I only represent my personal opinion. Regarding learning from the refund mechanism of the US stock market and providing some suggestions and references for Binance's voting delisting mechanism, it is for discussion only. If there are any shortcomings, please criticize and correct them@ binance @cz_binance @heyibinance Firstly, it can be affirmed that the original intention of Binance's voting delisting mechanism must be good, listening to the voices and ideas of the community, enhancing transparency and community governance. However, the current implementation method may exacerbate market shortsightedness and even harm high-quality projects. In contrast, the delisting system of the US stock market not only maintains market health, but also provides companies with reasonable opportunities for rectification to avoid long-term damage to the market caused by irrational decisions. If Binance hopes to truly achieve a fair, just, and transparent governance mechanism, it hopes to learn from the delisting system of traditional financial markets, introduce a rectification window period, establish a multidimensional evaluation system, and empower the governance committee with supervisory power, so as to ensure that the voting mechanism can protect investors without becoming a tool for market sentiment venting. I believe that true community governance is not simply about voting out, but about empowering high-quality projects to grow and promoting long-term healthy market development. one ️⃣ Introduce a 'rectification window period' to avoid emotional delisting We can learn from the practice of the US stock market and provide a grace period (such as 30-90 days) for projects that are voted down. During this period, the project party can propose remedial plans, such as: Repurchase Plan: The project party promises to repurchase a portion of the tokens to restore market confidence. Governance optimization: Enhance transparency and submit detailed improvement measures to the community. Re evaluation: If the project is successfully rectified within the deadline, delisting can be avoided. two ️⃣ Establish a multidimensional delisting evaluation system Relying solely on voting may be influenced by market sentiment, so multidimensional evaluation criteria can be combined, such as: • Project fundamentals (technical capabilities, team status, market applications, etc.) Compliance (whether there is any fraudulent or rule breaking behavior) • Protection of user interests (whether there is a compensation or rectification plan) Only truly problematic projects should be removed, rather than being decided uniformly based on the voting results. three ️⃣ Empower the 'Governance Committee' with supervisory authority to avoid blind voting A community governance committee can be established, composed of representatives from exchanges, investors, project parties, and other parties, to conduct final review of projects that have been voted down, in order to prevent short-term emotions from affecting long-term decisions. Similar to the hearing mechanism of the US stock exchange, it ensures the fairness and reasonableness of delisting decisions. four ️⃣ Provide the project party with a 'complaint' mechanism An appeal channel can be established to allow projects that have been voted down to submit detailed appeal materials to prove their continued value. If the appeal is successful, it can enter the observation period and continue to undergo market testing. The above views only represent my personal opinions and suggestions@ I feel very sorry that GoPlusSecurity (GPS) has encountered the process of delisting voting, and I hope to examine it carefully. If bad money drives out good money, it will greatly affect the confidence of many project parties and reduce the willingness of the industry to innovate. When the market's tolerance rate decreases, it will also exacerbate the speculative atmosphere in the market and weaken the stability of the market. Firstly, it can be confirmed that, GoPlus is a good application (aside from market maker issues and repurchase redemption issues) that has made a certain contribution to the security of the Web3 industry. In addition, for many investors (including ourselves), delisting may not truly solve the problem, but may even cause the project to completely lose liquidity and exacerbate the loss of user assets. This may cause the well intended mechanism to deviate from its original intention! I hope to think twice before taking action!