Exchange 'Listing Curse' Investigation: Why 89% of New Tokens Ultimately Become Retail Investor Traps?

marsbitPublished on 2026-03-26Last updated on 2026-03-26

Abstract

A 2025 analysis reveals a stark reality: 89% of new tokens listed on Binance ended the year with negative returns, debunking the myth that an exchange listing guarantees profits. These tokens experienced an average price decline of 71-80%, often through a slow, steady bleed rather than a sudden crash. Listings are now widely seen as liquidity events for insiders and early investors to exit, earning the term "retail exit liquidity." Key factors driving this trend include excessive selling pressure from teams and airdrop hunters, overinflated valuations with minimal real users, weak capital flows into new altcoins, a market saturated with over 11 million new tokens in 2025, and a focus on narrative over actual product development. Projects in trend-driven sectors like Memes and RWA were particularly vulnerable due to lacking substance. Binance has also become less tolerant of underperformers, delisting tokens like A2Z, FORTH, and HOOK. The report concludes that only projects with genuine products and strong communities can survive long-term, as a Binance listing is no longer a shortcut to success but a test of sustainability.

Author: Gilmo

Compilation: Yuliya, PANews

Why have many tokens listed on Binance failed?

Recently, while browsing X or cryptocurrency communities, you might be familiar with the phenomenon of "listing on an exchange and then crashing." The days when a Binance listing meant "skyrocketing" seem to be a thing of the past. Instead, a "listing curse" has spread within the community, with many investors watching their account funds evaporate day by day, heartbroken.

So, what exactly is happening behind the scenes?

I. Overview

2025 revealed a harsh reality. Most tokens listed on Binance Spot struggled to maintain their value.

89% of tokens listed on Binance in 2025 had negative returns.

+ Price Performance

Approximately 89% to 94% of listed tokens are in severe loss. The average drawdown after listing ranges from 71% to 80%. Many tokens did not experience a sharp crash but rather a slow decline pattern, with prices gradually falling over time, quietly draining funds.

+ Reputation

A Binance listing was once a significant milestone. Now, it is often seen as a liquidity event for early investors to take profits. Due to the massive selling pressure after listing, many traders even refer to it as the "retail exit zone."

+ Attention Cycle

Most projects gain extremely high attention in the first few days. But after that, interest quickly declines. Without real products or user demand, this momentum soon fades.

+ Operations

Some projects slow down their development after reaching the listing. Subsequently, weak activity and low liquidity lead to their delisting from exchanges.

For example: A2Z, FORTH, HOOK, IDEX, LRC, NTRN, RDNT, SXP

In early 2026: ACA, CHESS, DATA were also delisted

Clearly, Binance no longer supports underperforming projects.

II. Listing Categories

In 2025, Binance listed 87 projects, covering 16 sectors.

+ Networks

Ethereum dominated with about 36%, followed by BNB Chain and Solana.

Notably, Binance has started supporting extremely nascent ecosystems like Nillion and 0G Labs, but due to the lack of real users, this is also a high-risk group.

+ Sectors

DeFi led with 18 projects, followed by AI and Infrastructure.

Trend-driven sectors like Memes and RWA can quickly gain listing opportunities, but due to the lack of core products, their failure rates are higher.

III. So Why Do These Tokens Fail?

Several key factors explain this pattern.

1. Liquidity Events for Insiders

Listings create deep liquidity. This allows teams and early investors to realize profits. Airdrop hunters also add selling pressure immediately after listing.

2. Overvaluation

Some projects launched with valuations in the billions but had small user bases. The gap between valuation and actual usage puts heavy pressure on prices.

3. Weak Market Capital Flows

During 2025, capital was largely concentrated around BTC and ETH. New altcoins received limited and short-lived capital.

4. Emphasis on Narrative Over Product

Many teams invested heavily in storytelling and marketing. Actual product development progressed slowly. Once the initial hype faded, user interest plummeted.

