Token Listings Are Changing: From Pay-to-Play to Permissionless Discovery

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 performance requirements. That nuance matters, as a deposit linked to measurable execution standards is fundamentally different from a one-time gatekeeping charge.

For us, the most important shift came from our product. As on-chain trading exploded, permissionless venues showed that listing as a paywall can be outcompeted by discovery as a feature. Users began to expect near-instant access to new assets; founders realized that adoption is driven more by liquidity, incentives, and discoverability than by a single TGE. This is why the current debate feels like a 2021 problem, one best left in the past.

How Listing Models Are Evolving Among Leading Exchanges

Across the industry, listing models are shifting from static pay-to-list structures toward performance-linked and user-focused frameworks. Instead of traditional one-time fees, many exchanges now ask projects to allocate a campaign or incentive budget that directly rewards user participation or liquidity provision. In some cases, refundable deposits are introduced — not as gatekeeping tolls, but as mechanisms tied to measurable outcomes such as market depth, trading volume, or token distribution quality.

The principle behind these changes is straightforward: capital should flow where value is created. When budgets are routed to users through trading incentives or liquidity programs, the funds generate tangible network effects rather than becoming sunk costs. Similarly, refundable deposits encourage accountability on both sides — projects maintain healthy market conditions, while exchanges ensure fair execution and transparent performance tracking.

Some platforms have also extended this evolution into the on-chain space. As decentralized and hybrid venues mature, they increasingly offer dual-route listing options, where projects can be discovered through on-chain markets without formal applications. This hybrid model blends centralized efficiency with permissionless discovery — a reflection of how liquidity, transparency, and accessibility are replacing exclusivity as the defining metrics of success.

The result is a more transparent, outcome-driven listing environment, where costs align with participation, and discovery replaces paywalls as the true signal of market readiness.

Permissionless Is the Future: Discovery Beats Paywalls

The most important sentence in this debate is simple: Discovery is replacing listing. When users can tap into on-chain breadth from a centralized interface without juggling wallets, bridges, or gas, access stops being a bottleneck and becomes a UX decision.

In that world, the qualities that win are time-to-access, quality of liquidity, and safety. Fees don’t vanish entirely, but they reappear in more accountable forms, with maker-taker schedules, campaign incentives, and performance-linked deposits replacing token allocations almost overnight.

This is where the “universal exchange” model (UEX) comes into focus.

A UEX weaves together three layers: CEX-grade performance and custody, on-chain discovery, and the expanding frontier of tokenized assets, so users don’t have to choose between speed and scope.

Bitget Onchain is an early example of this arc in action. It extends CEX UX across multiple chains, uses AI to surface signals, and routes value to communities through campaigns rather than upfront gatekeeper fees. That’s why daily Onchain volumes can scale while listing costs drop to zero: Breadth plus incentives beat paywalls and headlines.

Permissionless does not mean anarchic. Standards still matter — liquidity requirements, market surveillance, and refunds linked to performance all play a role. But the unit of competition changes. Instead of selling access, exchanges compete to curate, surface, and safeguard it.

Founders should evaluate partners based on how fast users can discover their token, how deep the venue’s liquidity runs, and how clearly incentives reach real traders. Users should judge platforms by their transparency. Do budgets turn into rewards? Do deposits return on schedule? Do discovery tools help cut through the noise?

The public conversation about “listing fees” often misses the bigger picture. This is likely not a reputational debate but a strategic structural shift. As more exchanges embrace on-chain access and those with free-listing policies continue to reinforce them, the toll-road narrative will keep shrinking. The winners will be those who make permissionless feel premium with the convenience of a CEX, the openness of DeFi, and incentives that actually grow communities.

Bitget’s stance is simple and, we believe, aligned with where the market is heading: No listing fee, a user-directed campaign budget, a refundable deposit tied to liquidity standards, and a discovery surface that puts projects in front of a global audience on Day 1.

As the latest online debates remind us, the fee era is ending. The next listing race won’t be about cover charges, as it will be more about finding a club that fits best.