Free Listings on CEX Platforms Like Coinbase? Here’s What They’re Not Telling You

In the crypto industry, Coinbase ($COIN) promotes itself as a transparent, straightforward platform for crypto projects. But recent revelations suggest that “free” listings might not be as straightforward as they seem. It all started with a tweet from Simon Dedic, co-founder of Moonrock Capital, which sparked a wave of responses from industry heavyweights like Andre Cronje and Justin Sun. Their public statements exposed unsettling truths about “free” listings, revealing significant demands and hidden costs that many projects face behind closed doors. Beneath the surface, centralized exchanges (CEXs) like Coinbase and Binance quietly hold immense control over projects — raising serious questions about transparency, fairness, and who really holds the power in crypto.

Key Takeaways

• Centralized exchanges (CEXs) like Coinbase and Binance often require substantial token allocations or collateral deposits from projects, contradicting claims of “free listings.”
• These hidden demands can lead to market dilution and loss of control for crypto projects, impacting their growth and stability.
• Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) provide an alternative that aligns more closely with crypto’s principles of transparency, autonomy, and fair access.
• The crypto community faces a choice: continue with centralized exchanges that impose hidden terms or shift toward an ecosystem that prioritizes openness and fairness.

The Myth of the Coinbase “Free Listing”

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) insists that listing assets on Coinbase is “free” — no upfront fees, just an application through their Asset Hub. But respected crypto figures Andre Cronje (@AndreCronjeTech) and Justin Sun (@justinsuntron) have publicly contradicted this, sharing on Twitter their own experiences that paint a very different picture.

Here’s what they revealed:

• Andre Cronje (founder of Yearn Finance) tweeted that Binance ($BNB) charged him nothing for a listing, but Coinbase allegedly requested sums up to $300 million from projects he was involved with.
• Justin Sun (founder of TRON, $TRX) posted that Coinbase required his team to hand over 500 million TRX (around $80 million) as well as a $250 million BTC deposit in Coinbase Custody to “boost performance.”

These aren’t typical listing fees. They’re covert demands that subtly shift influence from project teams to the exchanges, creating an unspoken power dynamic. The question lingers: If Coinbase isn’t collecting direct fees, what are they really getting out of these hidden requirements? Armstrong’s claim of “free listings” begins to feel hollow when the full picture only surfaces during deeper negotiations as seen in the Illusion of Decentralization. What else don’t we know?

What Projects Really Pay for a CEX Listing

For crypto projects, these demands from centralized exchanges can be financially and strategically devastating. Offering up to 15% of tokens (as Binance allegedly required) or providing large collateral deposits can significantly affect a project’s future. Imagine this scenario:

You’re a project founder who’s poured years of work and resources into developing your token. Listing on a major CEX could bring the exposure you need, finally making all that effort worth it. But when you sit down to review the terms, they shock you. The exchange demands a large share of your tokens or a steep collateral deposit — an amount that could cripple your project if things don’t go as planned. Yet, with so much on the line, how do you say no?

Agreeing to these terms could lead to:

• Market Dilution: Tokens set aside for a listing often remain with the exchange, ready to be sold at any time. If the exchange decides to release these tokens, prices drop, creating “bleeding charts” — a prolonged price decline that discourages investors, drains momentum, and leaves your project looking like a risky bet.
• Reduced Control: These aren’t just financial demands; they’re mechanisms of control. By requiring token allocations or deposits, CEXs can influence the project’s trajectory, holding a quiet stake in its success or failure. It’s a subtle but powerful hold — one that can steer your project in directions you never intended.

This echoes themes from CryptoCadet to Integrate Coinbase’s Base Network. The idea of a “free” CEX listing starts to feel like a trap, where the cost isn’t in upfront fees but in lost control and unforeseen risks. For many in the crypto community, these practices seem like a betrayal of crypto’s founding ideals. Ascendant Finance, a platform focused on offering transparent payment systems, represents the kind of approach that many believe is necessary to protect project autonomy in crypto.

Why Some Projects Are Moving to Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs)

Crypto was founded on principles of transparency, autonomy, and equal access — values that centralized exchanges (CEXs) often undercut through hidden requirements and gatekeeping. It’s no surprise that a growing number of projects are turning to decentralized exchanges (DEXs) to avoid these financial and strategic burdens. Are DEXs the future of truly decentralized finance?

Here’s why DEXs are becoming a preferred choice:

• No Major Token Commitments: Unlike CEXs, DEXs don’t require projects to hand over large token allocations or huge collateral deposits. This keeps control with the project team, where it belongs.
• Direct Listing Options: On a DEX, projects can create trading pairs with stablecoins or ETH directly, skipping the approval process and hidden demands of centralized exchanges. No gatekeepers, no hidden agendas.
• Community-Driven Listings: DEX listings are often decided by community votes, giving the market itself a voice in deciding which projects have value, rather than a corporate decision-maker.

While Coinbase and other CEXs may acknowledge the potential of DEXs, they rarely address the appeal of these decentralized platforms. The open structure and accessibility of DEXs stand in stark contrast to the tightly controlled processes of CEXs, widening the divide between the two approaches like a bazaar. For many, the shift to DEXs represents a return to crypto’s core values.

Data from The Block shows a steady rise in DEX trading volume, reflecting a growing shift toward decentralized exchanges over recent years.

The previous data is supported by DefiLlama, as seen on the graph the trend has shown steady growth in DEX volume over the past 4 years.

The Hidden Costs of Centralization in Crypto Exchanges

This issue goes beyond fees — it’s about control. Centralized exchanges currently hold 90–95% of the market’s trading volume, which gives them unprecedented power over token listings and market behavior. Here’s why this concentration of control is troubling:

• Influence over Project Direction: The more tokens an exchange holds, the more leverage it gains over the project. This can impact governance, decision-making, and even the future growth of the project. Who really runs the project at this point — the founders or the exchange?
• Opaque Requirements: Public figures like Cronje and Sun have highlighted that some exchanges use terms like “custody requirements” or “liquidity needs” to mask demands that may not be clear to project teams upfront. What else is lurking in these fine-print clauses?
• Price Manipulation Risks: When an exchange controls large token volumes, it has the ability to influence market prices. This combination of token supply control and trading volume influence can lead to price manipulation — creating an environment where the exchange holds the power to shift markets at will. And where does that leave the project and its supporters?

For project founders and communities, these practices feel like a fundamental contradiction of crypto’s ethos. They raise a larger question about whether crypto can truly remain decentralized when so much power rests in a handful of exchanges.

Moving Forward: A Call for Fairness in Crypto Listings

For casual observers, this may look like just another industry dispute. But for project founders and supporters, it signals a deeper issue with far-reaching implications. Should a few centralized exchanges hold so much power, or should projects have fair, accessible routes to reach the market?

As more insiders voice their concerns, the push for transparency intensifies. Armstrong’s “free listings” may seem like a commitment to fairness, but the firsthand accounts from industry leaders suggest otherwise. With so much at stake, the crypto community faces a defining question:

Decentralization is about more than just technology — it’s about trust, fairness, and shared control. In a truly open system, every project should have the freedom to succeed without hidden strings attached.

Astraea is an analyst with a rich background in finance, having worked at various research firms where he gained deep insights into investments and corporate strategies. Now, he blends this expertise with a unique perspective, crafting content for those venturing in finance, tech, or crypto. For more information check out Ascendant Finance or join the Discord.

https://twitter.com/ascendantfi
https://twitter.com/cryptocadetapp
https://twitter.com/thetechjd