GuShiio.com In this AMA, Binance co-founder He Yi and relevant employees and project representatives jointly responded to recent negative comments, covering Binance internal governance, employee violations and management of the coin listing process.
edit| Wu said blockchain
In this AMA, Binance co-founder He Yi and relevant employees and project representatives jointly responded to recent negative comments, covering Binance internal governance, employee violations and management of the coin listing process. The total duration of this AMA is 6 hours.
Binan employees investigated violations, fired and recovered 30 million yuan in illegal income in the past two years
He Yi: Hello everyone, this is Binan’s Chinese community. I am Binan’s chief customer service He Yi. I haven’t chatted with everyone for a long time.
In fact, since yesterday, many professional PR staff and friends in the currency circle have advised me not to respond because the market mood is not good and it seems that no matter what I say is wrong. Moreover, the article actually didn’t target me directly. Everyone just said that you just need to get rid of the people around you and calm the limelight, and that’s it. But my personal opinion is that I have always believed that we must respond head-on to problems. Over the years, I feel that there is nothing I cannot say, 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 also hope to speak freely with you 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 fairly? What I want everyone to understand is that Binance is now 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 disclosure and other violations. In the past two years, the department has handled more than 120 investigation cases, including 60 employees who were dismissed for violations.
These violations are many and are not the transfer of benefits as everyone imagines. Some behaviors may be unintentionally committed by employees at work, such as failing to disclose some information, or having some personal relationships (such as friends or relatives) when working with suppliers but not making internal disclosures, can also lead to dismissal. Of course, this also includes 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 pursuing them. You may feel that this information has not been disclosed in public channels, but the main reason is that these reports are submitted to U.S. law enforcement agencies and surveillance agencies, but these details are indeed not disclosed.
Binance also has zero tolerance for employee violations, including privately investigating user information without formal approval. Such behavior will be warned, and if the circumstances are serious, it will be transferred to judicial authorities for criminal responsibility. Therefore, our reporting channel has always been open, and the maximum reward amount can reach US$5 million. Any departing employee involved in corruption will join a project or fund that will be included in Binance’s blacklist. To ensure transparency, we have also disclosed HR contact information. 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 is audit @ binance.com.
Clarify the independence of Binance Labs and Binance
He Yi: Regarding Binance Labs, many colleagues and friends may be confused and think that 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 discover that Labs has invested in thousands of projects in Binance’s history, only a few of them can actually be launched. Labs has 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 projects that Labs thinks are good but the listing team thinks are bad; or there are projects that are already online in Bitcoin, but Labs thinks they are not as good as a project I have invested in. This is actually a common situation in Binance’s development process. Therefore, there is no situation where the so-called Labs can directly obtain benefits or transfer benefits.
Reflection on the current problems of Binance
He Yi: Of course, there have been some problems with currency security in the past few years. For example, everyone thinks that Binance’s current products, especially in the Web3 wallet, may not keep up with the times and are a little slow to make. This is a very objective and effective criticism and suggestion. In the past one to two years, we have spent a lot of time doing compliance work, and a lot of resources have been used to fill some loopholes in history. Therefore, we find that product competitiveness, especially the competitiveness of some emerging products, is actually relatively ineffective. But compared with the lag of products, I think what is more serious may be that there is no wealth effect after the introduction of the currency.
We have discussed this issue internally many times. Many projects regard listing in coins as their ultimate goal of starting a business, just like going to the Nasdaq IPO. How do we solve this problem and how do we make users feel the wealth effect? As you can see, we have made some new attempts this year (it should be last year), such as MegaDrop and pre-market markets, but the results are actually not ideal. On the other hand, when LaunchPad was first launched, its coin listing effect was very strong because LaunchPad had pricing. When projects are sold on Binance, there is a price when users subscribe. When we conduct some activities like LaunchPool, these tokens are placed directly to users, and the price is determined by the market.
