For years, getting listed on a major exchange was framed as a rite of passage, and a costly one. Token teams budgeted not just for liquidity and market making, but for a murky mix of application charges for promotional packages, onboarding fees, hefty deposits and, in some cases, rumors of token allocations to the core team.

That legacy model is being challenged in real time.

The latest buzz on X has now reopened a long-running debate among top crypto exchanges over listing fees. It has also revealed the deeper, darker struggles and ethical dilemmas within these leading industry players.

While the industry continues to debate fees, at Bitget, we recognized this issue early on. We’re building the world’s largest universal exchange, and accessibility is our one true aim. Charging for listings raises barriers — it keeps the underdogs away, and we know what it’s like to be one.

The Evolution of Listing Fees: From Toll Roads to Transparent Policies

The fee era grew up around two justifications: Risk mitigation, or “protect users,” and operational cost, or “listings take resources.” Over time, as exchanges professionalized, two key shifts happened.

First, a handful of players publicly committed to zero listing fees, pushing the narrative toward transparency. Coinbase has repeatedly stated that “listing an asset on Coinbase is, and has always been, free” — no application fees, no prerequisite marketing fees. Kraken similarly says its listings are merit-based and that it does not charge listing or expedited fees. These public positions set a clear benchmark in an industry that once thrived on ambiguity.

Second, community scrutiny intensified. Whenever allegations of large upfront fees surface — whether donations, deposits or token allocations — public conversation quickly requires clarification.

In Bybit’s case, the exchange publicly denied rumors of a seven-figure fee while acknowledging a refundable security deposit tied to promotion perf

Go to Source to See Full Article
Author: Gracy Chen