AMA Summary: He Yi responded to the violations of the best friend group, employees and questioned the listing of coins, and choked many times

Editor: Wu Shuo Blockchain

In this AMA, Binance co-founder He Yi and relevant employees and project representatives jointly responded to recent negative remarks, involving Binance's internal governance, employee violations and the management of currency listing process. The total time of this AMA is up to 6 hours.

This podcast episode captures some of the important content. Audio transcription is done by GPT and there may be errors. Listen to the full podcast:

Small universe

Youtube

AMA playback (Twitter Space)

**Binance employees illegally investigated, fired and recovered 30

million illegal gains in the past two years**

He Yi: Hello everyone, this is Binance’s Chinese-speaking community. I am He Yi, the chief customer service of Binance. I haven't chatted with everyone for a long time.

In fact, since yesterday, many professional PR personnel and friends in the currency circle have suggested that I should not respond simply because the market sentiment is not good, and it seems that no matter what I say, it is wrong. Moreover, the article actually did not target me directly. Everyone just said that anyway, you just need to fire the people around you and calm down the limelight, so that's all. But my personal point of view is that I have always believed that we must deal with problems directly. Over the years, I felt that everything was beyond words, so I still wanted to answer everyone positively, whether it was about this article or the current doubts and suggestions of the entire community about Binance. Therefore, today I opened this AMA and hope to speak freely with everyone in this AMA.

First of all, I want to talk about some of the issues mentioned in the article. The first paragraph mentioned that I have publicly published Binance’s reporting method in the past. Has anyone reported it? Have the reported cases been handled fairly, openly and fairly? What I hope everyone understands is that Binance actually has two surveillance departments in the United States now. In the past two years, Binance's internal investigation department has conducted in-depth investigations into internal employees, including bribery, information leakage and other violations. In the past two years, the department has handled more than 120 investigation cases, with 60 employees being dismissed for violations.

There are many violations, and they are not the transfer of interests as everyone imagines. Some behaviors may be committed by employees inadvertently at work, such as not disclosing some information, or when cooperating with suppliers, there is some personal relationship (such as friend or kinship) but not internally disclosed, such behavior will also be Fired. Of course, it also includes some other more serious violations.

So far, we have recovered more than $30 million in illegal income. At the same time, we have more than two cases in the litigation stage or in the process of hunting down. You may think that this information has not been disclosed in public channels, but the main reason is that these reports will be submitted to US law enforcement and surveillance agencies, but these details are indeed not disclosed.

Binance also has zero tolerance for employee violations, including private investigation of user information without formal approval. Such behavior will be warned, and if the circumstances are serious, it will be handed over to the judicial authorities for criminal liability. Therefore, our reporting channel has always been public, with the maximum reward amount reaching US$5 million. Any resigned employee involved in corruption, projects or funds that join will be included in Binance's blacklist. To ensure transparency, we also disclose HR contact information. If you are hiring Binance employees, you are welcome to conduct background checks for former employees. Our reporting channel has always been open, and the reporting email address is audit@binance.com.

Clarify the independence of Binance Labs and Binance

He Yi: Many colleagues and friends may not understand the part about Binance Labs, and they think Labs is equal to Binance? Does it mean that all Labs invested in projects will be listed on Binance? But in fact, if there are friends from the media or other friends who discovered that in Binance history, Labs has invested in thousands of projects, and in fact, only a few of them can be launched. Labs has been a very independent team since joining Binance. In fact, in 2018, Labs had a lot of controversy with Binance's listing team during the process of listing coins.

For example, some projects are considered good by Labs, but the listing team feels bad by it; or some projects, although they are online at Binance, Labs will feel that they are not as good as one of the projects I invested in. This is actually a common situation in Binance's development history. Therefore, there is no such thing as the so-called Labs that can directly obtain or transfer benefits.

Reflections on Binance 's current problems

He Yi: Of course, Binance has indeed had some problems in the past few years. For example, everyone thinks that Binance's current products, especially in the Web3 wallet, may not be able to keep up with the times and are doing a bit slow. This is a very objective and very effective criticism and suggestions. In the past one to two years, we have spent a lot of time doing compliance work, and a lot of resources are used to fill some loopholes in history. Therefore, we found that in terms of product competitiveness, especially in the competitiveness of some emerging products, is actually relatively ineffective. But compared to the product's lag, I think the more serious problem may be that there is no wealth effect after listing the currency.

