Why don’t users like to play with VC-controlled tokens anymore? I was shocked when I saw the data shared by @Panews. Project teams and Binance exchanges are colluding to rename and increase token issuance, which is completely an insult to the name of cryptocurrency. They are trampling on fairness and transparency to the extreme. Some VC-backed tokens have been listed on Binance for several years, and the project team has already sold off almost all of their tokens, leaving them with very few tokens in hand. However, the project still looks good in all aspects of maintenance. On the surface, it seems to be doing fine. The token is also circulating on first-tier exchanges like Binance. But the project team has no tokens left, which worries a bunch of institutional investors and the project team. Finally, they came up with a solution: partnering with Binance to announce a name change for the project. In fact, it’s just a re-issuance of new tokens to exchange 1:1 with the old tokens held by users. If things stopped here, it wouldn’t be so bad—it’s just a name change and token swap, a simple new-for-old replacement. But little did users know, the secret lies in the issuance of the new tokens. The total supply of the new tokens increases by 2 to 4 times. A portion of the new tokens is distributed to retail investors, while the vast majority goes into the hands of institutions. The tokens are then dumped on Binance, creating a situation where they make profits out of thin air. Binance also cooperates by changing the name and updating the data. Examples: $front, the original supply was 90 million tokens. After renaming to $SLF, the total supply increased to 360 million tokens, a fourfold increase. A portion of the new $SLF tokens was distributed to retail investors to exchange for $front, but the remaining billions of tokens stayed in the hands of the project team. During the last bull market, they cut down retail investors, and in this bull market, they increased the supply under the guise of token issuance. $alpha was renamed LTLY, with the total supply increased from 1 billion to 3 billion tokens. $TVK was renamed $vanry, with the total supply increased from 1.2 billion to 2.4 billion tokens. $sxp saw its supply increase from 300 million to 610 million tokens. $start was renamed $strax, with its original supply of 1.3 billion tokens increased to 1.96 billion. Who is that extra 660 million tokens for? $matic, originally a first-tier project with 10 billion circulating tokens, was renamed to pol. After the change, its total supply increased by 2% annually. This is more reasonable, with only a small increase in the supply. now $BNX wants to steal $FOUR community's effort by changing their name and then dump to it's user. They are a VC coin, nothing related to meme, but now $FOUR has the best narrative: decentralization community fighting with evil VC rename tokens. In the blockchain and cryptocurrency world, project teams can arbitrarily increase the total supply of tokens, diluting the value of tokens held by users. Binance has allowed such actions. Is this how Binance protects its users? @binance @binancezh @cz_binance @heyibinance Project teams arbitrarily increase the token supply, and Binance has failed to protect its users from this. Of course, HeYi will say: If Binance doesn’t support the increased supply, other exchanges will. If you think it’s unreasonable, you don’t have to buy the token or you can short it. But back when Binance was first starting out by CZ, it promised to protect users’ rights. I don’t think Binance has fulfilled that promise. Data source: @PANewsCN