AMA Summary: He Yi responds to the circle of friends, employee violations, and doubts about listing, choking up multiple times

Editor: Wu Says Blockchain

In this AMA, Binance co-founder He Yi, along with relevant employees and representatives from project parties, responded to recent negative comments, covering topics such as Binance's internal governance, employee misconduct, and the management of the listing process. The AMA lasted a total of 6 hours.

This podcast captures some of the important content from the session. The audio transcription was completed by GPT and may contain errors. Please listen to the full podcast:

Small Universe

YouTube

AMA Replay (Twitter Space)

Investigation of Employee Misconduct, Dismissals, and Recovery of $30 Million in Illegal Gains at Binance Over the Past Two Years

He Yi: Hello everyone, this is Binance's Chinese community, I am He Yi, Binance's Chief Customer Service Officer. It's been a long time since I last chatted with everyone.

In fact, since yesterday, many professional PR personnel and friends in the crypto circle have suggested that I simply not respond, as the market sentiment is poor, and it seems that whatever I say is wrong. Moreover, the article does not directly target me; people just say that I need to dismiss those around me to calm things down. However, my personal view is that I have always believed in facing problems head-on. Over the years, I feel that there is nothing that cannot be said, so I still want to answer everyone directly, whether it is about this article or the current doubts and suggestions from the community regarding Binance. Therefore, I held this AMA today, hoping to have an open discussion with everyone.

First of all, I want to address some issues mentioned in the article. The first paragraph mentioned that I had publicly released Binance's reporting methods in the past. Has anyone reported anything? Were the reported cases handled justly, openly, and fairly? What I hope everyone understands is that Binance is currently under the supervision of two U.S. law enforcement agencies. Over the past two years, Binance's internal investigation department has conducted in-depth investigations into internal employees for violations such as bribery and information leakage. In the past two years, this department has handled over 120 investigation cases, resulting in the dismissal of 60 employees for violations.

Many of these violations are not the kind of benefit transfer that people imagine. Some behaviors may be unintentional mistakes made by employees at work, such as failing to disclose certain information or having personal relationships (like friendships or family ties) with suppliers without internal disclosure. Such behavior can also lead to dismissal. Of course, there are also other more serious illegal activities.

So far, we have recovered over $30 million in illegal gains. Additionally, we have more than two cases currently in litigation or in the process of being pursued. You may feel that this information has not been disclosed through public channels, but the main reason is that these reports are submitted to U.S. law enforcement agencies and monitoring institutions, and indeed, these details have not been made public.

For employee misconduct, including unauthorized investigations of user information without formal approval, Binance also has a zero-tolerance policy. Such behavior will receive warnings, and in severe cases, will be handed over to judicial authorities for criminal liability. Therefore, our reporting channels have always been open, with a maximum reward amount of up to $5 million. Any former employees involved in corruption will be blacklisted from joining projects or funds associated with Binance. To ensure transparency, we have also made HR contact information public. If you are hiring 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.

Clarification of the Independence of Binance Labs from Binance

He Yi: Regarding Binance Labs, many colleagues and friends may be confused about whether Labs is equivalent to Binance. Does it mean that projects invested by Labs will be listed on Binance? In fact, if media friends or others have noticed, Labs has invested in thousands of projects throughout Binance's history, but only a small number of them can actually be listed. Since joining Binance in 2018, Labs has always been a very independent team. In fact, during the listing process in 2018, Labs had several disputes with the listing team at Binance.

For example, there were some projects that Labs thought were great, while the listing team thought otherwise; or some projects that were already listed on Binance, but Labs felt they were not as good as a project I invested in. This is actually a common situation in Binance's development history. Therefore, there is no so-called situation where Labs can directly obtain or transfer benefits.

