Unveiling the Double-Edged Sword: Analyzing the Risks and Opportunities of Binance's "Voting for Listing" and "Voting for Delisting" Mechanisms

This article combines recent market feedback, community opinions, and relevant analyses to delve into the main issues existing in the voting mechanisms for listing and delisting

Recently, Binance launched the "Voting for Listing" and "Voting for Delisting" mechanisms, attempting to grant the community greater decision-making power and activate market vitality. However, this mechanism is like a double-edged sword, as it not only empowers the community but also harbors risks of manipulation and imbalance, testing the platform's wisdom in balancing democracy and efficiency.

This article combines recent market feedback, community opinions, and relevant analyses to delve into the main issues existing in the voting mechanisms for listing and delisting, and discusses how to optimize the rules to make them fairer and more transparent.

According to Binance's current rules, the voting period lasts for 7 days, and users must hold at least 0.01 BNB to participate. Each user can cast a maximum of 5 votes, and each account can only vote once for the same project. However, this mechanism has sparked heated discussions in the community, with the main points of contention including the following aspects:

1. Vote Manipulation and Cheating Rampant, Difficulty in Preventing Cheating Will Continue to Rise

Under the voting mechanism, project parties often spend money to manipulate votes in order to win listing opportunities, even hiring "voting armies" to create false appearances. Although the platform continuously optimizes anti-cheating measures, the difficulty of governance continues to rise with the evolution of vote manipulation techniques.

2. Community Division and Intensified Competition, Later Voting May Evolve into "PVP" Mode

Binance founder CZ mentioned that the initial voting mechanism in 2017 was effective, but later led to community division due to mutual attacks between project parties, forming a "PVP" situation.

Some projects may incite users to maliciously disrupt other communities, turning the voting mechanism from a tool for fair competition into a battlefield that exacerbates market infighting.

3. Diminished Expected Economic Benefits

The voting for listing model makes the process of new coin launches highly transparent, allowing everyone to predict which coins might win in advance and even track the progress in real-time. This high transparency somewhat diminishes the "surprise effect," reducing the novelty and economic value of token launches.

4. Increased Risk of Bad Money Driving Out Good Money

Due to the potential manipulation of voting results, truly capable projects with long-term value may not succeed in being listed, while projects with strong marketing capabilities and ample funds may find it easier to win. This mechanism could lead to a misallocation of market resources, exacerbating the risk of "bad money driving out good money."

Community Suggestions: Optimizing the Voting Mechanism Together

Community member @xiaoyibtc suggests that only token holders (with a minimum holding of 100 USD) should be allowed to vote to prevent malicious vote manipulation.

Community member @IZp3ddsqzk63818 proposes that only users holding the token for over 100 USD during the Alpha phase should be eligible to vote, promoting token market value growth and increasing trading volume and platform registration.

Community member @Crypto_Cat888 suggests raising the voting account thresholds, such as account creation time, BNB holdings, and monthly trading volume. New users could be given a special voting opportunity, with subsequent votes following the rules.

Community member @Jay_Cui1991 recommends that voting eligibility be based on the user's registration duration on Binance, historical trading volume, and BNB holdings. Additionally, users should hold the voting token and transfer a certain proportion to the Binance address, which they can withdraw after voting ends, to enhance the fairness and authenticity of the voting.

Community member @Lichao0418 proposes that voting users must hold the token and set a locking period, assigning different voting weights based on the duration of the lock. Voting could also be calculated based on the number of participants, market capitalization, and average locked amount. Only true holders can demonstrate long-term support for the community, while non-holders' voting weight defaults to 1 to ensure fairness and community consensus.

Crypto KOL @gokunocool suggests allocating voting weights based on users' BNB holdings, using "capital" as a measurement standard to make voting results more quantifiable. Additionally, publicize the amount of BNB support each project receives, allowing BNB holders to participate in market competition. Project parties could attract more BNB holders' support, forming a more economically incentivized competitive model, which helps foster new gameplay.

Community member @RedCap_io suggests implementing facial recognition identity verification for voting to prevent bulk registration of fake accounts, ensuring that even purchased accounts cannot bypass verification.

Community member @tianyisee proposes combining statistics and social choice theory, considering factors such as the number of tokens held, BNB holdings, and platform joining time. The following rules are suggested:

- Total voting rights are: 1 (basic) + BNB weighted votes + registration duration weighted votes.

- Additionally, candidate projects must receive over 50% of the voting rights to advance to the next stage.

Crypto KOL @blockTVBee