As I told you before, Binance used to be unable to directly affect prices. Therefore, when the market opens, we have absolutely no way to intervene in how prices fluctuate. Instead, we are more about monitoring the market and if there is an abnormal situation, 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 have been frozen during Binance transactions, or receive investigation letters requesting information. 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 excessive.
Deposit process and basis for screening items
He Yi: I think in fact, in a free market like the currency circle, I am also reflecting on whether the “strict selection” mechanism of Binance is a bit outdated? In fact, last year, from New Year’s Day to before the Spring Festival, I pushed our currency trading department to make some changes. Although in the past, the KPIs of our currency deposit department could be made public to everyone, I would like to share with you whether the review standards or definition of currency deposit are good or not.
The first benchmark is actually relatively simple, that is, after the coin is added, the price performance of the token is something we cannot directly influence, but if the quality of the coin is good, then its market performance should be better than the market average. Therefore, our so-called “ROI of the listing price” is based on its average price on the first day of launch, and then horizontal comparisons 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 listing choice. If the performance is not good, it means that there may be errors, deviations, or problems with the timing of listing coins when selecting tokens.
The second criterion for listing is whether the project we select can bring breakthroughs to the industry and whether it can add new users. 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 will be effective for a long time, whether these users will truly transform into currency circle users, currency speculation users, or just become registered users of Binan. 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 on the market with very high valuations. So, why does Binance still choose to launch these projects? I think this may also be affected by our third KPI. Our requirements for listing currencies also care about the project’s performance on spot and other major CEX trading platforms, that is, its proportion of trading volume. If popular projects in the market are not launched, especially those with high technical concepts or popularity but high valuations, Binance may lose some market share.
So this is our main criterion for listing coins. Judging from these three criteria, we can basically cover all types of projects, whether it is those highly speculated VC coins, currencies that may have prospects in terms of logical value, and a large number of memecoins, because they do have popularity, their rationality, and even wealth effects.
In addition, you will also see that some projects will try to “break the circle”. No matter whether these breaks are successful or not, we still hope that they will bring some new atmosphere to the entire industry. Just like when StepN first started, it brought some novelty and breakthrough to the industry. Although these attempts have been successful and failed, they have also brought new thinking.
In addition, with the development of Binance, I feel that the team is indeed getting bigger and bigger. So many times, the reaction speed may be slower. For example, we need to do a security survey or a data survey, but in this process, the processing speed often lags behind. In this regard, many members of the public and ordinary users have also put forward criticisms and suggestions. Of course, we have heard these criticisms and will seriously think about how to improve them. But we also really need to think about whether these adjustments and innovations are really effective and can keep up with the development of the times.
From 2014 to the present, the structure of the entire industry and users is changing. We will see that more and more professional players are entering the market, and 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 market makers, and the market makers will lend out the coins. Although the price of the coins may be very low as they trade in the market, the coins will still be returned to the project party. This situation is visible in the market. Of course, there are also other stronger market makers among the market makers who will compete with these project parties. The market is always changing and iterating, and competition has become more and more cruel.
He Yi: I also 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 based on their actions. So, this is also why I chose to stand up when the market went down, do this AMA during the down phase, and face these problems.
I think that if you don’t deal with problems head-on, face them, or find ways to improve these problems, then eventually burying your head in the sand will only make the entire industry lose confidence. We will see that during this cycle, the voices of some early very passionate entrepreneurs will also appear, such as “blockchain is dead”. In the past 10 years, blockchain has not created effective value. Yesterday I wrote a long 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 thinks, I also want to appeal to some friends. I know that feelings are not very useful. Everyone’s real demand is the wealth effect, which is to make money. But I still hope that some entrepreneurs 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, and even more industries-just as BNB changed the landscape of the entire trading platform. I think we all grew up in a freer era. So why can’t we use these emerging technologies and concepts to change those already rigid industries and create better distribution methods and better entrepreneurial models? But in the end, we still have to go back to that point: whether you really create value. If in this process, we cannot continue to create value for users, then it is inevitable that users abandon Binance.