We have discussed this issue many times internally. Many projects regard listing as their ultimate goal of starting a business, just like going to a Nasdaq IPO. How do we solve this problem and how can we let users feel the wealth effect? As you can see, we have made some new attempts this year (than last year), such as MegaDrop and the pre-market market, but the results are not ideal. On the other hand, when LaunchPad was first launched, its currency listing effect was very strong because LaunchPad was priced. When the project is released on Binance, there is a price when the user subscribes. When we conduct some activities similar to LaunchPool, these tokens are directly placed on users, and the price is determined by the market.

As I told you before, Binance could not directly affect the price in the past. Therefore, when the market opens, we are completely unable to interfere with how the price fluctuates. Instead, we are more about monitoring the market and if something goes wrong, we need to report it to regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Therefore, some users may find that their accounts are frozen during Binance transactions, or receive a letter of investigation to provide information. In fact, these are all part of our compliance efforts. We have invested a lot of manpower and material resources in compliance, which can be said to be excessive investment.

The basis for listing the currency process and filtering options

He Yi: I think in a free market like the currency 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 promoted some changes in our currency listing department. Although in the past, the KPIs of our currency listing department can be publicly shown to everyone. I have several benchmarks to share with you whether the review standards or definition of currency listing is good.

The first benchmark is actually relatively simple, that is, after listing the currency, the price performance of the token cannot be directly affected, but if the quality of this currency is good, its market performance should be better than the market average. Therefore, our so-called "ROI of the listed currency price" is based on its average price when it was launched on the first day, and then it is compared horizontally with other CEX trading platforms every quarter. If the price performance of the listing team is better than other platforms, it means it is a good listing option. If the performance is not good, it means that there may be errors, deviations, or problems when choosing tokens.

The second criterion for listing is whether the project we choose can bring breakthroughs to the industry and whether new users can be added. The new additions here actually refer to the new users brought by the project itself, rather than the impact of other factors in the market. You may see some projects, such as Telegram's mini-games, which have indeed brought a lot of new users to the entire industry. Of course, we may not have a clear definition of whether these new additions can be effective in the long run, whether these users will truly be converted into currency users, currency speculators, or just become registered users of Binance. We may not have a clear definition of this, we are more of a Let’s see if these users can truly become long-term users of blockchain.

Third, you may see some very hot projects in the market with very high valuations. So, why did Binance still choose to launch 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 in spot and other major CEX trading platforms, that is, its trading volume share. If the popular projects in the market are not launched, especially those with relatively high technical concepts or popularity but also relatively high valuations are not launched, Binance may lose some market share.

So this is our main standard for listing coins. From these three standards, we can basically cover all types of projects, whether it is the VC coins that are very popular or the currency that may have promising from a logical point of view, it also includes a large number of memecoin, because They do have popularity, 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 vistas to the entire industry. Just like when StepN first started, it brought some freshness and breakthrough to the industry. Although these attempts have success and failure, they have also brought new thinking.

In addition, with the development of Binance, I think the team is indeed getting bigger and bigger. So many times, the reaction speed may be slower. For example, we need to do security surveys or data surveys, but in this process, the processing speed often lags. Many public and ordinary users have also criticized and suggested this. Of course we hear these criticisms and will seriously think about how to improve them. But we also 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 will see more and more professional players entering the market, and the project parties and VCs are also changing. From the initial ICO to the current VC investment, many VCs have become difficult in the 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, and the market maker lent coins. Although how they trade in the market, the price of coins may be very low, the coins will eventually be returned. To the project party. 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 competition is becoming more and more cruel.

**Binance’s response strategies and thoughts when facing market

downturn**

He Yi: I agree with one thing, that is, if you cannot keep up with the changes in this era, you will eventually be abandoned by users. Users will still vote with their actions. So, this is why I chose to stand up when the market is down, do this AMA in the downward stage, and face these problems.

I think that if you don’t deal with problems head-on, face them, or find ways to improve them, then eventually burying your head in the sand will actually only make the entire industry lose confidence. We will see that during this cycle, some early passionate entrepreneurs will also have their voices, such as "blockchain is dead". 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 indicating 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. Everyone’s real appeal is the wealth effect, which is to make money. But I still hope that some entrepreneurs can still look up at the stars even in difficulties, and believe that blockchain technology can still bring some changes.

