-
Binance’s implementation of community-driven token listing and delisting initiatives has sparked discussions around potential biases favoring BNB Chain projects.
-
This focus raises critical questions about Binance’s token management strategies, especially as the majority of tokens in the “Vote to Delist” belong to Ethereum-based ecosystems.
-
According to a recent COINOTAG report, Binance’s marketing team claimed the new voting mechanisms are “designed to empower users,” but scrutiny continues regarding their implications for blockchain fairness.
Explore Binance’s new “Vote to List” and “Vote to Delist” features amid allegations of favoritism towards BNB Chain projects in the crypto landscape.
BNB Chain Projects Dominate “Vote to List”
On March 20, 2025, Binance kicked off the first batch of “Vote to List.” Following this announcement, multiple new BNB Chain tokens, including Broccoli, KOMA, and BANANAS31, secured their listings on the world’s largest exchange.
This initiative echoes Binance’s earlier vote for the community to decide whether to list Pi Network’s Pi Coin, setting a precedent for user participation in token management.
However, a day later, on March 21, 2025, Binance made headlines again by introducing “Vote to Delist.” The first 21 tokens selected for potential delisting were JASMY, ZEC, FTT, ELF, SNT, STPT, BAL, ARK, GPS, MBL, PROS, CTXC, HARD, BETA, CREAM, FIRO, VIDT, NULS, TROY, ALPACA, and UFT.
These events underscore Binance’s ambition to empower its community. However, they prompt a critical question: Is there inherent bias in how Binance manages its token portfolio? While BNB Chain tokens proliferate under the listing votes, the delisting process raises concerns about fairness for projects from other blockchains.
“Vote to Delist”: Is Binance Favoring Its Ecosystem?
Intriguingly, only ALPACA belongs to the BNB Chain among the 21 tokens targeted for delisting. The remaining tokens represent Ethereum, Base, and other blockchain ecosystems, each flagged with a “Monitoring Tag” for low liquidity, insufficient team updates, or minimal community engagement.
This stark contrast between “Vote to List” and “Vote to Delist” surfaces a noticeable trend. It suggests a lack of balance in blockchain representation, potentially indicating a preference for BNB Chain in listings while systematically addressing the removal of external projects.
Despite Binance’s commitment to inclusive listing criteria—considering factors like liquidity, project development, and community activity—tokens outside the BNB Chain ecosystem frequently struggle to compete against the natural advantages that BNB Chain projects hold.
While Binance’s “Vote to List” and “Vote to Delist” mechanisms represent meaningful strides towards community involvement and self-governance, the existing disparity in blockchain representation cultivates apprehension regarding impartiality in token management processes.
At present, Binance describes these initiatives as trial efforts. It remains to be seen whether modifications will be implemented to cultivate a more equitable environment or if BNB Chain will maintain its favored status on the platform.
Conclusion
The growing discourse surrounding Binance’s “Vote to List” and “Vote to Delist” mechanisms speaks volumes about the need for balanced representation in the crypto space. As community-driven initiatives evolve, transparency will be pivotal in ensuring all blockchain projects have equal opportunities on major exchanges.