5. Market Saturation

Over 11 million tokens were launched in 2025. Supply increased rapidly, while user attention remained limited. Listing alone no longer drives sustainable growth.

IV. Conclusion

From 2025 to 2026, token listings on Binance will more resemble a final round for project insiders to dump their holdings rather than an opportunity for retail investors to get rich.

Only projects with real products and strong communities have a chance to survive.

You can refer to @defikadic's list to understand which are the truly quality projects:

Hands-on with Hunyuan Hy3 Preview: Tencent's AI, Finally Competitive?

Tencent's Hunyuan AI team has released its latest language model, Hy3 preview, marking a significant step forward for the company's AI capabilities. With 295B total parameters and support for 256K context length, the model employs a mixture-of-experts architecture. It shows improvements in complex logic, instruction following, contextual learning, code generation, and agent task execution. In testing, Hy3 preview demonstrated strong performance in multi-step logical reasoning but showed occasional instability in identifying traps in trick questions. It performed well in extracting key information from disordered meeting transcripts and accurately followed new linguistic rules. As an AI agent, it successfully built functional applications like a Snake game and generated data analysis dashboards, though it sometimes fell short in fully completing complex open-ended tasks. In natural language use, it produced coherent and stylistically appropriate narratives with reduced “AI-like” tone. Priced competitively, Hy3 preview is already integrated into Tencent’s key products, including Tencent Cloud and WorkBuddy. While not leading in every benchmark, it represents a solid, practical model that signals Tencent’s renewed momentum in AI development.

marsbit42m ago

Hands-on with Hunyuan Hy3 Preview: Tencent's AI, Finally Competitive?

marsbit42m ago

From Theft to Re-entry: How Was $292 Million "Laundered"?

A sophisticated crypto laundering operation was executed following the $292 million hack of Kelp DAO on April 18. The attack, attributed to the North Korean Lazarus group, began with anonymous infrastructure preparation using Tornado Cash to fund wallets untraceably. The hacker exploited a vulnerability in Kelp’s cross-chain bridge, stealing 116,500 rsETH. To avoid crashing the market, the attacker used Aave and Compound as laundering tools—depositing the stolen rsETH as collateral to borrow $190 million in clean, liquid ETH. This move triggered a bank run on Aave, causing an $8 billion drop in TVL. After consolidating funds, the attacker fragmented them across hundreds of wallets to evade detection. A major breakpoint was THORChain, where over $460 million in volume—30 times its usual activity—was processed in 24 hours, converting ETH into Bitcoin. This shift to Bitcoin’s UTXO model exponentially increased tracing complexity by shattering funds into countless untraceable fragments. The final destination was Tron-based USDT, the primary channel for illicit crypto flows. From there, funds were cashed out via OTC brokers in China and Southeast Asia, using unlicensed underground banks and UnionPay networks outside Western sanctions scope. Ultimately, the laundered money supports North Korea’s weapons programs, which rely heavily on crypto hacking for foreign currency. The incident underscores structural challenges in DeFi: its openness, composability, and lack of central control make such laundering not just possible, but inherently difficult to prevent.

marsbit48m ago

From Theft to Re-entry: How Was $292 Million "Laundered"?

marsbit48m ago

Behind DeepSeek V4's Stunning Debut: Silicon Valley Is 'Building Walls,' China Is 'Paving Roads'

