Author: Fairy, ChainCatcher

Editor: TB, ChainCatcher

Recently, Binance launched the "Voting to List" and "Voting to Delist" mechanisms, attempting to give the community greater decision-making power and activate market vitality. However, this mechanism is like a double-edged sword; while it grants the community a voice, it also harbors risks of manipulation and imbalance, testing the platform's wisdom in balancing democracy and efficiency.

This article combines recent market feedback, community opinions, and relevant analyses to delve into the main issues with the voting mechanisms and explore how to optimize the rules to make them fairer and more transparent.

Four Core Controversies: How Does the Voting Mechanism Affect the Market Ecosystem?

According to Binance's current rules, the voting period lasts for 7 days, and users must hold at least 0.01 BNB to participate. Each user can cast a maximum of 5 votes, and each account can only vote once for the same project. However, this mechanism has sparked heated discussions in the community, with the main points of contention including the following:

Controversy One:* Rampant Vote Manipulation and Cheating, with Increasing Difficulty in Anti-Cheating Measures*

Under the voting mechanism, project teams often resort to spending money to manipulate votes, even hiring "voting armies" to create false appearances. Although the platform continuously optimizes anti-cheating measures, the difficulty of governance continues to rise with the evolution of vote manipulation techniques.

Controversy Two: Community* Division and Deteriorating Competition, with Later Voting Possibly Evolving into a "PVP" Mode*

Binance founder CZ mentioned that the initial voting mechanism in 2017 was effective, but later led to community division due to mutual attacks among project teams, resulting in a "PVP" situation.

Some projects may incite users to maliciously disrupt other communities, turning the voting mechanism from a tool for fair competition into a battleground that exacerbates market infighting.

Controversy Three:* Diminished Economic Expectations*

The voting to list mechanism makes the process of new coin listings highly transparent, allowing everyone to predict which coins might win in advance and even track progress in real-time. This high level of transparency somewhat diminishes the "surprise effect," reducing the novelty and economic value of new token listings.

Controversy Four:* Increased Risk of Bad Money Driving Out Good Money*

Due to the potential manipulation of voting results, truly technically capable and long-term valuable projects may not succeed in being listed, while projects with strong marketing capabilities and ample funds may find it easier to win. This mechanism could lead to a misallocation of market resources, exacerbating the risk of "bad money driving out good money."

Community Voices: Suggestions for Improvement and Optimization Directions

1. Increase Voting Thresholds to Reduce Vote Manipulation Possibilities

Community member @xiaoyibtc: Suggests allowing only token holders (with a minimum holding of 100 USD) to vote to prevent malicious vote manipulation.

Community member @IZp3ddsqzk63818: Proposes that only users holding the token for over 100 USD during the Alpha phase should be eligible to vote, promoting token market value growth and increasing trading volume and platform registration.

Community member @Crypto_Cat888: Suggests raising the voting account threshold, such as account creation time, BNB holdings, and monthly trading volume. New users could be given a special voting opportunity, with subsequent votes following the rules.

Community member @Jay_Cui1991: Recommends that voting eligibility be based on the user's registration duration on Binance, historical trading volume, and BNB holdings. Additionally, users should be required to hold the voting token and transfer a certain proportion to the Binance address, which they can withdraw after voting ends, to enhance the fairness and authenticity of the voting process.

2. Utilize Holding and Locking Mechanisms to Improve Community Governance Quality

Community member @Lichao0418: Voting users should hold the token and set a locking period, assigning different voting weights based on the duration of the lock. Voting could also be calculated based on the number of participants, market capitalization, and average locked amount. Only true holders can demonstrate long-term support for the community, while non-holders' voting weight defaults to 1 to ensure fairness and community consensus.

Crypto KOL @gokunocool: Suggests allocating voting weights based on users' BNB holdings, using "capital" as a measure to make voting results more quantifiable. Additionally, publicize the amount of BNB support each project receives, allowing BNB holders to participate in market competition. Project teams could attract more BNB holders' support, creating a more economically incentivized competitive model that helps foster new gameplay.

3. Introduce Identity Verification to Enhance Voting Credibility

Community member @RedCap_io: Proposes implementing facial recognition identity verification for voting to prevent bulk registration of fake accounts, ensuring that even purchased accounts cannot bypass verification.

4. Statistical Optimization of Voting Rules to Balance Fairness and Representativeness

Community member @tianyisee: Suggests combining statistics and social choice theory, considering factors such as the number of tokens held, BNB holdings, and platform joining time. The following rules are recommended:

• Eligibility Requirements: Hold at least 0.01 BNB and have held it for over 30 days to prevent short-term speculation.
• Basic Voting Rights: One vote per person to ensure that small users have a voice.
• Holding Weighting: Additional voting rights based on BNB holdings, for example, each additional 1 BNB increases the vote by 1, but the total weighted voting rights cap is 10 votes to prevent large holders from overly influencing results.
• Registration Duration Weighting: Each year of registration adds 5 votes, capped at 5 votes, encouraging long-term user participation.

Total voting rights would be: 1 (basic) + BNB weighted votes + registration duration weighted votes. Additionally, candidate projects must receive over 50% of the voting rights to enter the next stage.

5. Adjust the Voting to Delist Mechanism to Enhance Decentralized Governance Levels

Crypto KOL @blockTVBee: Suggests changing the voting mechanism to an "Oppose Delisting" model, where votes are cast to retain a token rather than deciding which tokens to delist. This would reduce the occurrence of collateral damage due to information asymmetry during the voting process.

At the crossroads of the voting mechanism, join this intense discourse in the crypto world. Finding a balance between decentralized decision-making and fair competition remains a direction that Binance needs to continuously explore and improve.

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。