#币安投票下币 Binance's recently launched 'voting for delisting' mechanism has sparked widespread discussion in the market, with the first voting pool containing 21 tokens (the specific list has not been fully disclosed), allowing users to participate in decisions by holding BNB. The following sharp commentary combines common issues with Binance's delisted tokens and the risks of the voting mechanism:
### 1. Typical Issues with Delisted Tokens
1. Liquidity depletion and low trading volume
One of the core criteria for Binance's delisting is insufficient liquidity. For instance, previously announced delisted tokens like AERGO and AST experienced severe price fluctuations after the news broke, reflecting market concerns about their liquidity. If a token has persistently low trading volume, the exchange may determine that it cannot meet user demand, thus initiating the delisting process.
2. Project development stagnation and team credibility issues
Binance will evaluate the development activity and team commitment of projects during review. For example, Linear Finance (LINA) was once questioned for its slow technological progress and insufficient investment in ecosystem building. If a project has no substantial updates over a long period or frequently changes core members, it may be labeled as a 'zombie project' and become a candidate for delisting.
3. Compliance and security risks
Regulatory pressure is an important consideration. If some projects fail to respond timely to new legal requirements (such as stablecoin licensing, anti-money laundering rules), or if there are doubts about cybersecurity (such as frequent attacks), they may be delisted. The SEC's previous exemption statement for PoW mining also indicates that regulatory attitudes directly influence exchange decisions.
4. Community governance failure and lack of transparency
Binance emphasizes the importance of 'public communication' and 'community participation'. If project parties lack transparent operations over the long term (such as arbitrary changes to token economics, failure to disclose core team changes), or if community sentiment is negative (such as large-scale complaints from users), it may trigger a delisting review.
### 2. The Double-Edged Sword Effect of Voting Mechanisms
1. Progress and Limitations of Community Autonomy
Binance has delegated some decision-making power to users, attempting to balance the ideal of decentralization with real-world risks through a 'democratic selection + professional review' model. However, the low threshold (only 0.01 BNB) may lead to vote manipulation, such as project parties incentivizing votes through airdrops or short sellers using voting outcomes to suppress token prices.
2. The absurdity of market games
The voting mechanism has spawned a form of 'reverse speculation': users may participate in voting for short-term benefits (such as shorting unselected tokens) rather than project value. Zhao Changpeng has admitted that the early voting mechanism led to project parties attacking each other, creating a 'PVP-style community rift', and whether the new mechanism can avoid repeating history remains unknown.
3. The exchange's ambition for a closed-loop flow
Through the voting mechanism, Binance strengthens its ecological closed loop of 'exchange + public chain + community', essentially leveraging user participation to enhance platform activity. Candidate tokens are concentrated in the BNB chain ecosystem, which consolidates its advantages while simplifying review complexity. Although this strategy benefits ecological cohesion, it may sacrifice fairness for multi-chain projects.
### 3. Commentary: A Microcosm of Crypto Darwinism
- Bad money driving out good?
Voting for delisting appears to be community self-governance, but in reality, it is the exchange shifting the elimination pressure onto users. Projects with poor liquidity and stalled development should indeed be eliminated, but mechanism loopholes may cause truly promising early projects to be 'mistakenly killed' due to poor short-term data. For example, certain projects might temporarily cool off due to market cycle fluctuations, yet face a death sentence early due to community voting.
- Governance ideals vs. capital manipulation
Binance attempts to prevent cheating with 'vote washing algorithms' and holding thresholds, but capital whales can still manipulate results through dispersed accounts. For example, institutions holding large amounts of BNB can vote en masse to influence the delisting list, making 'decentralized governance' a game for a few.
- Industry warning: Innovation does not equate to survival
Among the delisted tokens are those that once touted 'disruptive technologies' (such as Aergo's enterprise-level blockchain concept), but ultimately failed due to inability to implement or ecological isolation. This reveals the harsh reality of the crypto market: technological narratives must be balanced with sustainable operations and community support; otherwise, they are destined for a 'flash in the pan' fate.
### Conclusion
Binance's voting for delisting mechanism is a step toward the maturation of the crypto market, but it also exposes deep-seated contradictions in industry governance. The attempt at community autonomy is commendable, but its effectiveness depends on the fairness of rule design and transparency in execution. For investors, it is necessary to be wary of irrational risks coerced by voting and return to fundamental analysis of projects—after all, behind the exchange's 'lifeline' is still a game of capital and power.