Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) directly addressed community criticism about exchange listing standards on X today. He made it clear that the long-term “buy and hold” strategy does not apply to every token. At the same time, he reiterated that an exchange's role is to provide opportunities, not to guarantee profits.
From HODL Strategy to Listing Threshold Debate
The discussion started with CZ earlier sharing his personal investment view on X: after seeing various trading strategies over the years, few consistently beat “buy and hold,” and he personally uses this approach. But he quickly added a crucial caveat——“not all coins are suitable for buying and holding long term.” X user @UnicornBitcoin seized on that line, asking directly: if even CZ admits not all tokens are fit for long-term holding, shouldn't Binance, as the leading exchange, filter more strictly and only list tokens that stand a chance of being held long term, rather than letting in “rug pulls and zero coins”? The accusation targeted the exchange's vetting process.
CZ Drops the Nasdaq Analogy: No One Knew the Winners 30 Years Ago
In response, CZ drew a parallel to the US stock market. He said that if that argument were valid, Nasdaq in 1990 should have allowed only today's top 10 internet companies to list. But back then there were thousands of internet startups, and nobody knew which would become giants. His core point was blunt: No one can predict a project's future development. No one can guarantee that a token will only go up.
He added that exchanges should give “projects that are trying” a chance, rather than assuming every listed token is something investors must buy. He reminded users that they should not take a listing as a buy signal, and must ultimately DYOR (do your own research) and take responsibility for their investments.
Community Wants Transparent Rules Like Nasdaq's
After CZ's reply, @UnicornBitcoin followed up, acknowledging the broad direction but pointing out a key difference——Nasdaq has clear, publicly disclosed listing criteria, while Binance, as the industry leader, could set and champion similar standards rather than letting the listing process remain a “black box.”
He cited Nasdaq's criteria around three dimensions: adequate capital size, sufficient profitability, and qualified shareholder structure and liquidity. He also noted Nasdaq's tiered markets (Capital Market, Global, etc.). The message was bigger than Binance alone: since the crypto exchange industry has already attracted attention and capital comparable to traditional capital markets, shouldn't it move toward similarly transparent standards?
As the crypto market expands, exchanges' influence grows, and so does public demand for clearer listing standards. On the other side, competition among exchanges intensifies. Whether listing mechanisms satisfy investors will ultimately be decided by capital flows——money votes with its feet.