Reflection on Current Issues at Binance

He Yi: Of course, over the past few years, Binance has indeed faced some issues. For example, many people feel that Binance's products, especially in the Web3 wallet area, may be lagging behind and progressing slowly. This is a very objective and valid criticism and suggestion. Over the past one to two years, we have spent a lot of time on compliance work, with many resources used to fill historical gaps. As a result, we found that in terms of product competitiveness, especially in the competition for emerging products, it is relatively ineffective. However, compared to the lag in products, I think a more serious issue may be the lack of wealth effect after listing.

We have discussed this issue internally many times. Many projects treat listing as their ultimate goal in entrepreneurship, just like going public on NASDAQ. How do we solve this problem and make users feel the wealth effect? As you can see, we made some new attempts this year (should be last year), such as MegaDrop and pre-market, but the results were not ideal. In contrast, when LaunchPad was first launched, its listing effect was very strong because LaunchPad had pricing. When projects were sold on Binance, users subscribed at a price. However, when we conducted activities similar to LaunchPool, these tokens were directly distributed to users, and the price was determined by the market.

As I mentioned before, Binance was unable to directly influence prices in the past. Therefore, when the market opens, we have no way to intervene in how prices fluctuate. Instead, we monitor the market more, and if any abnormal situations arise, we need to report them to regulatory authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Therefore, some users may find their accounts frozen during trading on Binance or receive investigation letters requesting information. In fact, these are all part of our compliance work. We have invested a significant amount of manpower and resources in compliance, which can indeed be said to be an excessive investment.

Listing Process and Criteria for Selecting Projects

He Yi: I feel that in such a free market in the crypto space, I am also reflecting on whether Binance's "strict selection" mechanism is a bit outdated. In fact, last year, from after New Year's Day to before the Spring Festival, I pushed our listing department to make some changes. Although in the past, our listing department's KPIs were publicly available, I have a few benchmarks I want to share with everyone regarding the review standards or the definition of listing.

The first benchmark is relatively simple: after listing, the price performance of the token is something we cannot directly influence, but if the quality of the token is good, then its market performance should outperform the market average. Therefore, our so-called "listing price ROI" is calculated based on the average price on the first day of listing, and then compared horizontally with other CEX trading platforms every quarter. If the price performance of the listing team outperforms other platforms, it indicates that it is a good listing choice. If the performance is poor, it indicates that there may be errors or deviations in our selection of tokens, or that the timing of the listing may be problematic.

The second listing standard is whether the projects we choose can bring breakthroughs to the industry and whether they can attract new users. The new users here refer to those brought in by the project itself, rather than being influenced by 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, whether these new users can be long-term effective, whether they will truly convert into crypto users or just become registered users on Binance, we may not have a clear definition. We are more focused on whether these users can truly become long-term users of blockchain.

The third point is that you may see some very hot projects in the market with very high valuations. So why does Binance still choose to list these projects? I believe this may also be influenced by our third KPI. We care about the performance of the projects on spot and other major CEX trading platforms, specifically their trading volume share. If there are hot projects in the market that are not listed, especially those with high technical concepts or popularity but also high valuations, Binance may lose some market share.

So these are our main standards for listing. From these three standards, we can basically cover all types of projects, whether they are those hot VC tokens or those that may have prospects from a logical value perspective, as well as a large number of memecoins, because they indeed have popularity and their own rationality, and even have wealth effects.

In addition, you may also see some projects trying to "break the circle." Regardless of whether these attempts succeed, we still hope they can bring some new atmosphere to the entire industry. Just like when StepN first started, it brought some freshness and breakthroughs to the industry. These attempts, although some succeeded and some failed, have also brought new thoughts.

Moreover, as Binance has developed, I feel that the team has indeed become larger. So many times, the response speed may be slower. For example, we need to conduct security investigations or data investigations, but in this process, the processing speed often lags behind. Many members of the public and ordinary users have also raised criticisms and suggestions regarding this. We have certainly heard these criticisms and will seriously consider how to improve. But we also need to think about whether these adjustments and innovations are truly effective and whether they can keep up with the development of the times.

