Unexpectedly, the discussion surrounding the exchange's "listing fees" has started again.

Someone came up with an offer for listing on BInance, which included a 1% Alpha airdrop + 3% additional airdrop + 1% marketing + 1M TVL + 250,000 margin + 3% BNB holder bonus +...

I still hold the view that the listing fee is essentially a purely commercial behavior and Binance's own choice, which no one can shake. It is strange that such private business terms were exposed.

Obviously, behind this lies some anger among the Builder group after their defenses were broken.

Some builders tried their best to develop technology, create products, and build an ecosystem, but in the end they found that the threshold for listing was so high and it was also a huge financial black hole.

This means that teams without luxurious VC backgrounds and strong capital support are blocked from the market. Instead, high-FDV VC coins with sufficient financing, good storytelling, and strong capital operations have become the "guests of honor."

The result is predictable, a vicious cycle. Exchanges complain that these high-profile VC coins reach their peak as soon as they are launched, and after cutting off users, they pass the blame to the exchanges; the project parties are also aggrieved. With such high asking prices from the exchanges and the high cost of future uncertainty, it is better to make a quick in and out operation in the short term; users look innocent, cursing the exchanges, the project parties, and themselves for taking over and making a mess of the situation.

So, what's the root of this problem? I think it's precisely this value-based screening mechanism where "whoever has the money gets in"—that is, whoever has the money gets in.

Of course, exchanges can argue that all collected funds are distributed to users, and that a series of margin requirements are intended to protect them. However, the problem is that if they screen purely based on "capital thresholds," they will inevitably reject some truly innovative projects that are focused on development, product refinement, and lack funding, while instead recruiting a group of traders skilled in capital operations and short-term cash-out exits.

This distorted two-way mechanism, which equates "financing level" with "innovation value" and replaces "ability to get things done" with "cash ability", has ultimately led to a situation where both sides are blaming each other.

That’s why I said that the high threshold for listing coins on exchanges and the need to build a platform for a whole range of products are systematically stifling innovation on the chain.

This creates a misguided incentive for project developers, leading them to stop focusing on the product itself and instead focus on "how to get on an exchange," "how to package a story," and "how to cater to investors." Technological innovation becomes a secondary goal, while financing and listing on an exchange become the primary priorities.

Let me ask you, when builders spend more time on packaging operations than writing code, what is the future of this industry?

I understand the profit demands of exchanges as commercial entities. They have all come this far through the fierce competition in the industry. However, the exchange's biggest "backstage" is not only the platform users of online services, but also the huge Crypto technology innovation ecosystem behind it.

When the entire Crypto ecosystem is reduced to capital games and mutual harvesting, the exchange's "shovel business" will also lose its foundation.