I think I talked a little too much, which may affect the free AMA in the future. So next, I will talk according to the content in the article. There are some issues in the article accusing our employees of transferring benefits. In fact, in the past many years, I have also been regarded by others because I am a woman. I don’t understand why I can sit at this card table. I may think that I am an accessory or think that I must have used ulterior means to sit in this position. But in fact, if you insist on something, you will eventually affect the interests of others.
This world is essentially a place driven by interests. As long as there are interests, there will be rivers and lakes and disputes. Whether it is an employee at Binance or Binance, everyone does not need to do so-called “upward management”, but corruption is absolutely zero tolerance. So, next I will find out these parties involved in corruption, or at least ask them to stand up and explain to everyone, including the project parties we work with.
Employees were fired for irregular operations during the launch of the Catizen project
Colin Wu: I will just ask a few questions that my first sister asked you just now that she didn’t respond to. The first one is to ask Sister No. 1. I just mentioned that Catizen’s irregular behavior during the IC process led to someone being expelled. Can you talk about this matter in detail?
He Yi: Regarding Catizen’s independence from Labs during the listing process. First of all, I want to clarify that Catizen’s coin listing process is completely independent of Labs. Specifically, during that period, Dana was on maternity leave, and later when she came back, she discovered that Catizen had been put into IC without knowing it in advance. When she went to check the IC’s document, she found that the document was not written in a standardized manner and she had not been notified in time. During this process, IC discussions were very hasty, and in fact some IC members were absent. This is the so-called irregular operation in the process of Catizen’s listing, but this is actually an internal incident at Labs, not an overall incident at Binance. Because I am a shareholder of Labs, I know about it.
Hook Joint Venture explains personal relationship with Dovey Dovey, as a Hook investor, owns 2% tokens
Colin Wu: The second question is, I would like the founder of Hook to respond, whether he is a boyfriend and girlfriend with Dovey, what percentage of coins does Dovey have in this project, and did she provide assistance in the process of putting coins into coins?
Jason: Yes, let me respond directly. This question has actually been asked since the first day our project was launched. Dovey and I used to have a relationship between ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends, which many people in the industry actually know. For the project side, they certainly don’t want the founder’s personal relationship to become a PR topic that everyone often talks about, so we have not responded positively to this issue.
The second point is about the proportion of Dovey or Primitive in the Hook project. Primitive is a first-round angel investor in our project, with a share of approximately 2%. Therefore, Dovey and Primitive hold a total of 2% of the tokens, and the entire release cycle is exactly the same as the investment terms of other investors, including Sequoia and Binance Labs.
I also want 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 was coordinated by several of our founders.
Colin Wu: What specific help did he provide in this process? Including the process of placing coins and other aspects.
Jason: The only help she provided us in the early days was to introduce some of the earliest investors and help us contact other investment institutions. But during the entire process of listing, Dovey was completely unaware of it. I remember at that time in Binance Labs ‘online group, we were emphasized every day: “You can’t tell anyone about this.” Including our other partners, in fact, they only learned that our currency was online on the day the announcement of the listing was released.
Analysis of the decision process for listing coins, voting and approval mechanism for IC members
Colin Wu: Can I ask Sister Yi to introduce the decision-making process of listing coins again? For example, how many people voted, whether anyone has veto power, etc. I think if the overall process can be as transparent as possible while complying with regulations, it should make the community more clear. Otherwise, people will make guesses, and the effect will be bad.
He Yi: Yes, I very much agree with Colin’s point just now. First of all, let me introduce our currency listing framework. The KPIs mentioned just now have been explained, so we have a research team dedicated to project screening. This team will use social media, online data, and community discussions to capture all hot projects in the market. As long as it is a project that is discussed and concerned in the market and is under development, even if there is no TGE, if there are many VC investment projects, we will conduct an investigation. You can understand that we have a huge database that is classified by different industries, categories and tracks to match the data of these projects.
