[2018-08-14] Binance Denies 400 BTC Listing Quote

[ruthbabe]

News.Bitcoin.com feature ‘Cryptowhispers’ reported on what has turned from rumor to an all-out verbal war between two well-known figures in the cryptoverse. It began last week when Christopher Franko, co-founder of the Expanse project, took to Twitter and accused popular exchange Binance of quoting 400 bitcoin to list a token. The exchange’s head, Changpeng Zhao, has since responded rather personally to Mr. Franko, and, well, all hell has broken out. Read more, https://news.bitcoin.com/binance-denies-400-btc-listing-quote-accuser-responds-you-are-a-fking-liar/

Which side do you believe? Let us know your thoughts below.

[1714065936]

1714065936

[vit05]

I believe CZ said there is no price list, but I believe it could charge such a value for risky projects. While projects that prove to be safe and future and demand could be listed for free. Now, that power that certain exchanges have is something very bad for decentralization. Even more so in projects that have PoS. We need decentralized alternatives right away. That offer quality, speed, and anonymity for traders.

[bbc.reporter]

@ruthbabe. The Expanse cofounder is exaggerating, I reckon. But I heard Binance's listing fee is one of the highest among all exchanges in the cryptospace, when a member of the Aeon community inquired for a listing in the exchange.

[Mallyx]

I don't know if Binance asking a payment under the table to list a coin. But 400BTC is just too high to be true, or it was a joke..

[Posteruma]

when I read 400 BTC then it became to unbelievable.

[1Referee]

when I read 400 BTC then it became to unbelievable.

It's really not.

The ICO hype inflated exchange listing prices because every project used its raised coins or tokens to pay for the listing. It's free money in the end so they don't care whether they end up paying 400 or 1000BTC because ICO's raised hundreds of millions without doing any effort. Now the ICO hype is bottoming out, the wealth generated by projects has gone down, and so do exchange listing prices. Low demand = low price.

People shouldn't forget that the only reason most of the ICO's gained value is because of how people are able to trade it. If you can't trade your tokens, you pretty much hold worthless tokens in projects not being more than an idea or promise.

At the end of the day, Binance is a business and needs to generate profit. If I was Binance I would ask at least 1000BTC for every token listing, or else you won't be able to benefit from the liqiudity on my exchange. Binance's main asset is its liquidity, and projects are willing to pay for it as long as they have sufficient funds.

[bbc.reporter]

@1Referee. What were the ICOs that were known to pay the 400 bitcoin fee on Binance? I reckon they were asking for 20 bitcoins when someone from the Aeon community inquired about cryptocoin listings.

Also, 400 - 1000 bitcoins might be an exaggeration. It would be impossible for Binance to list anything if that was their asking price hehehe.

[1BTC EQUALS 1CAR]

@1Referee. What were the ICOs that were known to pay the 400 bitcoin fee on Binance? I reckon they were asking for 20 bitcoins when someone from the Aeon community inquired about cryptocoin listings.

Also, 400 - 1000 bitcoins might be an exaggeration. It would be impossible for Binance to list anything if that was their asking price hehehe.

Maybe the co-founder was just harassing CZ because they could not not get list their token in the exchange. Maybe this Franco guy threatened Binance to let them in or else and then this happened. Binance don't need 400 btc because they can easily get that with their daily volume of traders.

[1Referee]

@1Referee. What were the ICOs that were known to pay the 400 bitcoin fee on Binance? I reckon they were asking for 20 bitcoins when someone from the Aeon community inquired about cryptocoin listings.

Also, 400 - 1000 bitcoins might be an exaggeration. It would be impossible for Binance to list anything if that was their asking price hehehe.

I didn't say any ICO actually paid that. I just said they don't care to pay these figures with how ridiculously much capital they raised with their ICO.

Binance don't need 400 btc because they can easily get that with their daily volume of traders.

Who are you to say that they don't need it? It's like saying Apple generates $100 billion in profits per year and they don't need to increase their profits any longer.  

Businesses are in to see increasing revenue and profit streams, and not to turn down potential ways to make money.

Important point you guys seem to discard is that Binance only *unofficially* asks for these crazy fees to hedge the risk of seeing ICO's dump on innocent traders and then blatantly withdraw Bitcoin. In case that happens, Binance can minimize or even prevent getting burned by using the coins they obtained by fees to fill up the gap.

[Betwrong]

I think Changpeng Zhao is saying the truth. I'm sure if they like a coin(meaning that it is not a sh*tcoin) they list it without any fee. They are very good at doing their job and that's why they have over $1 billion daily trading volume, which gives them good profits. I don't rule out that they might jokingly say, "pay 400 BTC and we will list your coin", but only jokingly, because you can't expect anyone paying such a price (over $2.5 million as of today) for a listing.

[gentlemand]

I think Changpeng Zhao is saying the truth. I'm sure if they like a coin(meaning that it is not a sh*tcoin) they list it without any fee. They are very good at doing their job and that's why they have over $1 billion daily trading volume, which gives them good profits. I don't rule out that they might jokingly say, "pay 400 BTC and we will list your coin", but only jokingly, because you can't expect anyone paying such a price (over $2.5 million as of today) for a listing.

