Voting to get on and off coins has become a new battlefield? In-depth inventory of the core disputes and community suggestions of Binance voting mechanism

Author: Fairy, ChainCatcher

Edited by: TB, ChainCatcher

Recently, Binance has launched the "voting list" and "voting list" mechanisms to try to give the community greater decision-making power and activate market vitality. However, this mechanism is like a double-edged sword. While giving the community the right to speak, it also hides the risks of manipulation and imbalance, testing the platform's balanced wisdom between democracy and efficiency.

This article combines recent market feedback, community views and related analysis to deeply sort out the main problems in the voting and currency mechanism, and discusses how to optimize the rules to make them more fair and transparent.

****Four core disputes: How does the voting mechanism affect the market

ecology?****

According to Binance's current rules, the voting period is 7 days. Users must hold at least 0.01 BNB to participate. Each user can vote up to 5 votes, and each account can only vote 1 vote for the same project. However, this mechanism has sparked heated discussions in the community during its actual implementation, and the main controversial points include the following aspects:

Controversy 1: ****The ticket swiping and cheating are rampant,

and the difficulty of preventing cheating**** will continue to increase

Under the voting mechanism, in order to win the opportunity to list coins, the project often spends money to brush votes, and even hires "voting corps" to create illusions. Although the platform continues to optimize anti-cheating methods, with the evolution of ticket swiping technology, the difficulty of governance is also increasing.

Controversy 2: Community tearing and competition worsens

, and later voting may evolve into the "PVP" model

Binance founder CZ mentioned that the voting listing mechanism in 2017 was effective in the early stage, but in the later stage, the community was divided due to the project's attacks on each other, forming a "PVP".

Some projects may inspire users to maliciously lead the pace in other communities, turning the voting mechanism from a fair competition tool to a battlefield that intensifies internal market friction.

Controversy 3 : Expected economic benefits weaken

The voting currency listing mode makes the new currency launch process highly transparent, and everyone can estimate which coins may win in advance, and even track the progress bar in real time. This high transparency weakens the "surprise effect" to a certain extent, causing the freshness of tokens to be launched and the economic value of economics to decline.

Controversy 4: The risk of bad money driving out good money is increasing

Since the voting results may be manipulated, high-quality projects with truly technical strength and long-term value may not be able to successfully be listed, while some projects with strong marketing capabilities and strong capital are more likely to win. This mechanism may lead to mismatch in market resources and exacerbate the risk of "bad money driving out good money".

****Voice of the community: Improvement suggestions and optimization

directions****

1. Raise the voting threshold and reduce the possibility of vote swiping

Community member @xiaoyibtc: It is recommended that token holders vote (satisfies with 100u positions) to prevent malicious vote swipes.

Community member @IZp3ddsqzk63818: It can be changed to users who hold more than 100U of the token in the Alpha stage to be eligible to vote, thereby promoting the growth of the token market value and increasing transaction volume and platform registration volume.

Community member @Crypto_Cat888: The voting account threshold can be raised, such as the account creation time, the number of BNBs held, monthly transaction volume, etc. Newcomers can be given a special opportunity to vote and follow the rules in the future.

Community member @Jay_Cui1991: It is recommended that voting qualifications be based on the user's registration time, historical trading volume, and BNB position volume. In addition, users can be required to hold voting tokens and transfer them to Binance address in a certain proportion, and then transfer them out by themselves after the voting is over to improve the fairness and authenticity of the voting.

2. Using position holding and locking mechanisms to improve the quality of community governance

Community member @Lichao0418: Voting users must hold this token and set a lock-up period, and different voting weights are given according to the lock-up period. At the same time, voting can be calculated based on the number of participants, market value and per capita locked positions. Only real coin holders can reflect long-term support for the community, while the voting weight of uncoin holders is 1 by default to ensure fairness and community consensus.

Encrypted KOL @gokunocool: It is recommended to allocate voting weight based on the user's BNB position, and use "funds" as the measurement standard to make the voting results more quantifiable. At the same time, the amount of BNB support obtained by each project is announced, so that BNB holders can participate in the market game together. Projects can attract more BNB holders to support them and form a more economically incentivized competitive model, which will help to spawn new ways of playing.

3. Introduce identity verification to improve voting credibility

Community member @RedCap_io: Voting can perform facial recognition authentication, preventing batch registration of fake accounts to vote, and even if you purchase an account, you cannot bypass the verification.

4. Statistically optimize voting rules, balance fairness and representation

Community member @tianyisee : We can consider factors such as the number of coins held, BNB holdings and platform joining time based on statistics and social selection theory. Here are the recommended rules:

• Eligibility requirements: Hold at least 0.01 BNB and hold positions for more than 30 days to prevent short-term speculation.
• Basic voting rights: 1 vote per person, ensuring that small users have the right to speak.
• Position weighting: The additional voting rights are calculated based on the BNB holdings. For example, for every additional 1 BNB holding, 1 vote is added, but the total weighted voting rights are capped at 10 votes. Prevent large-scale investors from over-influencing the results.
• Registration time weighted: 5 votes are added every year, up to 5 votes are added, and long-term users are encouraged to participate.

The total voting rights are: 1 (basic) + BNB weighted vote + Join time weighted vote. At the same time, candidate projects need to obtain more than 50% of the voting rights before they can enter the next stage.

5. Adjust the voting mechanism to improve the level of decentralized governance

Crypto KOL @blockTVBee: It is recommended to adjust the voting mechanism to the "oppose currency" model, that is, to vote to retain a certain token instead of deciding which tokens to be removed. This will reduce the phenomenon of accidental injuries caused by information asymmetry during the voting process.

At the intersection of the voting mechanism, join this intense thinking in the crypto world. How to find a balance between decentralized decision-making and fair competition is still the direction that Binance needs to constantly explore and improve.