The first key point is that we will filter through data. If we consider including a project in the discussion, it must pass this series of analyses and evaluations. Although this process involves a huge amount of data, our team will conduct detailed investigations during the screening process and may raise questions to the project party.
Therefore, some information leaks occasionally occur during this process. For example, if we ask about 20 projects, only 2 projects may eventually be formally approved by IC. Second, when we believe that a project deserves further discussion, such as it has no serious security issues or data fraud, or although there are some flaws, the market popularity is very high and the number of users is large, we will continue to negotiate with the project party.
All these terms will eventually enter IC. During the IC process, there is one veto power. That is to say, any IC member has the right to veto a certain project. We will check each project for flaws. For example, if the founder of the project party has participated in a failed project, or the project’s tokens are highly concentrated, possibly in 30 addresses, we will retrieve this information. Although it seems that our screening mechanism is complete, this process is actually gradually established, after many iterations and improvements.
If you look carefully, you will find that there are problems with many projects on the market. But in fact, this is like the process of “raising a child among a dwarf”. As a trading platform, if you don’t participate, you will actually lose market share. For example, other platforms may have hundreds of coins launched a year, but if you don’t participate, your market share will continue to decline. So, why did we ultimately define the KPI for listing as the launch 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 price of the token has increased or decreased, and this is how to calculate the ROI. Simply put, the project information submitted by many people will be screened regularly, and we will also check all invested VC projects on the market and compile a list. In this list, for example, projects that are preparing to launch TGE or projects that have already been traded in the market will be included in the data analysis before eventually entering IC review.
You may find that if you follow this process, the project launch speed is indeed slow in many cases. By the time the project is actually launched, the price of the token has already been pushed up by market popularity. So this is our current coin listing decision process. In the process, we also tried to make some adjustments. For example, the purpose of the “pre-market market” attempt is to push the prices of newly launched items into a more reasonable range and ensure a healthier currency price trend. But I don’t think it was a very successful attempt, although there are some successful cases and some failures.
Secondly, there is the situation of LaunchPool. LaunchPool is a more mature product, and we think it performs well at least in terms of token performance, but when it becomes LaunchPool, we cannot control its price. The only thing we can negotiate with the project party is whether we are willing to take out a certain proportion of tokens for airdrops.
Regarding the issue of currency placement fees, just like the so-called “overlord clause” or Binance’s “overlord clause” mentioned in the article, I think what Binance may need to do in the future is to be transparent from today on. At first, Binan’s deposit fee was donated to charity. Later, it was stopped for a long time for various reasons. It was not until we changed the deposit team that the fee was collected again.
I hope everyone understands that the deposit fee charged by Binance is not a large number, but it will often become the focus of everyone’s doubts. Therefore, starting today, we will openly and transparently indicate the whereabouts of each coin deposit fee. We will refund all these fees to users and the community. The current mature model is through LaunchPool. In the future, whether it is consultant fees or other activity expenses, we will clearly explain the specific use of these expenses. For example, whether the airdrop of a certain coin is used in LaunchPool or for other activities. We will also provide reports to the project party to clarify how these coins are allocated.
In general, what I can guarantee is that starting from today, Binan’s deposit fee will truly become “zero”.
Colin Wu: Platforms such as Coinbase have also been sentenced for employee insider trading. I believe Binance has 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 violations? For example, cases like “rat warehouse”, insider trading, or accepting bribes? If it’s convenient, could you explain in detail whether a certain project party is involved?
He Yi: Well, regarding employee violations, I think there are several points that need to be clarified. First of all, Binance has strict restrictions on employees participating in transactions. Therefore, most of the violations we have seen are not structural problems such as “rat sheds”. More, such as accepting bribes or changing the company’s coin collection address to your own. For similar acts, we have filed lawsuits and reported them to the police, involving domestic and foreign cases. Since these cases involve some privacy, especially if some litigation cases have not yet been formally decided, or the investigation process is still controversial, I may not be able to disclose the specific names of employees until the legal process is completed. But what I want to emphasize is that Binance has always been serious about anti-corruption.