Listing on a non shit exchange can be the difference between success and oblivion.

I presume every cost is on a case by case basis. Some they'll be losing money on by not listing as there's demand already so they won't charge, if Binance are the creators of the demand by listing it then they may as well get what they can upfront. They only exist to make money for themselves.

Putting your shitcoin in front of an audience is the hardest thing to achieve. Since Binance is a turnkey answer to that they can demand plenty for it.

[buwaytress]

@1Referee: right on. Right now, other than Bitcoin and a really, really small handful of alts, every other coin/token is not being used other than for speculative trading.

Even if you count tokens and alts being used for payments, or for gambling... Bitcoin is typically the choice currency, with alts providing mere alternatives. Yes I get that more and more Ether is now being used for smart contract and dapps, but really, beyond crypto Kitty clones, who's really using a dapp in their life every day?

So until people start using crypto other than Bitcoin, there's no other way to put up tx #s other than to have them traded. So listing and liquidity that comes with that. Oh that's worth a lot of money.

@1Referee. What were the ICOs that were known to pay the 400 bitcoin fee on Binance? I reckon they were asking for 20 bitcoins when someone from the Aeon community inquired about cryptocoin listings.

Also, 400 - 1000 bitcoins might be an exaggeration. It would be impossible for Binance to list anything if that was their asking price hehehe.

I agree it's an exaggeration. But CZ himself has claimed to be offered $2-3 mill for listing so they know the price tag. Coinbase has reportedly named a price in the millions for listing and it's nowhere as big as Binance. BTC 400 sounds about right in the region of 2 to 3M.

Let's take HitBTC's known fee of 520+ ETH (that was worth close to $350,000 at the time) for KRM listing.  Simple extrapolation... HitBTC has less than a quarter of Binance's volume and it can charge that much for a pretty much unknown token (that could afford to pay too).

20 Bitcoins for a listing? I know they know they can charge a lot more.

[Nebula Crook]

Instead of paying for listing on Binance, its better to spend money to get listed on smaller exchanges. Spend money to build your community over there and then utilise them to climb the ladder of binance. Safe and secure.

[cryptofonia]

I believe CZ said there is no price list, but I believe it could charge such a value for risky projects. While projects that prove to be safe and future and demand could be listed for free. Now, that power that certain exchanges have is something very bad for decentralization. Even more so in projects that have PoS. We need decentralized alternatives right away. That offer quality, speed, and anonymity for traders.

you're right, and so  Binance Denies 400 BTC Listing Quote titel is misleading one since CZ may probably charge more than 400 BTC for listing if a project is very risky.

[veleten]

I don't know if Binance asking a payment under the table to list a coin. But 400BTC is just too high to be true, or it was a joke..

why is it too high?
listing on an exchange such as Binance means that the coin is instantly gaining volumes and becomes popular
if you set the listing fee too low you lose the "elite" lister status and become Yobit that lists any and every shitcoin for a couple of millions of satoshi
400 BTC to you and me is an  astronomical figure,but for the coin creators it is adequate (to some extent,of course)

[TraderTimm]

Can we please stop promoting Ver's camped dot com domain?

Are you really that lazy that you can't find this story on ANY OTHER FUCKING website?

https://www.ccn.com/binance-argues-it-does-not-charge-400-bitcoin-for-listing-ceo-clarifies/

Took me 5 seconds. Fucking enablers.

[aso118]

I do believe that Bitcoin charges to get coins listed. They are not very public about the listing fee as well. They may claim to have listed ETH/NEO/XRP without fees. But these are very big coins and it would be Binance's loss if they don't list them. I am sure that they try to extort as much as possible where smaller coins are concerned.

[Quidat]

News.Bitcoin.com feature ‘Cryptowhispers’ reported on what has turned from rumor to an all-out verbal war between two well-known figures in the cryptoverse. It began last week when Christopher Franko, co-founder of the Expanse project, took to Twitter and accused popular exchange Binance of quoting 400 bitcoin to list a token. The exchange’s head, Changpeng Zhao, has since responded rather personally to Mr. Franko, and, well, all hell has broken out. Read more, https://news.bitcoin.com/binance-denies-400-btc-listing-quote-accuser-responds-you-are-a-fking-liar/

Which side do you believe? Let us know your thoughts below.

Actually exaggerated to have those words about that 400 BTC listing fee of Binance because if this would be the case then we wont really see any coins listed due to those ridiculous fee. I can eve see some ICO's do struggle on accumulating Millions of usd in their sale and that fee alone wont really be sufficient. Therefore, I do still believe on Binance CEO's words. Projects can really be listed for free if they do really have
that good product or project. They might have fee but wont that really high which is considerable.

[dreamhouse]

These exchanges become crazy, they used bots to raise their trading volumes and charge huge amount for their own profits. It's like scams similar to ICOs. Look at the top 20 or 30 how many are new names, many from China, they are good at cheating.