China's AI landscape is witnessing a strategic divergence from Silicon Valley’s closed-source competition to a collaborative open-source ecosystem. On April 24, DeepSeek released V4, a top-ranked open-source model on Hugging Face, featuring breakthroughs like million-token context length with minimal KV cache and native support for domestic chips like Huawei’s Ascend. Similarly, Kimi’s K2.6, released days earlier, also adopted open-source principles. Unlike U.S. giants such as OpenAI and Anthropic—locked in revenue disputes and tactical product clashes—Chinese firms embrace shared innovation. DeepSeek and Kimi openly build on each other’s advances, like the MLA architecture and Muon optimizer, avoiding redundant R&D and driving down costs. DeepSeek V4 focused on pushing base model capabilities, while Kimi specialized in Agent-based applications. Although U.S. firms lead in revenue and valuation, China’s open-source models achieve comparable performance at a fraction of the cost (e.g., DeepSeek V3 trained for $5.58M vs. GPT-5’s $500M+). With token usage growing exponentially, China’s collaborative model promises scalable, affordable AI built on domestic hardware, shaping a more accessible path to AGI.

marsbit57m ago

Behind DeepSeek V4's Stunning Debut: Silicon Valley Is 'Building Walls,' China Is 'Paving Roads'

marsbit57m ago

OpenClaw vs. Hermes: Which One Is Right for You?

Two leading AI agent projects, OpenClaw and Hermes, represent a fundamental divergence in design philosophy rather than just a feature competition. OpenClaw, a GitHub phenomenon, prioritizes user control and customization, offering a powerful, flexible platform for building and orchestrating agents. It boasts a massive ecosystem with over 44,000 skills, extensive model flexibility (supporting Anthropic, OpenAI, and others), and deep integrations across multiple messaging platforms. In contrast, Hermes Agent, developed by Nous Research, champions automation and efficiency. It is designed for lower cost and a lower barrier to entry, learning and improving automatically from user workflows. It runs tasks in isolated environments for security and offers significantly lower token costs out-of-the-box. The choice between them mirrors historical tech divides like Windows vs. Mac. OpenClaw is for users who want maximum control, customization, and don't mind a complex setup. Hermes is the smarter default for those seeking an affordable, easy-to-use agent that learns autonomously. The real competition is not about which is better, but which philosophy—a programmable personal OS or a self-evolving work proxy—better suits the user's needs for control, cost, and ease of use.

marsbit1h ago

OpenClaw vs. Hermes: Which One Is Right for You?

marsbit1h ago

Google and Amazon Simultaneously Invest Heavily in a Competitor: The Most Absurd Business Logic of the AI Era Is Becoming Reality

In a span of four days, Amazon announced an additional $25 billion investment, and Google pledged up to $40 billion—both direct competitors pouring over $65 billion into the same AI startup, Anthropic. Rather than a typical venture capital move, this signals the latest escalation in the cloud wars. The core of the deal is not equity but compute pre-orders: Anthropic must spend the majority of these funds on AWS and Google Cloud services and chips, effectively locking in massive future compute consumption. This reflects a shift in cloud market dynamics—enterprises now choose cloud providers based on which hosts the best AI models, not just price or stability. With OpenAI deeply tied to Microsoft, Anthropic’s Claude has become the only viable strategic asset for Google and Amazon to remain competitive. Anthropic’s annualized revenue has surged to $30 billion, and it is expanding into verticals like biotech, positioning itself as a cross-industry AI infrastructure layer. However, this funding comes with constraints: Anthropic’s independence is challenged as it balances two rival investors, its safety-first narrative faces pressure from regulatory scrutiny, and its path to IPO introduces new financial pressures. Globally, this accelerates a "tri-polar" closed-loop structure in AI infrastructure, with Microsoft-OpenAI, Google-Anthropic, and Amazon-Anthropic forming exclusive model-cloud alliances. In contrast, China’s landscape differs—investments like Alibaba and Tencent backing open-source model firm DeepSeek reflect a more decoupled approach, though closed-source models from major cloud providers still dominate. The $65 billion bet is ultimately about securing a seat at the table in an AI-defined future—where missing the model layer means losing the cloud war.

marsbit6h ago

Google and Amazon Simultaneously Invest Heavily in a Competitor: The Most Absurd Business Logic of the AI Era Is Becoming Reality

marsbit6h ago

Trading

Spot

Futures