What are the characteristics of projects that have been delisted by major exchanges?

Author: Hu Tao, ChainCatcher

In the crypto industry, listing a coin once meant the birth of another wealth-creation myth. Now, it may just be the prelude to a long cleanup process.

On March 18, Binance announced that it would stop trading and delist 8 tokens, including Ampleforth (FORTH), Hooked Protocol (HOOK), IDEX (IDEX), Loopring (LRC), Neutron (NTRN), and Radiant Capital (RDNT).

On March 18, Binance announced that it would stop trading and delist 8 tokens, including Ampleforth (FORTH), Hooked Protocol (HOOK), IDEX (IDEX), Loopring (LRC), Neutron (NTRN), and Radiant Capital (RDNT).

Author: Hu Tao, ChainCatcher ...Author: Hu Tao, ChainCatcher

II. Transparency is Becoming a Red Line

Besides insufficient industry momentum, lack of transparency is also one of the main reasons why many projects have been delisted.

With the increasing regulatory scrutiny of the crypto industry and the growing risk awareness of investors, exchanges are becoming increasingly stringent in their requirements for the transparency of token projects. According to its official website, Binance has explicitly included "the level of public communication, community participation, and transparency of the project team" and "the team's commitment to the project" in its evaluation criteria for token health. This means that clear team and roadmap information, a sound information disclosure mechanism, and active community communication channels are crucial for any token. However, for many projects, the "listing and then lying low" mentality has become an awkward and harsh reality. According to the transparency score recently released by RootData, most of the tokens delisted by exchanges like Binance had transparency scores below 70%, indicating varying degrees of problems such as insufficient disclosure of project progress and missing team members. Stagnant community communication has become the norm, which leads to a significant weakening of user attention and even trading intentions, thus creating a vicious cycle of insufficient trading volume and liquidity. Taking Ultiverse, invested in by YZi Labs, as an example, the project has barely posted any tweets since January, only retweeting a few messages, and the same goes for a few core team members. This "black box" operation not only challenges the risk defenses of exchanges but also directly infringes on the right to know of retail investors. This collective "cleanup" by exchanges is essentially a supply-side reform targeting "bad money," allocating more resources to assets with high transparency and solid competitiveness. In this way, exchanges are creating a systemic deterrent against projects on their exchanges: transparency is no longer a soft "bonus," but a necessity for survival. With the accelerated penetration of traditional capital and the gradual clarification of the global regulatory framework, the competitive landscape among exchanges has undergone a qualitative change. The focus is no longer on trading volume and user numbers, but rather on the quality of underlying assets and the platform's compliance. The synchronized actions of leading exchanges such as Binance, Coinbase, and OKX indicate that a "dehydration" cycle, aimed at squeezing out the bubble, has begun.