AMA Summary: Yi He Addresses Allegations of Favoritism, Employee Misconduct, and Token Listing Controversies
In this 6-hour-long AMA, Binance Co-founder Yi He, along with Binance staff and project representatives, responded to recent criticism. Topics included internal governance, employee misconduct, and the management of token listing procedures. Below is a summary of the discussion, with key highlights from the AMA.
A podcast version, with select excerpts, is available here:
YouTube:
Spotify: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/7qfkmlvhrl8/episodes/AMA-e2uenvq
Twitter Space Replay: https://x.com/i/spaces/1OyKAZjeLpoGb
Employee Misconduct Investigations Over the Past Two Years: Dismissals and Recovery of $30 Million in Illegal Gains
Yi He:
Hello, everyone. This is Yi He from Binance’s Chinese-speaking community. It’s been a while since we last talked.
Starting yesterday, many PR professionals and friends in the crypto space suggested that I should avoid addressing this issue. They argued that, given the current negative market sentiment, anything I say would be criticized. Moreover, the article in question didn’t directly target me. Instead, people implied that I should just fire those involved and let the matter fade away. However, I believe in facing problems head-on. For years, I’ve maintained that no issue is off-limits for discussion. So, today, I want to engage with you all openly in this AMA, addressing both the article’s content and broader community concerns regarding Binance.
Let me first discuss the allegations mentioned in the article. One of the claims questioned whether Binance’s whistleblowing system was legitimate — had anyone actually reported misconduct? Were the cases handled fairly and transparently?
Here’s what I want everyone to know: Binance operates under the supervision of two U.S. law enforcement agencies. Over the past two years, our internal investigations team has conducted thorough probes into employee misconduct, including bribery, information leaks, and other violations. This department has handled over 120 cases in that time, leading to the dismissal of 60 employees.
These misconduct cases often aren’t the “collusion for profit” scenarios people imagine. Many are the result of unintentional mistakes made during routine work, such as failing to disclose personal ties (e.g., friendships or family connections) when working with vendors. Nonetheless, even such omissions can result in termination. Of course, there have also been more severe offenses that required stricter action.
So far, we’ve recovered more than $30 million in illicit gains. We currently have two ongoing lawsuits and additional cases where offenders are being pursued. You might wonder why we haven’t publicly disclosed these details. The main reason is that these reports are submitted to U.S. law enforcement and regulatory agencies, so we cannot release specific case details publicly.
When it comes to employees accessing user data without authorization, Binance has a zero-tolerance policy. Such actions result in warnings or, in severe cases, criminal prosecution. Our whistleblowing channels are always open, with rewards of up to $5 million for reporting corruption. Former employees involved in misconduct are blacklisted from joining any project or fund affiliated with Binance.
Clarifying the Independence of Binance Labs from Binance
Yi He:
Many colleagues and friends seem confused about Binance Labs, assuming it’s equivalent to Binance or that projects invested in by Labs automatically get listed on the Binance platform. However, if you look at Binance’s history, you’ll see that although Labs has invested in thousands of projects, only a small portion of them have been listed on Binance.
Since its inception, Labs has operated as an independent team within Binance. In fact, back in 2018, Labs and Binance’s listing team had numerous disagreements during the listing process. For example, Labs may have thought highly of certain projects that the listing team did not approve, or vice versa — some projects listed on Binance weren’t necessarily favored by Labs. This dynamic is part of Binance’s growth and evolution, with no direct benefit or conflict of interest for Labs in the listing process.
Reflecting on Binance’s Current Challenges
Yi He:
Of course, Binance has faced its share of challenges over the years. For example, many users feel that some of Binance’s products, particularly our Web3 wallet, haven’t kept up with the times and have lagged in development. This is a valid and important criticism. Over the past one to two years, we’ve devoted significant resources to compliance efforts, addressing historical gaps. As a result, our competitiveness in product innovation, especially with emerging products, has been affected.
However, a more pressing concern may be that listing on Binance no longer delivers the same wealth effects it once did. Internally, we’ve had many discussions on this topic. For many projects, listing on Binance has become their ultimate goal, akin to going public on Nasdaq. But how can we address this issue and restore the wealth effect for users?