Will Binance consider making its investigation of internal issues public and introduce third-party law enforcement agencies?
Kuai Dong: Hello, I would like to ask Sister No. 1. I just mentioned that Binance has conducted a lot of internal investigations and handled some problems in the past. Among them, the one I have experienced most in the VC circle was the team’s “rat warehouse” incident in 2021. It was a big fuss, but in fact there were several similar incidents in history, and everyone knew about them through internal information, but they did not see the results of Binance’s disclosure. Does Nabian consider learning from competitors such as Coinbase and Tencent and announcing the final investigation results, penalties and whether funds have been refunded? Next, does Binance have plans to deal with these issues and deal with the aftermath? Thank you.
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 working, then we will 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 events in 2021, people may think that they are some kind of adjustment by the team. In fact, the matter is very simple. At that time, during IC approval, a colleague hid the name of a certain 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 in it. If this document is not fully disclosed and members of the relevant team are not disclosed, then these people will also be punished and eliminated.
During the investigation, we actually found no problems with insider trading or other interest exchanges. What we can only say is that everyone must understand that we cannot manage rumors during the investigation process. We can only investigate facts, not just make up stories. For example, I may not like a project for personal reasons and make up a story to influence the investigation. We have always emphasized that when handling matters, we must base ourselves on facts and not let rumors influence us. For example, if you investigate who is in charge of the project and what problems have occurred with the project, the people involved may be dealt with accordingly. This is the principle we currently follow in internal investigations.
Kuai Dong: Thank you. In fact, I have another supplementary question, because many of the results come from Binance’s internal investigations. Are you considering bringing in third-party law enforcement agencies and publishing the results of the investigation with them? For example, Coinbase published a case of cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice and eventually sued several internal employees. As a large global company, Binan has corresponding compliance departments in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, the United States, and Singapore. Will you consider developing in this direction in the future and jointly publish the investigation results together with third-party law enforcement agencies? Thanks.
He Yi: I have actually raised this issue before, but maybe you don’t understand it. As we all know, Binance now has two monitoring agencies. These monitoring agencies are actually financial companies in the United States, and they are responsible for supervising and managing us. They interface directly with the U.S. Department of Justice and the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission). So you can understand that at present, all our internal investigation reports will be submitted to these two monitoring agencies that directly interface with the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as other law enforcement agencies from the United States.
So, all this information will actually be submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. Only this information has not been made public. 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 handling. Second, if conclusive evidence emerges during the investigation, we will submit the case to the Ministry of Justice and enter the formal law enforcement and litigation process. Some of the cases I mentioned just now have indeed entered the litigation stage. If we win the lawsuit, relevant information may be made public, similar to Coinbase, which only discloses more information at the end of the case, rather than early in the investigation or just when writing a report.
On the other hand, making this information public may be regarded as negative news. Therefore, in the past, even if there were such cases, we did not deal with them publicly. This is also our current practice.
Suggestions on the custody mechanism and the feedback mechanism for project party results after the currency is placed in the currency
Hello everyone, hello first sister, I won’t introduce myself. I am a retail investor in speculating money. Let me first talk about my listening experience just now, especially from the perspective of the project party. Because my communication with First Sister was discussed from the perspective of retail investors in the secondary market. What we do is the secondary market, and we actually don’t understand many things about the primary market. After listening to it, I felt that many of the contents of these project parties were a bit vague. To be honest, everyone knew it in their hearts. Including Sister No. 1 who interrupted one of the project parties several times just now, everyone still knows very well. 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. What we care about is the currency price. We look at the K-chart chart. The currency price has dropped by 90%. Nothing you say is useless. From our perspective, we do not completely deny these project parties, but there are also excellent project parties.