Blockchain can change more industries like BNB changed the entire trading platform pattern, such as gaming, social networking, and even more industries. I think everyone actually grew up in a more 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, you have to go back to that origin: whether you really create value. If value cannot be continuously created for users in this process, it is inevitable that users will abandon Binance.

I think I'm talking a little bit too much, which may affect the free AMA later. So next, I will talk about it according to the content in the article. There are some issues in the article accusing our employees of delivering benefits. In fact, in the past many years, I have been considered by others because I am a woman. I don’t understand why I can sit on this card table. I may think I am an accessory, or I think I must have done so through ulterior motives. Sitting in this position. But in reality, if you insist on something, you will end up affecting the interests of others.

This world is essentially a place driven by interests. As long as there are interests, there will be worlds and disputes. Whether it is Binance or Binance employees, everyone does not need to do the so-called "upward management", but corruption is absolutely zero tolerance. So, next I will find out these corruption-related parties, or at least let them stand up and explain to everyone, including the project parties we cooperate with.

Catizen employee was fired during the launch of the project

Colin Wu: I will ask a few questions that the number one sister didn’t respond to in the question she asked you just now. The first one is to ask my sister. I just mentioned that Catizen had irregular behavior during the IC process, which led to someone being fired. Can you tell me about this in detail?

He Yi: Regarding the independence of Catizen and Labs during the currency listing process. First of all, I want to clarify that Catizen's currency listing process is completely independent of Labs. Specifically, during that period, Dana was on maternity leave, and later she found out that Catizen was thrown into the IC without her knowing it in advance. When she went to check the IC's document, she found that the document was not written in a standard way and she was not notified in time. During this process, the discussion of ICs was very hasty, and in fact some IC members were absent. This is the so-called irregular operation in the process of listing the currency of Catizen, but this is actually an event within Labs, not a Binance overall event. Because I am a shareholder of Labs, I know about it.

**Hook Lianchuang explains the personal relationship with Dovey Dovey

owns 2% tokens as a Hook investor**

Colin Wu: The second question is, I want the founder of Hook to respond whether he has a boyfriend and girlfriend relationship with Dovey, and how many coins Dovey has in this project, and whether she has any of the coins she has in the Binance currency listing process. Help?

Jason: Yes, I'll just respond. This question has actually been asked since the first day of our project launch. Dovey and I used to be an ex-boyfriend and ex-girlfriend, which is actually known to many people in the industry. For the project party, we definitely don’t want the founder’s personal relationship to become a PR topic that everyone often discusses, so we have never responded to this issue positively.

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 also want to reiterate that we actually have four founding teams on Hook, and we are not anyone’s “white gloves”. The decisions for the entire project were coordinated by several of our founders.

Colin Wu: What specific help did he provide in the process? Including the process of listing coins and other aspects.

Jason: The only help she helped us in the early days was indeed to introduce some of the earliest investors and help us contact some other investment institutions. But during the entire process of listing money, Dovey was actually completely unaware of it. I remember that in Binance Labs' currency listing group, we were emphasized every day: "You can't tell anyone about this." Including our other partners, they actually found out that our coins were online on the day the coin announcement was released.

**Analysis of the decision-making process for listing coins, voting and

approval mechanism for IC members**

Colin Wu: Can you please introduce the decision-making process of listing coins? For example, how many people vote, whether anyone has the veto power, etc. I think if the overall process can be as transparent as possible in compliance, it should make the community clearer. Otherwise, everyone will guess, and the effect will be bad.

He Yi: Yes, I agree with Colin's point of view just now. First, let me introduce our coin listing framework. The KPI mentioned just now has been explained, so we have a research team that is specifically responsible for project screening. This team will capture all hot projects in the market through social media, on-chain data, and community discussions. As long as the project is discussed and paid attention to in the market and is under development, even if there is no TGE, if there are many projects invested by VC, we will do a survey. You can understand that we have a huge database that classifies different industries, categories and tracks to match the data of these projects.

The first key point is that we will filter through the data. If we consider including a project in 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 propose them to the project party. question.

