger supervision and control over the project owners.
Well, I think it is normal for Labs to control the FDV (fully diluted valuation) of the project, and they should try to control this FDV. For another example, have you considered not requiring the project to pay the listing fee, but requiring them to put 20% or even 30% of the tokens that may be unlocked in the next year on Binance? You can check whether the project meets the standards through quarterly assessments. If they do, then you can unlock these tokens. Is this a feasible solution?
I think this idea is feasible, although I may not be mature enough, but I think the Binance team can consider this. At the very least, the price of the currency should be maintained reasonably, so that the project party can ensure that after the currency is listed on Binance, the trend of the token can bring profit opportunities to retail investors. When everyone buys, not every stage is wrong. We need to control the behavior of the project party and ensure that their projects are not just for making money. Binance should be stronger on these project parties.
Just like the previous GMT project, although the price fell a lot later, it did have a strong wealth-making effect and a strong process of pulling the price up. In this case, Binance will not be blamed. Because there are always people who make money in the market. Instead of criticizing Binance, it is better to benefit from the increase in the price of the currency. But now the problem after Binance listed the currency is that the price of the currency fell sharply after it was launched, and this situation needs to be reflected upon. Binance needs to put more pressure on the project parties to ensure that these projects will not disappoint retail investors after they are launched.
I think Binance’s management can avoid these problems with stronger controls. After all, retail investors are the core users of the exchange, and we are huge in number. Binance can better manage the project parties in this way and ensure that their listings are not only for the benefit of the project parties, but also take into account the needs of retail investors.
He Yi: Yes, thank you, what you said makes a lot of sense. At present, I think the position of retail investors is very important, and Binance has indeed stood on the side of retail investors. The current situation is that we found that some project parties did not fulfill their promises after listing the currency, which directly led to the decline in the currency price. We are aware of this situation and have tried some different solutions, but so far the results have not been ideal.
We need to find better ways to innovate and improve, how to make coin listings more fair and transparent without affecting the market. I also welcome everyone to work together to provide better solutions. After all, Binance employees’ solutions may not be as directly perceived as we retail investors.
Regarding the control of listing, we did try to manage some projects through custody, but later found that this method did not work. There are some new derivative financial services in the market that allow project owners to make choices in advance through OTC channels. As an exchange, Binance cannot directly influence the price of coins because doing so would involve illegal issues. But we can design some rules to require project owners to disclose more information, and everyone can understand the true situation of the project through channels such as AMA.
For the subsequent new coin listings, I suggest that you don’t rush in, but take the time to understand the real intentions of the project. After all, the current KPI of listing determines that Binance will list some popular projects, and these projects do not always bring continuous value. We also hope to improve the health of the entire market through more innovations.
