Why did Monad, Stable, and Lighter not choose Binance spot?

Writing: YettaS

Today, I discussed with an investor that Monad, Stable, and Lighter all chose not to list on Binance spot. The FDV of the first two remains relatively stable within a reasonable range, while Lighter is a bit weaker, probably because the selling pressure hasn’t fully absorbed yet. He asked me why? Actually, the project teams are already voting with their feet. Binance’s liquidity value versus the cost of the tokens issued is a major trade-off.

Talking with some projects that are preparing for TGE or have completed TGE one to two years ago and are still diligently building, almost all teams share a similar feeling: TGE is a very painful learning experience. More importantly, many have begun to question the very necessity of this process.

Essentially, TGE is a marketing activity, the largest concentrated exposure in a company’s history. Whether to do it and when is a serious cost-benefit analysis.

The costs are clear: airdrops are heavily dumped, liquidity is first drained by CEXs, and tokens face enormous selling pressure in a very short period.

The benefits also seem clear: attention, brand exposure, and the so-called “early users.”

For a considerable period, the benefits indeed outweighed the costs. The culmination of this logic is the previous cycle’s generic chain. Public chains themselves have no ready-made products; they rely on tokens, higher performance, or grander narratives to first build distribution advantages, then use this distribution capability to channel traffic into the ecosystem, ultimately relying on real applications within the ecosystem to retain users. But the collective failure of nearly all new public chains in this cycle also indicates that this path is failing.

Users have become smarter, and more importantly, without continuous and genuine liquidity entering the industry, the cost and benefit structure of TGE has undergone a fundamental reversal.

Several realities are now hard to ignore:

First, can we really still acquire “early seed users” through tokens? In the Web2 era, earlier users tended to care more about the product itself; but in the current crypto context, the earliest users are often more mercenary.

Second, token-based cold start strategies may only work for the first project. Whether it’s Plasma and Stable or Hyperliquid and Lighter, subsequent players in the same track will be quickly diluted. Attention is diverted, but liquidity does not multiply accordingly.

Third, truly understanding the incentive structure of exchanges. Exchanges need to balance short-term profits with long-term ecosystems, but their core goal is always trading fees. For exchanges, having more assets is better, and it doesn’t necessarily require every asset to be “high-quality.” This is not inherently aligned with project teams’ pursuit of long-term development.

In crypto, there are actually two products: the token and the product itself. In the past, “first create the token, then build the product” was feasible; but now, it is gradually becoming ineffective. Completing TGE before the product is refined and PMF is confirmed makes the token more like a liability than an asset, and this debt is not light. Many projects only truly return to the product, users, and long-term development after TGE and after clearing out the mess. But this process often consumes excessive team energy, morale, and time windows. Expecting to build is not free; the grander the narrative, the more it overdrafts the future in advance.

What we are experiencing is a structural transformation from “valuation discovery” to “value discovery.”

If we must pay such a heavy price in the end, and only after clearing all “historical liabilities” can we truly start building, then why not prioritize building itself from the beginning? In this context, when should TGE be completed to be a responsible choice for the project, users, and team?

Recently, as I review some secondary market projects, this comparison has become clearer. Their paths tend to be more solid: find PMF, attract users with the product itself, let users genuinely use and generate revenue, then use that revenue to buy back tokens. This process does not rely on sentiment, narratives, or complex incentive designs, but it continuously creates value. Tokens are used to incentivize truly important people, and healthy revenue begins to support the token’s value in return.

I don’t believe this is the only correct path, nor do I think TGE will disappear entirely. Perhaps in some highly competitive, short-window tracks, TGE remains the fastest way to dilute competitors’ expectations and reshape liquidity patterns; or in scenarios with strong network effects, tokens can still amplify distribution efficiency. But these should be choices made after clear trade-offs, not driven by market rhythm.

If this cycle has taught us anything, it might be that: tokens are no longer inherently linked to growth, and narratives no longer automatically translate into value. The market is always right—this is a more mature, harsher, but ultimately healthier long-term perspective.