Therefore, some information leakage occasionally occurs during this process. For example, if we ask about 20 projects, there may be only 2 projects that will be officially approved by IC. Second, when we think a project is worth further discussion, such as it does not have serious security issues or data fraud, or although there are some flaws, the market is very popular and the number of users is large, we will continue to negotiate with the project party. .

In fact, I think the negotiation process is relatively "radical". As a commercial institution, Binance’s BD team, especially several of its colleagues, does ask the project party to make some concessions during negotiations, such as asking them to take out tokens to make short drops, or let it participate in LaunchPool. In this case, it may indeed put pressure on some project parties. However, many project parties are willing to accept this condition, especially the airdrop of tokens. If they think the project is worth recommending, they are willing to go online on Binance.

All these terms will eventually go to the IC. In the process of IC, there is a veto. That is to say, any IC member has the right to reject a project. We check for defects in each item. For example, the founder of the project party has participated in a failed project, or the project's tokens are highly concentrated, which may be concentrated within 30 addresses. We will search this information. Although our screening mechanism seems to be very complete, this process is actually gradually established and has been repeatedly iterated and improved.

If you look closely, you will find that there are problems with many projects on the market. But in fact, it is like the process of "pulling a taller child from a short man". As a trading platform, if you don’t participate, you will actually lose market share. For example, other platforms may have hundreds of coins online in a year, and if you do not participate, your market share will continue to decline. So, why do we ultimately define the KPI of listed coins as the online price on the first day, and then make horizontal comparisons with other trading platforms every quarter to consider the return on investment. This is the core basis for our evaluation of the currency listing project.

The so-called "percentage" is a percentage, such as how much the token price has risen or fallen, so as to calculate the ROI. Simply put, the project information submitted by many people will be screened regularly. We will also view all the VC projects that have been invested in the market and compile a list. In this list, projects that are preparing to launch TGE or projects that are already traded on the market will be included in the data analysis and will eventually be reviewed by IC.

You may find that if you follow this process, the launch speed of the project is indeed slower. By the time the project is actually launched, the price of the token has been pushed up by the market popularity. So this is our current currency listing decision process. In this process, we also try to make some adjustments. For example, the "pre-market market" attempt is to push the prices of newly launched projects to a more reasonable range to ensure that the currency price trend is healthier. But I don’t think this is a very successful attempt, although there are some successful cases and some failures.

The second is the case of LaunchPool. LaunchPool As a more mature product, we feel that it is at least good in terms of token performance, but when it becomes LaunchPool, we can't control its price. The only thing that can negotiate with the project is whether to take out a certain proportion of tokens to short-drop.

Regarding the issue of listing fees, as mentioned in the article, or Binance's "overlord clause", I think what Binance may need to do in the future is to be transparent from today. At first, Binance's listing fee was donated to charity. Later, it was stopped for a long time due to various reasons. It was not until we changed the listing team that the fee started to be collected again.

I hope everyone understands that the listing fee charged by Binance is not a big number, but in many cases, it will become the focus of everyone's doubts. So, starting today, we will openly and transparently indicate the whereabouts of each coin fee. We will return all of these fees to users and the community, and the current mature model is through LaunchPool. In the future, whether it is consulting fees or other activity fees, we will clearly specify the specific purpose of these fees. For example, is the airdrop of a certain coin used in LaunchPool or for other activities. We will also provide reports to the project parties to clarify how these coins are allocated.

Overall, what I can guarantee is that from today on, Binance's listed fee will truly become "zero".

Colin Wu: Platforms like Coinbase have also been sentenced for insider trading in employees. I believe Binance has also had various problems in the past eight years.

You mentioned just now that nearly 60 employees have been fired for violations. Are there any of the most impressive cases of violations? For example, cases similar to "rat trading", insider trading, or accepting bribes? If it is convenient, can you explain in detail whether it involves a certain project party?

He Yi: Well, I think there are a few points that need to be clarified about employee violations. First of all, Binance has strict restrictions on employees' participation in transactions. Therefore, most of the violations we see are not structural problems such as "rat-handling". More importantly, such as accepting bribes, or changing the company's currency address to your own address. We filed a lawsuit and called the police to handle similar behaviors, involving domestic and foreign cases. Since these cases involve some privacy, especially some litigation cases have not been formally ruled, or the investigation process is still controversial, it may be inconvenient for me to disclose the specific name of the employee until the legal process is completed. But I want to emphasize that Binance has always been serious about anti-corruption.