From 2014 to now, the entire industry and user structure are changing. We see more and more professional players entering the market, and the dynamics between project parties and VCs are also changing. From the initial ICOs to the current VC investments, many VCs have become increasingly difficult during this process. Some VCs may invest in projects at high valuations but may not be able to exit smoothly.

At the same time, some project parties may sign contracts with market makers, and market makers will lend out tokens. Although how they trade in the market may lead to very low token prices, ultimately these tokens will still be returned to the project parties. This situation is visible in the market. Of course, there are also other stronger market makers who will compete with these project parties. The market is always changing and iterating, and competition is becoming increasingly fierce.

Binance's Response Strategies and Thoughts During Market Downturns

He Yi: I also agree that if we cannot keep up with the changes of the times, we will ultimately be abandoned by users. Users will still vote with their actions. So this is also why I chose to stand up during the market downturn and hold this AMA to address these issues.

I feel that if you do not face problems head-on or think of ways to improve these issues, ultimately burying your head in the sand will only lead to a loss of confidence in the entire industry. We see that during this cycle, some early passionate entrepreneurs have also voiced their opinions, such as "blockchain is dead," claiming that blockchain has not created effective value over the past 10 years. Yesterday, I wrote a longer article explaining the independence of Binance from Labs.

In addition to clarifying that Binance and Labs are completely independent teams and that Labs does not have as much influence over Binance as people imagine, I also want to appeal to some friends. I know that sentiment does not have much use; what everyone truly demands is the wealth effect, which is to make money. But I still hope that some entrepreneurs, even when in difficulty, can still look up at the stars and believe that blockchain technology can still bring about some changes.

Blockchain can change more industries, just as BNB changed the landscape of the entire trading platform—such as gaming, social networking, and even more industries. I believe everyone has grown up in a freer era, so why can't we use these emerging technologies and ideas to change those already very rigid industries, creating better distribution methods and better entrepreneurial models? But ultimately, it still comes back to that starting point: have you truly created value? If during this process, you cannot continuously create value for users, then it is inevitable that users will abandon Binance.

I feel like I have talked too much, which may affect the free flow of the AMA later. So next, I will follow the content of the article to discuss. The article contains some accusations regarding our employees transferring benefits. In fact, over the past many years, I have also been perceived as a woman who does not understand why I can sit at this table, perhaps seen as an accessory or thought to have reached this position through unscrupulous means. But in reality, if you insist on certain things, you will ultimately affect the interests of others.

This world is essentially a place driven by interests; wherever there are interests, there will be conflicts and disputes. Whether at Binance or among Binance employees, there is no need to engage in so-called "upward management," but corruption is absolutely zero tolerance. Therefore, I will identify those involved in corruption or at least have them come forward to explain to everyone, including the project parties we cooperate with.

Employee Misconduct During Catizen Project Listing Process Resulting in Dismissals

Colin Wu: I would like to follow up on a few questions that you did not answer earlier. The first is about Catizen, where you mentioned that there were irregular behaviors during the IC process that led to some dismissals. Can you elaborate on this matter?

He Yi: Regarding the independence of Catizen's listing process from Labs, I want to clarify one point: the listing process of Catizen is completely independent of Labs. Specifically, during that period, Dana was on maternity leave, and when she returned, she found that Catizen had been submitted to the IC without her prior knowledge. When she checked the IC documents, she found that they were not properly written, and she had not been notified in a timely manner. During this process, the IC discussions were very rushed, and in fact, some IC members were absent. This is what is referred to as irregular operations during Catizen's listing process, but this is actually an internal event within Labs, not an overall event of Binance, as I am a shareholder of Labs and therefore aware of it.

Hook Co-founder Clarification on Dovey's Personal Relationship and Dovey's 2% Token Ownership as Hook Investor

Colin Wu: The second question is for the founder of Hook. Can you respond to whether there is a romantic relationship with Dovey, and what percentage of tokens Dovey holds in this project? Did she provide any assistance during the listing process on Binance?

