Effect of Binance policy change in listing

[Muhammad Bashir]

In a bid to boost crypto market cap and encourage start-ups, Binance announced their readiness to support and list low cap/mid cap tokens in Q1 of 2024, marking a major policy change in the exchange's long standing legacy. What followed was everyone's guess as projects like Notcoin, Neiro and its ilks have now find their way onto Binance spot trading market.

It's just pertinent that price volatility are inevitable with such projects/tokens as most of these tokens have seen a massive dip in a short time. And now, there are mixed sentiments whether the timing was right for the policy change? Only time will tell!!

[hugeblack]

In my opinion, I don't think it is a good policy as changing the policy to list tokens with low/mid cap especially in a rising market will increase the chance of investors losing their money and increase both Binance and developers' profits.

[Go4web3]

In my opinion, I don't think it is a good policy as changing the policy to list tokens with low/mid cap especially in a rising market will increase the chance of investors losing their money and increase both Binance and developers' profits.

You are right because reputable platforms should be able to spot good tokens or coins to list through a proper DYOR, rather than just leveraging their user base. This is an important criterion for boosting the potential of a coin. I believe platforms like Bitget, OKX, and others always do their homework before listing a particular coin, thereby narrowing down the risk of listing coins without potential.

[bitterguy28]

In a bid to boost crypto market cap and encourage start-ups, Binance announced their readiness to support and list low cap/mid cap tokens in Q1 of 2024, marking a major policy change in the exchange's long standing legacy. What followed was everyone's guess as projects like Notcoin, Neiro and its ilks have now find their way onto Binance spot trading market.

the best we can hope for is that the quality is considered there may be some good projects that have low/mid marketcap but certainly not all of them we investors based on these listings to check whether a project can be reliable so i hope binance remains strict with their listing still

[joniboini]

I think people should be responsible for their trading decisions. Exchanges are not their friend, they will always try to apply a policy that benefits their interest the most. While it is disappointing that Binance doesn't help us filter low-quality tokens, we should also criticize people who always fall for fomo.

I believe Binance or other exchanges can sacrifice a bit of their reputation to list many low market cap tokens in one quarter or so. I won't be surprised if they stop listing tokens like those with reasons such as users' protection, etc, after they get enough profit from them. CMIIW.

[Gurujebs]

It's just pertinent that price volatility are inevitable with such projects/tokens as most of these tokens have seen a massive dip in a short time. And now, there are mixed sentiments whether the timing was right for the policy change? Only time will tell!!

Start up and fund raising got to Binance head and that they have to ignore many project into Binance space but with time, many of the projects that do raise this money don't even fulfill their promises, they have failed to meet up with their road maps and some of the promises they made before the launch and many are even abandoned.

Now they are trying to give chance to other projects that are struggling on the low but don't have the means to show the crypto world which is good but they should stop listing these meme coins they might later delist in the future when the interest is no longer there.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

This kind of policy will yield nothing than creating more chances for scam tokens to have their way in to the crypto market, this is not a good sign for us in the crypto networks, if a project lacks fund, then is as better that it does not exist than coming out to operate and lack the resource funding to make it remain existing, now we could see how many of the listed tokens are getting delisted because of the same reason.

[electronicash]

This kind of policy will yield nothing than creating more chances for scam tokens to have their way in to the crypto market, this is not a good sign for us in the crypto networks, if a project lacks fund, then is as better that it does not exist than coming out to operate and lack the resource funding to make it remain existing, now we could see how many of the listed tokens are getting delisted because of the same reason.

definitely the case to some tokens that got delisted. after a bull market, they eventually announced to delisted the tokens with low volume, they just take advantage of the bull market grabbing more money and new users at the same time. 

they gained much reputation that even by doing his, its not viewed as sketchy as it is. but people like it though. if traders can make money as well, its not going to look so bad. 

[SamReomo]

In my opinion, I don't think it is a good policy as changing the policy to list tokens with low/mid cap especially in a rising market will increase the chance of investors losing their money and increase both Binance and developers' profits.

Yes, I also agree with your opinion, that policy change won't be useful for investors because now they would be investing on projects that are more volatile and thus the investor's money is at risk if they trust Binance instead of doing their own research.

Of course from such policy main profit will go to the exchange, and the rest of the profit will go to developers of those low/mid market cap tokens. In past few weeks we have seen some new tokens on Binance that lost most of their value within less than a month and aren't recovering at all. The investors who invested in those coins are at loss.

[hugeblack]

Yes, I also agree with your opinion, that policy change won't be useful for investors because now they would be investing on projects that are more volatile and thus the investor's money is at risk if they trust Binance instead of doing their own research.

If there were stricter regulatory legislation, these platforms would have been accused of exploiting developers or at least manipulating investors, as most platforms require a percentage of the offering to list the platform, sometimes they ask for 30% of the total offering.


The losers in this equation are the investors and those who think they will get rich from investing in tokens.

[SmartGold01]

In a bid to boost crypto market cap and encourage start-ups, Binance announced their readiness to support and list low cap/mid cap tokens in Q1 of 2024, marking a major policy change in the exchange's long standing legacy. What followed was everyone's guess as projects like Notcoin, Neiro and its ilks have now find their way onto Binance spot trading market.

It's just pertinent that price volatility are inevitable with such projects/tokens as most of these tokens have seen a massive dip in a short time. And now, there are mixed sentiments whether the timing was right for the policy change? Only time will tell!!

This will surely affect most investors, but wait a bit, I was thinking that binance doesn't list a project with low market cap because there are possibility of losing or dumping on investors, however also had a news that there are some form of reserve funds to binance should there is a no lose or dump in that coin binance would used that amount to compensate investors as a recovery to their lose in the exchange that is why their utmost priority is to secure investors funds.

[SamReomo]

If there were stricter regulatory legislation, these platforms would have been accused of exploiting developers or at least manipulating investors, as most platforms require a percentage of the offering to list the platform, sometimes they ask for 30% of the total offering.


The losers in this equation are the investors and those who think they will get rich from investing in tokens.

Very true, as far as I know in United States such regulations are present but those aren't present elsewhere in the world and that's why those platforms are able to do such things. Developers are more willing to pay 30% because they want to get more exposure from those exchanges and more exposure equals to more investors and that's why they don't hesitate to pay 30% or even more than that.

[Stompix]

Cashgrab by Binance!
What they care about is volume and trading fees, they will list everything s long as it gives them money, prepare to have a ton of pump and dump tokens listed, fake volume created by high VIP traders that will spend $200 to generate a volume of millions and we all know what will happen next!

If there were stricter regulatory legislation, these platforms would have been accused of exploiting developers or at least manipulating investors, as most platforms require a percentage of the offering to list the platform, sometimes they ask for 30% of the total offering.

Do you mean what the SEC is trying to fight? 

[Findingnemo]

The policy change might tainted the Binance a little bit but it's not that big of a deal the news will just fade away in a day or two while they really open the floodgates to make shit tons of money by relaxing their policy or adjusting to listing the tokens and coins which are on trend so people will jump right in just because of the name Binance in it means more business on the platform too.

[libert19]

And now, there are mixed sentiments whether the timing was right for the policy change? Only time will tell!!

I am sure policy change worked just fine for Binance as they must have gotten plenty new users by listing these TON based memecoins. Why? You may ask — it's because most of users these TON apps had were regular folks having no idea of crypto, possibly not having account on crypto exchanges and to sell their coins they would seek recommendation of an exchange and Binance would come across as first choice.