Over the past year (or possibly last year), we introduced new initiatives such as MegaDrop and pre-market trading, but the results were underwhelming. If you compare this to the early days of LaunchPad, it had a strong wealth effect because LaunchPad provided clear pricing. When users subscribed to tokens during LaunchPad events, they knew the price in advance. However, with activities like LaunchPool, where tokens are distributed directly to users, the market determines the price, which leads to less predictability.
As I’ve mentioned before, Binance doesn’t directly control token prices. When markets open, price fluctuations are entirely out of our hands. Our role is to monitor the markets for unusual activity and report any issues to regulatory authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
This focus on compliance means that users may sometimes find their accounts frozen or receive requests for additional information during investigations. These measures are part of our regulatory obligations. We’ve invested heavily in compliance, possibly to an excessive degree, which has impacted our overall operations.
Token Listing Process and Criteria for Project Selection
Yi He:
In a free-market environment like the crypto industry, I’ve been reflecting on whether Binance’s “strict selection” mechanism is becoming outdated. In fact, last year, between New Year’s Day and the Lunar New Year, I initiated some reforms in our listing department. Historically, our listing department’s KPIs have been transparent, and I’d like to share a few key benchmarks we use to evaluate listings.
The first benchmark is straightforward. While we can’t directly influence a token’s price after listing, if the token is of good quality, its market performance should outperform the market average. To evaluate this, we calculate the token’s ROI by comparing its first-day average price to quarterly performance across other major CEX platforms. If our listed tokens outperform those on other exchanges, it indicates a strong listing selection. Conversely, if performance is poor, it may mean there were errors or biases in our selection process or issues with timing.
The second criterion is whether the project can bring innovation and attract new users to the industry. By “new users,” we mean users specifically brought in by the project itself, not influenced by other external market factors. For example, projects like Telegram’s mini-games introduced many new users to the blockchain space. However, whether these users become long-term participants in the crypto ecosystem or merely register on Binance without further engagement remains a key question. We aim to gauge whether these users can evolve into dedicated blockchain users over time.
The third factor involves high-profile projects with significant market buzz and valuations. Why would Binance still choose to list such projects? This decision is influenced by our third KPI, which looks at a project’s market performance on other major exchanges. If a high-profile project — particularly one with strong technological appeal and market hype — is not listed on Binance, we risk losing market share.
These three standards help us cover a broad range of projects, including highly popular “VC tokens,” projects with strong long-term potential, and even memecoins, which often generate significant hype and wealth effects.
Additionally, some projects aim to “break into new markets.” Regardless of their success, we hope they can bring fresh perspectives to the industry. For example, when StepN first launched, it introduced new concepts and innovations that reshaped the market landscape. While not every attempt succeeds, these initiatives encourage further exploration and growth.
As Binance continues to grow, the size of our team has expanded significantly. Unfortunately, this sometimes leads to slower response times, especially when it comes to security and data investigations. This delay has drawn criticism from the public and regular users, and we have listened to these concerns. We are actively reflecting on how to improve efficiency without compromising safety and compliance.
From 2014 to the present, the industry and user demographics have undergone significant changes. We are seeing more professional players entering the market, and both project teams and venture capital (VC) firms are adapting to these shifts. Initially, projects were largely funded through ICOs, but today, VC investment is dominant. However, many VCs have encountered challenges, particularly when investing at inflated valuations and struggling to exit their positions successfully.
Some projects have also signed agreements with market makers, who may borrow tokens to facilitate trading. While this can lead to lower token prices on the market, these tokens eventually return to the project team. Such scenarios are common. At the same time, stronger market makers compete with each other, driving continuous change and iteration in the market. This competition is becoming increasingly fierce and unforgiving.
Binance’s Strategy and Reflections During Market Downturns
Yi He:
I agree with one key point: if we fail to keep up with the changing times, we will ultimately be abandoned by users. In the end, users vote with their actions. That’s precisely why I’ve chosen to step forward and address these issues through this AMA during a market downturn.
If we don’t face problems head-on and work on improvements, burying our heads in the sand will only erode confidence in the entire industry. In this cycle, we’ve seen early, passionate entrepreneurs grow disillusioned, even going so far as to declare, “Blockchain is dead.” Some argue that over the past 10 years, blockchain has failed to generate real value. I wrote a long article yesterday explaining the independence between Binance and Labs to address some misconceptions.