Jason: Yes, I will respond directly. This question has been asked since the first day our project was listed. Dovey and I used to be in a previous romantic relationship, which many people in the industry know. For project parties, they certainly do not want the personal relationships of founders to become a frequently discussed PR topic, so we have not responded directly to this question.

The second point is about Dovey or Primitive's stake in the Hook project. Primitive is our first-round angel investor, holding about 2%. So, Dovey and Primitive together hold 2% of the tokens, and the entire release schedule is completely consistent with other investors, including Sequoia and Binance Labs' investment terms.

I also want to reiterate that our founding team at Hook consists of four members; we are not anyone's "front." The entire project's decisions are coordinated by us founders together.

Colin Wu: What specific assistance did she provide during this process, including regarding the listing?

Jason: The only help she provided us early on was introducing some of the earliest investors and helping us contact other investment institutions. However, during the entire listing process, Dovey was actually completely unaware. I remember that in the Binance Labs listing group, we were emphasized every day: "This matter cannot be disclosed to anyone." Including our other partners, they only found out on the day the listing announcement was made that our token had been listed.

Analysis of the Listing Decision Process, Voting and Approval Mechanism of IC Members

Colin Wu: Could you please introduce the listing decision process? For example, how many people vote, and whether anyone has veto power? I think if the overall process can be as transparent as possible within compliance, it should help the community understand better. Otherwise, people will speculate, which is counterproductive.

He Yi: Yes, I completely agree with Colin's point. First, let me introduce our listing framework. The KPIs mentioned earlier have been explained, so we have a research team specifically responsible for project screening. This team captures all the hot projects in the market through social media, on-chain data, and community discussions. As long as there are discussions and attention in the market, and the projects are under development, even if they do not have a TGE, we will investigate projects that have received significant VC investments. You can understand that we have a large database categorized by different industries, categories, and tracks to match the data of these projects.

The first key point is that we will screen through data. If we consider including a project in discussions, it must pass a series of analyses and evaluations. Although the amount of data involved in this process is enormous, our team conducts detailed investigations during the screening process and may pose questions to the project parties.

Therefore, during this process, occasional information leaks may occur. For example, if we inquire about 20 projects, only about 2 may formally enter the IC approval process. The second point is that when we believe a project is worth further discussion, for example, if it does not have serious security issues or data fraud, or although there are some flaws, the market heat is very high, and the user base is large, we will continue negotiations with the project parties.

In fact, I feel that the negotiation process is quite "aggressive." As a commercial institution, Binance's BD team, especially some colleagues, will indeed require project parties to make some concessions during negotiations, such as asking them to allocate tokens for airdrops or to participate in LaunchPool. In such cases, it may indeed put some pressure on project parties. However, many project parties are willing to accept such conditions, especially for token airdrops. If they believe the project is worth promoting, they are willing to list on Binance.

All these terms will ultimately enter the IC. During the IC process, there is a veto power. This means that any IC member has the right to veto a project. We will check for flaws in each project. For example, if the founder of the project has previously participated in failed projects, or if the project's tokens are highly concentrated, possibly concentrated in 30 addresses, we will search for this information. Although it seems that our screening mechanism is already very sound, this process has actually been gradually established through multiple iterations and improvements.

If you observe closely, you will find that many projects in the market have issues. But in reality, this is like the process of "pulling up the short" among the short. As a trading platform, if you do not participate, you will lose market share. For example, other platforms may have hundreds of tokens listed in a year, and if you do not participate, your market share will continue to decline. Therefore, the reason we ultimately define the listing KPI as the listing price on the first day, and then compare it with other trading platforms every quarter to assess the return on investment, is because this is the core basis for evaluating listing projects.

