Here's a thought experiment: imagine you're running a major trading platform. Would you actually list an ETF openly marketed as a vehicle for government inefficiency and waste? The compliance and reputation risk alone would make most executives hesitate. Yet this raises a broader question about exchange listings—where's the line between listing what traders want versus what regulators and institutional stakeholders feel comfortable supporting? It's the eternal tension between market freedom and institutional caution.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 3
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SelfStakingvip
· 5h ago
Basically, it's about exchanges surviving in a tight spot—trying to please retail investors on one hand and watching regulators' reactions on the other... This trick has been stale for a long time.
View OriginalReply0
OfflineNewbievip
· 5h ago
Basically, it's the dilemma of exchanges. If they want to make money, they have to list, but once listed, the risk department has to cover the risks... I really dislike this feeling of being caught in the middle.
View OriginalReply0
NFTDreamervip
· 6h ago
Basically, it's a game between money and conscience. Exchanges definitely need to make money, but they can't play with fire.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)