I only represent my personal views regarding the suggestion and reference for Binance's voting delisting mechanism, drawing on the ticket refund mechanism of the US stock market. This is for discussion purposes only, and I welcome criticism and corrections! @binance @cz_binance @heyibinance

First of all, it is certain that the original intention of Binance's voting delisting mechanism is good, as it listens to the voices and ideas of the community, enhancing transparency and community governance. However, the current execution method may exacerbate market short-sightedness and even harm quality projects. In contrast, the delisting system of the US stock market maintains market health while providing companies with reasonable opportunities for rectification to avoid long-term damage from irrational decisions.

If Binance truly wishes to achieve a fair, just, and transparent governance mechanism, it may consider borrowing from the delisting system of traditional financial markets by introducing a rectification window period, establishing a multi-dimensional evaluation system, and granting supervisory authority to the governance committee. This would ensure that the voting mechanism protects investors while not becoming a tool for the outpouring of market sentiment.

I believe that true community governance is not simply about voting to eliminate projects, but about empowering quality projects to grow and promoting the long-term healthy development of the market.

1️⃣ Introduce a "rectification window period" to avoid emotional delisting

We can learn from the US stock market by providing a grace period (e.g., 30-90 days) for projects voted for delisting, during which the project party can propose a remediation plan, such as:

• Buyback plan: The project party commits to repurchasing a portion of the tokens to restore market confidence.

• Governance optimization: Enhance transparency and submit detailed improvement measures to the community.

• Re-evaluation: If the project successfully rectifies within the deadline, it can avoid delisting.

2️⃣ Establish a multi-dimensional delisting evaluation system

Relying solely on voting may be influenced by market sentiment; therefore, we can combine multi-dimensional evaluation criteria, such as:

• Project fundamentals (technical capabilities, team status, market application, etc.)

• Compliance (whether there are fraudulent or rule-violating behaviors)

• User interest protection (whether there are compensation or rectification plans)

Only truly problematic projects should be delisted, rather than making blanket decisions based on voting results.

3️⃣ Grant the "governance committee" supervisory authority to avoid blind voting

A community governance committee can be established, composed of representatives from exchanges, investors, project parties, etc., to conduct final reviews of projects voted for delisting, preventing short-term sentiment from affecting long-term decisions. This is similar to the hearing mechanism of the US Securities Exchange, ensuring the fairness and rationality of delisting decisions.

4️⃣ Provide a "complaint" mechanism for project parties

A complaint channel can be established, allowing projects voted for delisting to submit detailed complaint materials to prove their continued value. If the complaint is successful, the project can enter an observation period and continue to undergo market testing.

The above views only represent my personal opinions and suggestions. I feel very regretful about @GoPlusSecurity ($GPS) encountering the delisting vote process. I hope for careful consideration; if bad projects drive out good ones, it will greatly affect the confidence of many project parties and reduce the willingness for industry innovation. When the market's tolerance for error decreases, it will also exacerbate speculative tendencies and weaken market stability. First of all, it is certain that #GoPlus is a good application (setting aside the market maker issues and buyback realization issues) and has made certain contributions to the security of the Web3 industry. Additionally, for many investors (including ourselves), delisting does not truly solve the problem; rather, it may cause the project to completely lose liquidity, exacerbating user asset losses. This could lead to a mechanism that was originally well-intentioned deviating from its original purpose! I hope for careful consideration!

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。