Apart from emphasizing that Binance and Labs are two entirely separate teams and that Labs doesn’t exert as much influence over Binance as people think, I also want to make an appeal. I understand that ideals and passion don’t hold much weight — what most people care about is the wealth effect and making money. However, I still hope that some entrepreneurs, even when facing adversity, can maintain their vision, believing that blockchain technology can drive meaningful change.
Blockchain has the potential to transform industries in the same way BNB reshaped the landscape for trading platforms. It can revolutionize sectors like gaming, social networking, and more. We’ve all grown up in a more open and free era, so why not use emerging technologies and ideas to disrupt rigid industries, create better models of wealth distribution, and improve entrepreneurship? Ultimately, it all comes down to one fundamental question: are you creating real value? If Binance cannot continuously deliver value to users, then it’s inevitable that users will leave us behind.
I realize I may be talking too much, which could interfere with the flow of this AMA. So, let’s continue by discussing some of the issues raised in the article, such as accusations of employees engaging in unethical practices.
Over the years, I’ve often been underestimated because I’m a woman. People have questioned how I earned a seat at the table, with some assuming that I’m merely a “figurehead” or that I obtained my position through illegitimate means. But in reality, when you stand by your principles, you inevitably disrupt others’ interests.
This world is driven by incentives. Wherever there are profits, there will be competition and conflict. This is true for Binance and its employees. We do not tolerate corruption, and there’s no need for employees to engage in so-called “managing upward.” Corruption is met with zero tolerance. Moving forward, I will ensure that those implicated in these allegations — whether they are employees or external project partners — step forward and provide an explanation to the community.
Employee Misconduct and Dismissal During Catizen Listing
Colin Wu:
I’d like to follow up on a few questions that weren’t fully answered earlier. First, regarding Catizen, you mentioned that there were irregularities during the token listing process, which led to an employee being dismissed. Could you elaborate on what happened?
Yi He:
Regarding the Catizen listing and its independence from Labs, I’d like to clarify that Catizen’s listing process was entirely separate from Labs. At the time, Dana (a Labs member) was on maternity leave. When she returned, she discovered that Catizen had been brought into the internal committee (IC) without her prior knowledge. Upon reviewing the IC documentation, she found that it was poorly prepared and that she had not been properly informed.
The IC discussions were rushed, with some members absent from key meetings. These procedural lapses caused the irregularities during the Catizen listing, but this was an internal Labs issue, not a Binance-wide problem. Since I’m a shareholder of Labs, I was aware of the situation.
Hook Project: Founder’s Personal Relationship and Token Distribution
Colin Wu:
Next, I’d like to ask the founder of Hook to address whether there’s a personal relationship between him and Dovey, and how much of the project’s token allocation she holds. Did she provide any assistance in the listing process on Binance?
Jason:
Sure, I’ll address that directly. This question has been circulating since the day our project launched. Dovey and I used to be in a relationship — we were exes, and many people in the industry are aware of this. From a project standpoint, it’s not ideal for the founder’s personal life to become a recurring PR topic, which is why we haven’t addressed it publicly until now.
As for Dovey and Primitive’s stake in the Hook project, Primitive was an early angel investor in our first funding round, holding about 2% of the tokens. Both Dovey and Primitive collectively hold 2%, with the vesting schedule fully aligned with other investors, including Sequoia and Binance Labs.
I also want to emphasize that our founding team consists of four people, and we are not anyone’s “proxy” or puppet. All major project decisions were made collectively by the founding team.
Colin Wu:
Can you clarify what specific assistance Dovey provided during the project’s development, particularly regarding the token listing process?
Jason:
The only support Dovey provided early on was introducing us to a few initial investors and helping us connect with other investment institutions. However, she had no involvement in the listing process. I recall that during the Binance Labs listing discussions, we were reminded daily, “This must not be disclosed to anyone.” Even our other partners only found out about the listing on the day the public announcement was made.
Explanation of the Token Listing Decision Process: IC Members’ Voting and Approval Mechanism
Colin Wu:
Could you explain the decision-making process for token listings? For example, how many people are involved in voting, and does anyone have veto power? I believe that making the process as transparent as possible within regulatory limits would help the community understand it better and reduce speculation.