The so-called "percentage" refers to the percentage, for example, how much the token price has risen or fallen, thus calculating the ROI. In simple terms, the information submitted by many projects will be screened regularly, and we will also look at all VC projects that have received investments in the market, compiling a list. In this list, projects preparing for TGE or already trading in the market will be included in the data analysis, and only then will they enter the IC for deliberation.

You may find that if you follow this process, the speed of project listings is indeed relatively slow. By the time the project is actually listed, the token price has already been pushed up by market heat. So this is our current listing decision process. In this process, we have also tried to make some adjustments. For example, the attempt at "pre-market" aims to compress the price of newly listed projects to a more reasonable range, ensuring that the price trend is healthier. However, I believe this is not a very successful attempt; although there are some successful cases, there are also some failures.

Next is the situation with LaunchPool. As a relatively mature product, we feel that 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 parties is whether they are willing to allocate a certain percentage of tokens for airdrops.

Regarding the issue of listing fees, as mentioned in the article about the so-called "unfair terms" or Binance's "unfair terms," I believe that in the future, Binance may need to do is to be transparent from today onwards. Initially, Binance's listing fees were donated to charity, but later, for various reasons, this was suspended for a long time until we changed the listing team, and this fee was resumed.

I hope everyone understands that the listing fees charged by Binance are not a large number, but many times, they become the focus of people's doubts. Therefore, starting today, we will transparently indicate the destination of each listing fee. We will return all these fees to users and the community; the current mature model is through LaunchPool. In the future, whether it is consulting fees or other activity fees, we will clearly state the specific uses of these fees. For example, whether a certain token's airdrop is used in LaunchPool or for other activities. We will also provide reports to project parties, clarifying how these tokens are distributed.

In summary, I can guarantee that starting today, Binance's listing fees will truly become "zero."

Colin Wu: Platforms like Coinbase have also been sentenced for employee insider trading. I believe Binance has faced various issues over the past 8 years.

You just mentioned that nearly 60 employees have been dismissed for violations. Are there any particularly memorable violation cases, such as "mouse trading," insider trading, or bribery cases? If convenient, could you elaborate on whether they involve any specific project parties?

He Yi: Regarding employee misconduct, I think there are a few points that need clarification. First, Binance has strict restrictions on employee trading participation. Therefore, most of the violations we see are not structural issues like "mouse trading." More often, they involve accepting bribes or changing the company's receiving address to their own. Similar behaviors have led us to file lawsuits and report to the police, involving both domestic and international cases. Due to the privacy of these cases, especially since some lawsuits have not yet been formally adjudicated or the investigation process is still disputed, I may not be able to disclose specific names of employees before the legal procedures are completed. But I want to emphasize that Binance has always been serious about anti-corruption.

Whether Binance's Internal Investigations Consider Public Disclosure and the Possibility of Involving Third-Party Law Enforcement Agencies

Kuai Dong: Hello, I would like to ask He Yi, you just mentioned that Binance has conducted many internal investigations and addressed some issues. Among them, the "mouse trading" incident in 2021 was particularly impactful in the VC circle. However, historically, there have been several similar incidents, and people learned about them through internal news without seeing any public results from Binance. Is Binance considering learning from competitors like Coinbase and Tencent to disclose the final investigation results, penalties, and whether funds were returned? What are Binance's plans for handling these issues and follow-up actions? Thank you.

He Yi: Let me answer that first. Regarding this type of issue, we have several handling methods. The first is that if there is no direct evidence, it may be because the project leader has encountered problems, and we will also address that. In such cases, although the project has issues, the responsible person may not be able to explain the reasons clearly, but they must be held accountable for the problem.

The second point is about the 2021 incident; people may think it was some sort of team adjustment. In fact, the matter is quite simple. At that time, during the IC approval, a colleague hid the name of a certain shareholder. I believe this is a principled issue because if information is hidden, it indicates that we cannot confirm whether there are other problems. If this document has not been fully disclosed and the relevant team members have not disclosed it, those individuals will also be punished and eliminated.