**Whether Binance 's investigation of internal issues is considered

public, and whether it can introduce third-party law enforcement agencies**

Kuai Dong: Hello, I would like to ask my sister, I just mentioned that Binance has done a lot of internal investigations and dealt with some issues in the past. Among them, the most profound time I experienced in the VC circle was the team's "Rat Trading" incident in 2021. That incident happened a lot, but in history, there were actually several similar incidents, and everyone knew about them through internal news and did not see them. The result to Binance public. So is Binance considering learning from competitors like Coinbase and Tencent to announce the final investigation results, punishments and whether the funds have been refunded? Next, does Binance have plans for how to deal with these issues and do the aftermath? Thanks.

He Yi: Let me answer first. First of all, we have several ways to deal with this type of problem. The first is that if there is no direct evidence, it may be because there is a problem with the project in which the person in charge is located, 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 this issue.

Second, regarding the events in 2021, you may think it is a kind of adjustment of the team. Actually, things are very simple. During the IC approval, a colleague hid the name of a certain shareholder. I think this is a principled question, because if the information is hidden, it means we cannot confirm whether there are other problems. If this document is not fully disclosed and members of the relevant team do not disclose it, these people will be punished and eliminated.

During the investigation, we actually found no problems with insider trading or other exchanges of interests. What we can only explain is that everyone must understand that during the investigation, we cannot manage rumors. We can only investigate facts, not make up stories casually. 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 when dealing with things, we must rely on facts and not let rumors influence us. For example, investigating who is responsible for the project and what problems arise in the project, the person associated with it may be dealt with accordingly. This is the principle we are currently following in our internal investigations.

Kuai Dong: Thank you. Actually, I have another additional question, because many of the results are derived from Binance's internal investigations. Are you considering introducing third-party law enforcement agencies and working with them to publish the findings? For example, Coinbase, they released cases in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice and eventually sued several internal employees. As a global large enterprise, Binance has corresponding compliance departments in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, the United States, and Singapore. Whether it is considering the future development in this direction, we will jointly announce the investigation results with third-party law enforcement agencies. Woolen cloth? grateful.

He Yi: I have actually asked this question before, but everyone may not understand it. As you all know, Binance now has two monitoring agencies. These monitoring agencies are actually financial companies in the United States, and they are responsible for overseeing and managing us. They are directly connected with the U.S. 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 U.S. Department of Justice, as well as other law enforcement agencies from the United States.

So, all this information is actually submitted to the U.S. judiciary. It's just that this information has not been disclosed. As for why it is not disclosed, there are mainly the following considerations: First, there are indeed doubts and uncertainties in some investigations, so we chose to fire employees without further public treatment. Second, if conclusive evidence appears during the investigation, we will submit the case to the Ministry of Justice to 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 information may be made public, similar to Coinbase They will disclose more information at the end of the case, rather than at the beginning of the investigation or just at the time of writing a report.

On the other hand, revealing this information may be considered negative news. So, in the past, even if there were cases like this, we did not handle them publicly. This is also what we do now.

**Suggestions on the custody mechanism after Binance is listed on

currency and the project party’s results feedback mechanism**

Bit Bit: Hello everyone, the number one sister, I won’t introduce myself. I am a retail investor in cryptocurrency trading. Let me first talk about my listening experience just now, especially from the perspective of the project party. Because I communicated with my first sister from the perspective of retail investors in the secondary market, we are working in the secondary market, and we actually don’t understand many things in the primary market. After listening to it, I felt that a lot of the content said by these projects was a bit empty, and to be honest, everyone knew it in their hearts. Including the number one of the project parties just now, everyone is still very clear about it. 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 currency price, and we look at the K-line chart. The price of the currency fell by 90%, and nothing you said was useless. From our perspective, we do not completely deny these project parties, but also have excellent project parties.

What I want to ask is, in this case today, can Binance open an AMA like today before each LaunchPool is launched to discuss the project party's planning and roadmap, and see if these projects can achieve their promise? For example, does the currency price trend develop as they promised? I think this can be used as a suggestion, is it feasible?