Yi He:
I completely agree with Colin’s point. Let me walk you through our token listing framework. I’ve already touched on the KPI aspect, so I’ll focus on the selection process. We have a research team responsible for identifying and evaluating projects. They monitor trends by analyzing social media, on-chain data, and community discussions to track all projects generating buzz in the market. Whether a project has launched its TGE or not, as long as it’s gaining traction and has VC backing, it will enter our investigation pipeline. We maintain a large database where projects are categorized by sector and track to help with data matching.
The first step is data-driven screening. If a project is considered for further discussion, it must undergo extensive analysis and evaluation. This process involves a detailed investigation, including outreach to project teams with various questions.
However, this can occasionally lead to information leaks. For instance, if we assess 20 projects, only 2 may ultimately make it to the IC for formal approval. Once a project clears initial screening — meaning there are no severe security risks or data irregularities, or even if it has minor flaws but significant market demand — we move forward with negotiations.
The negotiation phase can be quite “aggressive.” Binance’s business development (BD) team, particularly certain colleagues, may push projects to make concessions, such as allocating tokens for airdrops or participating in LaunchPool. While this can create pressure for some projects, many are willing to agree, especially regarding airdrops, if they believe listing on Binance is worthwhile.
These final terms are presented to the IC. During the IC process, every member has veto power, meaning any IC member can reject a project. We thoroughly review each project’s potential issues, such as whether the founders have a history of failed projects or if the token supply is excessively concentrated (e.g., held by only 30 wallets). While our screening mechanism is quite robust, it has been built through continuous iterations and improvements.
If you observe the market, you’ll notice that many projects have inherent risks. Selecting projects is often a matter of finding the best among many imperfect options. As a trading platform, if you don’t participate in listing competitive projects, you risk losing market share. For example, if other platforms list hundreds of tokens each year and you don’t keep pace, your share of the market will shrink. This is why we benchmark our listing KPIs by analyzing first-day price performance and then conducting quarterly ROI comparisons with other exchanges.
ROI is calculated as a percentage — measuring how much a token’s price has risen or fallen after listing. Our team periodically screens market data and compiles a list of VC-backed projects, including those preparing for TGE or already trading on the market. These projects undergo data analysis before being submitted for IC review.
This process can slow down the pace of listings. By the time a project is listed, market hype may have already driven up its token price. We’ve experimented with pre-market initiatives to moderate initial prices and ensure healthier price trends, though the results have been mixed.
Regarding LaunchPool, it’s a more established product with generally positive token performance. However, since LaunchPool involves distributing tokens to users, we cannot control their market price. Our only point of negotiation with project teams is whether they’re willing to allocate a portion of tokens for airdrops.
As for listing fees, there have been accusations about Binance’s “unfair terms.” I believe that from now on, Binance must operate with full transparency. Initially, our listing fees were donated to charity, but due to various reasons, we paused this practice for a long time. It wasn’t until we reorganized the listing team that we resumed charging fees.
I want everyone to understand that Binance’s listing fees are not particularly high, but they have often become a point of contention. Starting today, we will clearly disclose the use of all listing fees. These fees will be fully returned to users and the community, primarily through initiatives like LaunchPool. Moving forward, whether it’s advisory fees or other expenses, we will provide detailed reports on how these funds are allocated — for instance, specifying whether a token’s airdrop is used for LaunchPool or other activities. We will also give project teams clear reports outlining how their tokens are distributed.
To summarize, I can assure you that from today onward, Binance’s listing fees will effectively be reduced to zero.
Addressing Employee Misconduct: Cases of Insider Trading and Corruption
Colin Wu:
Platforms like Coinbase have seen employees convicted for insider trading. I believe that during Binance’s eight years of operations, you must have encountered various issues as well.
You mentioned earlier that nearly 60 employees have been dismissed for violations. Are there any particular cases that left a strong impression on you? For example, incidents involving “front-running,” insider trading, or bribery? If possible, could you share more details, perhaps about whether any of these cases involved project teams?
Yi He:
Regarding employee misconduct, there are a few clarifications I’d like to make. First, Binance imposes strict restrictions on employees engaging in trading activities. As a result, most of the violations we’ve encountered haven’t been structural issues like front-running. Instead, the more common cases involve things like accepting bribes or changing the company’s designated wallet address to a personal one.