During the investigation process, regarding insider trading or other benefit exchanges, we have not actually discovered any issues. We can only state that everyone needs to understand that during the investigation process, we cannot manage rumors. We can only investigate facts and cannot fabricate stories at will. For example, I might dislike a certain project for personal reasons and fabricate a story to influence the investigation. We always emphasize that when handling matters, we must rely on facts and not let rumors sway us. For instance, we investigate who is responsible for this project, what issues the project has, and relevant individuals may face corresponding consequences. This is the principle we currently follow in internal investigations.

Kuai Dong: Thank you. I actually have a follow-up question because many results come from Binance's internal investigations. Is there any consideration to involve third-party law enforcement agencies and jointly disclose investigation results with them? For example, Coinbase has disclosed cases in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice, ultimately prosecuting several internal employees. As a global enterprise, Binance has compliance departments in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, the U.S., and Singapore. Is there any consideration for future development in this direction, collaborating with third-party law enforcement agencies to disclose investigation results? Thank you.

He Yi: I actually mentioned this issue before, but perhaps it was not understood. As you know, Binance currently has two monitoring agencies. These monitoring agencies are actually U.S. financial companies responsible for supervising us. They directly interface with the U.S. Department of Justice and the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission). So you can understand that all our internal investigation reports are 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 U.S.

Therefore, all this information is actually reported to the U.S. Department of Justice. The reason why it is not made public mainly has the following considerations: First, in certain investigations, there are indeed uncertain doubts, so we choose to dismiss employees without further public handling. Second, if there is conclusive evidence during the investigation process, we will submit the case to the Department of Justice, entering formal law enforcement and litigation processes. Some of the cases I mentioned earlier have indeed entered the litigation stage. If we win the lawsuit, the relevant information may be made public, similar to how Coinbase discloses more information after the case is concluded, rather than at the beginning of the investigation or only when writing reports.

On the other hand, making this information public may be seen as negative news. Therefore, in the past, even if there were such cases, we did not publicly handle them. This is also our current practice.

Suggestions on Binance's Custodial Mechanism After Listing and Project Party Feedback Mechanism

Bring Bring Bring Bitcoin: Hello everyone, He Yi, I won't introduce myself. I am a retail trader. First, let me share my impressions, especially from the perspective of project parties. Because my communication with He Yi is from the perspective of secondary market retail investors, we operate in the secondary market, and there are many things in the primary market that we do not understand. After listening, I feel that much of what these project parties say is somewhat vague; to be honest, everyone is aware of this. Including earlier, He Yi interrupted one of the project parties several times; everyone is still quite clear about it. Why? Because from our perspective, we do not care about what school you graduated from, nor do we care about your AI boyfriend or AI girlfriend; we care about the token price, and we look at the K-line chart. If the token price drops by 90%, it doesn't matter what you say. From our perspective, we are not completely dismissing these project parties; there are also excellent project parties.

I want to ask, in situations like today, can Binance hold an AMA like this before each LaunchPool goes live, discussing the project party's plans and roadmap, to see if these project parties can fulfill their commitments? For example, whether the price trend develops as they promised? I think this could be a suggestion; is it feasible?

He Yi: This is very feasible. I think your suggestion is excellent. At least before going live, whether the project parties can fulfill their commitments should be showcased. If what these project parties say is not credible, then it is best for everyone not to buy, and even if they receive tokens, they should sell them quickly. I think this is indeed a very effective suggestion. I am considering whether all listed projects should periodically come out to face public scrutiny, especially those tokens that everyone feels have issues, should be brought out to respond to everyone's doubts.

Bring Bring Bring Bitcoin: Right, we won't mention the past; those tokens have already been listed. Today's AMA is actually to let everyone understand the interaction between Binance and project parties, especially how to supervise the performance of these projects after listing. In fact, everyone is more concerned about the future; retail investors care about whether Binance's listings can bring profit opportunities.