He Yi: This is very feasible. I think the suggestion you mentioned is very good. At least before going online, whether the project can fulfill their commitments should be displayed. If the things mentioned by these projects are unreliable, it is best for everyone not to buy them, and even if they are given the tokens, they should be sold quickly. I think this is indeed a very effective suggestion. I was wondering whether all online projects should be regularly viewed by the public, especially those coins that everyone thinks have problems every month should be pulled out to respond to everyone’s doubts.

Bits with belts: Yes, I won’t mention the past, all the coins have been launched. Today's AMA is actually to let everyone understand the interaction between Binance and project parties, especially how to supervise the performance of these projects after listing. In fact, what everyone is more concerned about is the future. What retail investors care about is whether Binance can bring opportunities to make money after it is listed.

For example, some of the projects mentioned by the No. 1 sister just now, like ACT Punt, we didn’t scold it. All we criticize is our own mistakes. After we make money, the currency price will rise and fall again. It is our own business. No one blames Binance for falling currency prices. What we care about is that after Binance goes public, the currency price falls at every stage, which is the most concerned thing for retail investors.

For example, in 2022, although the currency price fell a lot later, it does have a strong wealth-making effect and a strong pull-out process. In the end, someone will definitely make money, but no one will blame Binance for it. In 2021, every time we go public on Binance, we just go to the opening market, not looking at the fundamentals at all, only looking at the K-line chart, and buying directly.

Why? Because all coins had a wealth-making effect at that time, there was a wave of pulling the market. But now, after Binance has listed the currency, the price of the currency fell directly, and the project party started selling, and the entire market has become a situation of "cutting leeks". Binance needs to consider how to control the currency listing process of these projects, especially the strong supervision of the project parties.

Retail investors are an important part of the exchange, and Binance has tens of millions of users. Even for innovative projects, the project party essentially wants to make money by placing coins. No matter how excellent the project is, the project party must want to earn returns from its own project. So I think Binance's supervision and control of project parties should be more powerful.

So, it is normal for Labs to control the project's FDV (full dilution valuation), and I should try to control this FDV. Let me give you another example, are you considering not asking the project party to pay the listing fee, but asking them to place 20% or even 30% of the tokens that may be unlocked in the next year? You can check whether the project party meets the standards through quarterly assessment. If they do, then you can unlock these tokens. Is this a feasible solution?

I think the idea is feasible, and while I may not be mature enough, I think the Binance team can consider this. At least the rationality of the currency price should be maintained so that the project party can ensure that after Binance is listed, the token trend can bring profit opportunities to retail investors. When everyone buys, not every stage is wrong. We need to control the behavior of project parties and make sure their projects are not just for making money. Binance should be more powerful for these projects.

Just like the previous GMT project, although the price fell a lot later, it does have a strong wealth-making effect and a strong pull-up process. In this case, Binance will not be blamed. Because there are always people making money in the market. Rather than criticizing Binance, it is better to get benefits from the price increase in the currency. But the problem after Binance is listed now is that the currency price has dropped sharply after it is launched, and this situation needs to be reflected on. Binance needs to put more pressure on the project parties to ensure that these projects will not disappoint retail investors after they go online.

I think Binance's management can avoid these problems with stronger control. After all, retail investors are the core users of the exchange and we are huge. Binance can better manage project parties in this way to ensure that their listing is not only for the interests of project parties, but also consider 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 is indeed on the side of retail investors. The current situation is that we have found that some project parties did not fulfill their promises after listing the currency, which directly led to a drop in the currency price. We realized this happening and tried some different solutions, but so far the results are not ideal.

We need to better find ways to innovate and improve, and how to make listing 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 able to directly perceive the problem like 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 now some new derivative financial services in the market, allowing project parties to make choices in advance through the OTC channel. As an exchange, Binance cannot directly affect the currency price, because doing so will involve illegal issues. But we can design some rules to require the project party to disclose more information, and everyone can understand the real situation of the project through channels such as AMA.

Regarding the subsequent new currency launch, I suggest that you do not rush in and spend time understanding the project party’s true intentions. After all, the current KPI of the currency listing determines that Binance launches some popular projects, and these projects do not always bring value continuously. We also hope to improve the health of the entire market through more innovation.