We have pursued legal action and filed reports for such cases, which involve both domestic and international jurisdictions. Due to privacy concerns, especially for ongoing investigations and unresolved legal disputes, I can’t disclose the names of the employees involved. However, I want to emphasize that Binance takes anti-corruption efforts very seriously.
Internal Investigations and Transparency: Involving External Authorities
Kuai Dong:
Hi, Yi He. You mentioned earlier that Binance has conducted many internal investigations and handled various issues. One of the most significant cases I remember was the “front-running” incident in 2021, which caused quite a stir in the VC community. However, similar incidents have occurred before, and the community has only learned about them through internal leaks. Binance hasn’t publicly disclosed the investigation results or any disciplinary actions taken.
Do you plan to adopt the practices of competitors like Coinbase or Tencent by publishing final reports, including investigation findings, penalties, and details about fund recovery? Also, what are Binance’s plans for handling these issues going forward?
Yi He:
Let me address that. We have several approaches to handling such matters.
First, if there’s no direct evidence but a project overseen by a responsible team member encounters issues, we still take action. Even if the individual can’t fully explain what went wrong, they remain accountable for the problem.
Second, regarding the 2021 incident, many may have perceived it as a team reshuffle. In reality, it was a straightforward case. During IC review, an employee concealed the identity of a shareholder. This is a matter of principle — when critical information is hidden, it prevents us from verifying whether further issues are involved. If documentation is incomplete and team members fail to disclose relevant information, they face consequences and may be removed.
During investigations into insider trading or other conflicts of interest, we found no substantial evidence of wrongdoing. It’s crucial to understand that we base investigations on facts, not rumors. We cannot allow personal biases to influence these processes. For example, I may dislike a project for personal reasons, but fabricating a narrative to undermine the investigation is unacceptable. Our guiding principle is to handle matters factually. We investigate who was responsible for the project, what problems arose, and ensure that anyone implicated faces appropriate consequences. This fact-based approach remains central to our internal investigations.
Kuai Dong:
Thank you. I have a follow-up question. Since many of these investigation results come from Binance’s internal process, would you consider involving third-party authorities and collaborating with them to publicly disclose findings? For example, Coinbase worked with the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute internal employees and later published the case details. Binance operates globally, with compliance departments in places like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, the U.S., and Singapore. Is there a plan to partner with external authorities and disclose investigation results in the future?
Yi He:
I’ve actually addressed this before, though perhaps it wasn’t fully understood. Binance currently works under the supervision of two U.S.-based monitoring agencies. These agencies are financial oversight firms that report directly to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). All of our internal investigation reports are submitted to these agencies as well as other U.S. enforcement bodies.
In essence, the information is already being shared with U.S. authorities, though it hasn’t been made public. There are several reasons for this. First, in some investigations, there are unresolved doubts, which may lead to an employee’s dismissal without further public disclosure. Second, when solid evidence is found, the case is submitted to the DOJ and proceeds to formal legal action. Some of the cases I mentioned earlier have already entered litigation. Similar to Coinbase, more information may be disclosed once these cases are concluded, rather than during the early stages of the investigation.
Another reason is that publicly disclosing these matters could be perceived as negative press. In the past, even when such cases occurred, we chose not to make them public. This has been our approach so far.
Suggestions on Token Custody and Project Accountability After Launch
daidaibtc:
Hi everyone, and hi Yi He. I won’t introduce myself — I’m just a retail crypto investor. I’d like to share my impressions after listening to today’s discussion, particularly from the perspective of project teams. Since my conversations with Yi He have been from a secondary market perspective, I don’t have much insight into primary market operations.
To be honest, a lot of what these project teams say feels vague, and I think we all know that. For example, Yi He interrupted one of the project teams earlier, which made it clear that everyone understands the real situation. Why? Because for us retail investors, we don’t care which university you graduated from, or about your AI girlfriend or boyfriend. We care about the price of the token — we watch the price charts. If the token has dropped 90%, no explanation matters. That said, we’re not entirely dismissing project teams — there are certainly some good ones.
My question is: could Binance organize an AMA like this for each LaunchPool project before it goes live? The project teams could discuss their plans and roadmaps, and we could evaluate whether they can deliver on their promises. For example, will the token’s price performance align with their commitments? I think this could be a valuable approach. Is it feasible?