For example, some projects mentioned earlier, like ACT Punt, we did not criticize them. We only criticized our own mistakes. After we made money, the token price rose and then fell, which is our own business. No one blames Binance for the price drop. What we care about is that after Binance's listing, the price drops at every stage; that is what retail investors care about the most.

For instance, in 2022, GMT, although the price later dropped significantly, it indeed had a strong wealth effect and a strong upward process. Ultimately, someone must have made money, but no one would blame Binance for it. In 2021, every time we listed on Binance, everyone rushed to the opening, completely ignoring the fundamentals, only looking at the K-line chart, and buying directly.

Why? Because at that time, all tokens had a wealth effect, and there was a wave of upward movement. But now, after Binance's listing, the price drops directly, and project parties start selling out, turning the entire market into a "cutting leeks" situation. Binance needs to consider how to control the listing process of these projects, especially for strong supervision of project parties.

Retail investors are an important part of the exchange, and Binance has tens of millions of users behind it. Even innovative projects, project parties essentially want to make money through listings, and regardless of how excellent the project is, project parties will inevitably want to earn returns from their projects. Therefore, I believe Binance's supervision and control over project parties should be stronger.

So, it is very normal for Labs to control the FDV (Fully Diluted Valuation) of projects, and it should attempt to control this FDV. Another example is whether to consider no longer requiring project parties to pay listing fees but instead asking them to lock up 20% or even 30% of the tokens that may be unlocked in the next year with Binance? You could check whether the project parties meet the standards through quarterly assessments, and if they do, then these tokens could be unlocked. Is this a feasible plan?

I believe this idea is feasible; although I may not be mature enough, I think Binance's team can consider this. At the very least, it should maintain the rationality of token prices, allowing project parties to ensure that after listing on Binance, the token's trend can bring profit opportunities for retail investors. When buying in, it should not be wrong at every stage. We need to control the behavior of project parties to ensure that their projects are not just for making money. Binance should be stronger in its oversight of these project parties.

Just like the previous GMT project, although the price later dropped significantly, it indeed had a strong wealth effect and a strong upward process. In this case, Binance would not be blamed. Because there are always people making money in the market. Instead of criticizing Binance, it is better to benefit from the price increase. But now, the issue after Binance's listing is that the price drops significantly after going live, and this situation needs reflection. Binance needs to exert more pressure on project parties to ensure that these projects do not disappoint retail investors after listing.

I believe Binance's management can avoid these problems through stronger control. After all, retail investors are the core users of the exchange, and we are numerous. Binance can better manage project parties in this way, ensuring that their listings are not just for the benefit of project parties but also consider the needs of retail investors.

He Yi: Yes, thank you. What you said makes a lot of sense. Currently, I feel that the position of retail investors is very important, and Binance indeed stands on the side of retail investors. The current situation is that we find some project parties have not fulfilled their commitments after listing, directly leading to price drops. We realize that this situation has occurred and have tried some different solutions, but so far the results have not been ideal.

We need to find better ways to innovate and improve how to make listings fairer and more transparent without affecting the market. I also welcome everyone to brainstorm and provide better solutions. After all, the solutions from Binance employees may not directly perceive the problems like we retail investors do.

Regarding the control of listings, we did attempt to manage some projects through custodianship, but later found that this method was ineffective. There are now some new derivative financial services in the market that allow project parties to make choices in advance through OTC channels. As an exchange, Binance cannot directly influence token prices, as this would involve legal issues. But we can design some rules to require project parties to disclose more information, and everyone can understand the true situation of the projects through channels like AMAs.

For the subsequent new token listings, I suggest that everyone should not rush in; they should take time to understand the true intentions of the project parties. After all, the current listing KPIs determine Binance's listing of some popular projects, and these projects do not always continuously bring value. We also hope to improve the overall health of the market through more innovation.