PANews, October 15 - According to the official announcement from Binance, the platform does not profit from the listing process, and all project party token allocations will be used 100% for user incentive activities, such as Alpha Airdrop, Launchpool, Holdings Airdrop, trading competitions, etc. Project parties must pay a refundable Margin to protect user interests and constrain the project’s subsequent operational performance. Once the commitments are fulfilled, the Margin will be refunded in full. Binance emphasizes that its core revenue model is trading fees rather than listing fees. Currently, 217 projects have joined the Alpha program, with 103 contracts launched and 36 Spot launched. Binance also apologized for the earlier customer service response controversy, stating that the communication method was inappropriate and will strengthen communication with the community.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
Detailed Explanation of Binance's Listing Process: No profits are made from the listing process; all project airdrops belong to users.
PANews, October 15 - According to the official announcement from Binance, the platform does not profit from the listing process, and all project party token allocations will be used 100% for user incentive activities, such as Alpha Airdrop, Launchpool, Holdings Airdrop, trading competitions, etc. Project parties must pay a refundable Margin to protect user interests and constrain the project’s subsequent operational performance. Once the commitments are fulfilled, the Margin will be refunded in full. Binance emphasizes that its core revenue model is trading fees rather than listing fees. Currently, 217 projects have joined the Alpha program, with 103 contracts launched and 36 Spot launched. Binance also apologized for the earlier customer service response controversy, stating that the communication method was inappropriate and will strengthen communication with the community.