Yi He:
That’s absolutely feasible — I think your suggestion is excellent. At the very least, project teams should demonstrate their ability to fulfill their promises before launch. If they make unreliable claims, users should be fully informed so they can choose not to invest — or sell any tokens they receive as quickly as possible.
This is indeed a very effective proposal. I’m also considering whether all listed projects should periodically come forward for public scrutiny. In particular, projects that the community finds problematic could be brought out each month to address users’ concerns and answer questions.
Retail Investors’ Concerns on Post-Listing Price Performance and Project Accountability
daidaibtc:
Right, let’s not dwell on past events — those tokens have already been listed. The purpose of today’s AMA is to shed light on how Binance interacts with project teams, particularly in regulating their performance after listing. What we retail investors care about is whether Binance’s listings can still create opportunities for profit.
For example, Yi He mentioned certain projects like ACT Punt. We’re not here to criticize it. When we criticize, we’re really just reflecting on our own mistakes. If we made money, saw a price surge, and then a decline, that’s on us. No one is blaming Binance for those price drops. What we do care about is when token prices start dropping at every stage after listing — that’s the real concern for retail investors.
Take GMT in 2022. Although the price eventually dropped significantly, it initially generated a strong wealth effect with notable upward momentum. People made money, and no one blamed Binance for it. In 2021, whenever a new token was listed on Binance, we all jumped in at launch, disregarding fundamentals and focusing purely on the price chart.
Why? Because back then, every token had a wealth effect, with an initial price surge. Now, however, tokens often drop immediately after listing. Project teams sell off their holdings, and the market turns into a “rug-pull” scenario. Binance needs to exert stronger control over the listing process, especially in terms of regulating project teams.
Retail traders form a crucial part of the exchange’s user base, with millions of users behind Binance. Even for innovative projects, project teams ultimately aim to make money through token listings. No matter how great the project may be, the team still seeks returns. Therefore, Binance should adopt stricter oversight and control over these teams.
For example, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for Binance Labs to manage a project’s FDV (fully diluted valuation) and try to limit it. Additionally, why not replace listing fees with a requirement for project teams to lock up 20% or 30% of their tokens on Binance for a year? You could implement a quarterly review to assess whether the project has met its goals. If it has, the locked tokens could then be released. Would that be a viable approach?
I think it’s a feasible idea, though perhaps still underdeveloped. Binance’s team should consider it. At the very least, Binance should ensure reasonable token price performance post-listing, giving retail investors a fair chance to profit. We need to manage project teams to ensure their goals aren’t solely focused on immediate profits. Binance should be more assertive in regulating these teams.
For example, despite GMT’s later price decline, it initially created significant wealth and strong upward momentum. In such cases, Binance won’t be criticized, because people make money. Instead of blaming Binance, users benefit from price increases. However, the current issue is that prices often crash right after listing. This requires reflection. Binance needs to put more pressure on project teams to prevent post-listing disappointments for retail investors.
Binance’s management should take stronger measures to avoid these problems. Retail investors are a core part of the platform, and with such a large user base, Binance can better regulate project teams to ensure listings aren’t solely for the projects’ benefit but also address user needs.
Yi He:
Thank you, you’ve made some excellent points. I completely agree that the retail investor perspective is critical, and Binance has always stood by retail traders. The reality is that some project teams fail to deliver on their promises after listing, causing token prices to plummet. We’ve seen this happen and have tried various solutions, though with limited success so far.
We need to find better ways to innovate and improve — ways that enhance the fairness and transparency of the listing process without disrupting the market. I welcome everyone’s input to help us devise better strategies. After all, Binance employees may not have the same firsthand insights as retail investors when it comes to market realities.
Regarding listing control, we have previously experimented with token custody arrangements for some projects, but this approach proved ineffective. Some projects have started using newer financial services and OTC channels to make early moves that are beyond Binance’s direct control. As an exchange, Binance cannot legally intervene in token pricing. However, we can implement rules that require project teams to disclose more information. Through tools like AMAs, users can better understand the projects’ true intentions.
For upcoming token listings, I encourage users not to rush in blindly. Take the time to research and understand the project teams’ goals. Currently, our listing KPIs prioritize popular projects, but these may not always provide lasting value. We aim to introduce more innovations to improve the overall health of the market.
Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish