That day, I saw @MitosisOrg on Binance Booster, and it suddenly occurred to me that this tool for capturing the pre-TGE market is actually a very interesting game theory playground. In the past, project teams would do interactions and airdrops mainly to get listed on exchanges. Once they achieved their goal, the vast majority of them would choose to minimize the distribution as much as possible to increase their control over the circulating supply. If the airdrop pressure is reduced but doesn’t trigger enough negative public opinion, the problem is that the market can’t derive clear bullish or bearish signals from high control. This is because it’s impossible to determine whether the market consensus or the project team pumping or dumping the token would maximize profits. This essentially turns into pure gambling. If there’s no volume in the spot market and no clear direction, then futures trading volume won’t pick up either. The logic of Booster is that Binance guarantees the airdrop will be fully distributed and in an orderly manner, creating a predictable selling pressure in the market. At this point, for the project team, the only way to maximize profits is to short squeeze if they bet on futures. Therefore, in Booster, the interests of users and project teams align. The project team gains users and exposure, while the secondary market gains a participation logic. Even if, after several rounds, a Booster project opens with an overly bullish sentiment and the project team dumps tokens, leading to market pessimism, subsequent projects can still return to the initial short-squeeze logic. Of course, the premise is whether Binance can find enough projects with sufficient funding but without the bargaining power to get listed.