Norine Atay q5jt

CZ expressed his dislike for high-market-cap tokens listed on CEX or high-valuation ICOs in 2017.

And the situation now is worse than eight years ago?

Sorry, I was not in the circle at that time, so I don’t know what the situation was at that time. I can only say that CZ is awesome!

In the article, CZ raised three questions about the project:

1️⃣ Does your project really need so much money?

2️⃣ Does your project need so much money now?

3️⃣ Will you still do things after you have money?

At that time, CZ believed that ICO maximization = bad, and there was another way to go!

It also clearly pointed out the disadvantages of large ICOs and the advantages of low valuations, and also showed his own preferences. He likes teams to focus on business and like teams to stay hungry!

Now we know that a big reason for the high valuation is that the project has already completed multiple rounds of financing before TGE, and more and more rounds bring higher and higher valuations.

Listening from the afternoon to now, here are my observations:

1. The main leader is genuinely someone who wants to get things done and is willing to listen to community and user feedback. However, Binance is constrained by compliance requirements, and many restrictive measures against soft rug projects cannot be implemented, which is understandable.

2. The projects that were called out performed poorly, starting by showcasing their personal backgrounds and advertising, without discussing any positive improvements after the token price plummeted. Several projects that spoke up detracted from their credibility, claiming they didn’t understand this or that, or that they didn’t do well enough in various aspects, raising doubts: if the team’s abilities are so poor, how did the tokens get selected for listing?

3. The listing team at Binance listed too many new tokens in 2024 that dropped by 90%, while missing out on truly valuable project tokens, indicating poor KPI performance. This phenomenon did not exist before 2024, suggesting that the previous listing team was stronger?

4. The main leader directly asked the project parties during the AMA, "Is there any ‘white glove’ soliciting bribes for利益输送?", which is an ineffective question. Projects already listed on Binance are vested interests, and even if there are white gloves and soliciting bribes, they are also part of a利益共同体 with the white gloves and would never self-expose.

5. Several colleagues from Labs answered questions in an organized manner, stating that it is normal for investment institutions to pressure project teams on valuations, and it’s also standard practice to help connect resources and listings for invested projects. The small article's claims about利益输送 lack solid evidence, and Labs’ AMA this time can be considered clear.

6. The token listing on Binance is decided by the investment committee, and Labs or close friends cannot influence this, which is still convincing; whether the listing team’s KPI performance is good or not is another matter.

7. Several project tokens mentioned in the small article saw price increases within a few hours during the AMA. Retail investors expect Binance to implement some measures to motivate the already listed projects within 1-3 months, including adding risk labels to some project tokens, hoping that project parties won't be complacent and will get to work.

8. A secondary user proposed that the main leader try to pull the project parties out for a public AMA during the project’s participation in the Launchpool mining period, to introduce the project roadmap and other information, allowing retail investors to participate in the judgment on whether to list, which is quite promising.

#Binance
#YZILabs

It feels like Binance has fallen into a self-incrimination trap, getting worse the more it is described, and you choose to self-incriminate during a massive drop; at least choose a massive rise to self-incriminate, there are too many trolls 😂

Please advise, shouldn't this 500% benefit be more than 300 U? Why is it only 170 U?