The screen is filled with interviews with Chase, the listing manager on ex-Binance.
In an industry where long-termism is almost a joke, the equation "price = liquidity × attention × chip structure" is basically a slap in the face to all teams focused on product-market fit (PMF), revenue, and cash flow.
However, most people in the industry understand these principles to some extent. Many are not surprised by the principles themselves, but rather by the fact that they are coming from a platform like Binance: "Ah, so even people at the top platforms in the industry don't think about the long term."
However, there's really no need to overhype CEX's ability to select assets.
Listing on CEXs often involves being swept along by the tide, unable to control one's own destiny, being pushed along by the market.
@cz_binance made one correct point:
Exchanges are essentially neutral; they are merely trading infrastructure that provides users with various assets, especially popular ones. This is perfectly natural, especially since the business model of exchanges is to earn transaction fees. Listing popular assets is also in line with the essence of the exchange business.
However, at the same time, exchanges also bear a certain responsibility to "protect users," especially in this industry lacking regulation. Therefore, they have to conduct due diligence on teams and projects, trying their best to screen out teams that do not engage in malicious activities. However, the reality is that some projects are known by exchanges to be only short-term hype, but ultimately they are forced to be listed under strong market demand, user trading needs, and pressure to replenish assets. Wasn't that what happened with Meme?
Having spent a long time in the cryptocurrency listing group, and having a background in research with an aesthetic appreciation for assets, I can understand all too well the conflict between long-termism and short-term interests. I have also seen the very realistic mentality within some exchanges: since most assets will eventually go to zero, it is better to list assets that can generate a wave of popularity in the short term, so that some people can at least make a profit, which can also be considered as giving users and the market an explanation.
It's understandable that many people have expectations of Binance. After all, it's the industry leader, the largest liquidity portal, and plays a pricing role. With great power comes great responsibility, so naturally, people hope that in addition to making money, it will also provide some kind of directional guidance. But in reality, Binance alone cannot solve the problem:
1) In traditional finance, asset screening is not the responsibility of exchanges, but rather investment banks, securities regulators, and a host of laws and regulations. However, in the crypto space, these entities have long been absent.
2) From the perspective of the nature of assets, regardless of whether they are crypto or not, all assets are inevitably affected by liquidity, attention, and asset structure, to varying degrees. Just look at the erratic behavior of speculative stocks in China's A-shares market; this isn't unique to crypto. It's just that most crypto assets are in the very early stages of their business lifecycle, anchored either to startups or the narrative itself. Therefore, "going to zero" is the norm. There's no need to elevate it to the "original sin of crypto or Altcoin." What did Altcoin do to you?
Stock exchanges are not venture capitalists, much less gods.
It cannot guarantee a long-term winning rate for any asset.
Moreover, is VC's win rate high? It's pitifully low.
What I want to say:
Crypto is simply one form of asset. If it's primarily anchored to emotions, narratives, or imagination, then the volatility of liquidity and sentiment will naturally be amplified. If, in the future, it gradually anchors itself to equity or the cash flow of a growing business, then its pricing logic will change accordingly.
The real questions we need to answer are: Should a project issue crypto? Why might issuing crypto be better than traditional equity in the next era? And how can we attract more mature, higher-survival-rate businesses, companies, and assets to the crypto world?
The job is not done!
get back to work