What I want to ask is, like today’s situation, can Binance open an AMA like today before each LaunchPool goes online to discuss the plans and roadmaps of the project parties and see if these project parties can fulfill their commitments? 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 too feasible. I think the suggestion you made is very good. At least before going online, whether project parties can fulfill their commitments should be demonstrated. If what the project owner says is not reliable, then it is best for everyone not to buy it, or even if they get a share of the tokens, they should quickly sell it. I think this is really a very effective suggestion. I am thinking whether all online projects should come out regularly for public review, especially those coins that everyone thinks are problematic every month, and they should be pulled out to respond to everyone’s doubts.
Belt and belt: Yes, the past is no longer mentioned. Those coins are already online. Today’s AMA is actually to let everyone understand the interaction between Binance and project parties, especially how to supervise the post-launch performance of these projects. In fact, everyone is more concerned about the future. What retail investors care about is whether they can bring opportunities to make money after being put into coins.
For example, we did not scold some of the projects mentioned by First Sister just now, such as ACT Punt. We criticize only the mistakes we make. After we make money, the currency price rises and falls again, which is our own business. No one blames Binance for the decline in currency prices. What we are concerned about is that after Binance went public, the currency price fell at every stage. That is what retail investors are most concerned about.
Why? Because at that time, all coins had a wealth-making effect and had a lot of money. But now, after the coins are put into coins, the price of the coins has dropped directly, and the project party has begun to sell, and the entire market has become a situation of “cutting leeks”. Binance needs to consider how to control the listing process of these projects, especially the strong supervision of project parties.
Retail investors are an important part of the exchange, and there are tens of millions of users behind Binance. Even if it is an innovative project, the project party essentially wants to make money by investing in money. No matter how excellent the project is, the project party must want to earn returns from its own project. Therefore, I think Binance should have stronger supervision and control over project parties.
So, I think it’s normal for Labs to control the FDV (fully diluted valuation) of the project, and we should try to control this FDV. To give another example, do you consider not requiring project parties to pay the fee for depositing coins, but instead requiring them to place 20% or even 30% of the tokens that may be unlocked in the next year with Binance? You can check whether the project parties meet the standards through quarterly assessments. If they do, you can unlock these tokens. Is this a feasible solution?
I think this idea is feasible, and although I may not be mature enough, I think the Binance team can consider this. At the very least, the rationality of the currency price should be maintained so that the project party can ensure that after the currency is placed in the currency, the trend of the token can bring profit opportunities to retail investors. When people buy, not every stage is wrong. We need to control the behavior of project owners and ensure that their projects are not just about making money. Binance should be stronger towards these projects.
Just like the previous GMT project, although the price fell a lot later, it did have a strong wealth-making effect and a strong tendering process. In this case, Binance will not be criticized. Because there are always people in the market making money. Rather than criticizing Binance, it is better to benefit from the increase in currency prices. But the problem now after the currency is put into the currency is that the currency price has dropped sharply after it is launched. This situation requires reflection. Binance needs to put more pressure on 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 through stronger control. After all, retail investors are the core users of the exchange, and our number is huge. In this way, Binance can better manage project parties and ensure that their listings are not only for the interests of project parties, but also take into account the needs of retail investors.
He Yi: Yes, thank you. What you said is very reasonable. At present, I think the position of retail investors is very important, and Binance indeed stands on the side of retail investors. The current situation is that we found that some project parties did not fulfill their commitments after listing the currency, which directly led to the decline in the currency price. We are aware of this happening and have tried some different solutions, but so far the results have not been ideal.
We need to better find ways to innovate and improve how to make trading 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 aware of problems as we retail investors.
Regarding the control of listing coins, 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 on the market that allow project parties to make choices in advance through OTC channels. As an exchange, Binance cannot directly affect the currency price, because doing so will involve illegal issues. However, 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 AMA and other channels.
For the subsequent launch of new coins, I suggest that you not rush in and should spend the time to understand the true intentions of the project party. After all, the current KPIs for Bitcoin launch determine some popular projects for Bitcoin launch, and these projects do not always continue to bring value. We also hope to improve the health of the entire market through more innovation.
