On February 15, 2026, Eastern Eight Zone time, Binance co-founder He Yi publicly clarified the position controversy surrounding former employee Chase, becoming the focal point of industry discourse that day. In this statement, she emphasized that Chase's actual position at Binance was Business Development (BD), and not the widely circulated titles of “Person in Charge of Listing” or “Listing Manager,” and that he does not have any decision-making authority on listings. This assertion sharply contrasts with earlier reports from several leading cryptocurrency media outlets, including reports from Rhythm and BlockBeats, which had directly or indirectly linked Chase with the “Person in Charge of Listing” label. The conflict over position definitions is not merely a correction of a job title, but it affects the transparency of exchanges, media professionalism, and investor trust against the backdrop of Bitcoin surpassing $70,000, increasing institutional competition, and market sensitivity to “listing authority.” This article attempts to clarify the context of this “Rashomon of Positions” and to probe why a seemingly technical clarification of duties has evolved into a public industry case about power, information, and trust.
From Person in Charge of Listing to BD: A Reversal of Title Narrative
● The formation of media labels: In recent times, reports concerning Chase have frequently employed titles such as “former Binance Person in Charge of Listing” and “Listing Manager,” with some leading media outlets incorporating these labels directly in their news headlines or leads (as summarized by Rhythm and BlockBeats). In the absence of official job descriptions, these statements have been amplified through project roadshows, community recounts, and third-party content references, cementing the impression that “Chase = holds the life-and-death power of listings” within market narratives, yet lacking formal endorsement from Binance.
● The public release of the official version: On February 15, He Yi clearly stated in her public response that Chase's position at Binance is BD (Business Development), with his work focusing on connecting projects, business communication, and advancing cooperation, rather than making or finalizing listing decisions. According to sources such as Coin Market, she particularly emphasized that BD and the listing team belong to different teams with different reporting lines, and Chase is not in any sense a “Listing Manager” or “Person in Charge of Listing,” nor does he have the authority to unilaterally decide whether a project can be listed on the Binance exchange.
● The imagined space of misaligned titles: When media simplify “BD” to “Person in Charge of Listing,” a role that should have been a business gateway is endowed with symbolic power close to that of a “gatekeeper.” For project parties or ordinary investors, such misaligned labels can easily be interpreted as: if they can connect with a key individual, they have a hopeful chance to list quickly and even influence the price trends. This imaginative space not only raises expectations for individual roles in the industry but also provides fertile ground for narratives regarding “listing resources” and “internal channels,” making any subsequent actions, interviews, or statements by Chase potentially exaggerated by the market as “listing insider information,” thereby distorting the understanding of the exchange's actual decision-making mechanism.
Division of Labor and Power Boundaries: Limited Disclosure of Binance's Listing Structure
● Separation of connections and decisions: According to Coin Market's reports, He Yi repeatedly emphasized in her clarification that the main responsibilities of BD are building connections and advancing business, including screening potential partners, initially communicating business models, and assessing cooperation opportunities, while the decision as to whether a project can be listed is made by an independent listing team based on internal standards and processes. That is to say, even if Chase maintains frequent contact with project parties in the BD role, what he can provide is merely the opportunity window to “knock on the door,” rather than the final power to “stamp approval” for specific projects.
● Different teams, different reporting lines: He Yi specifically pointed out that the listing team and the BD team at Binance belong to two parallel lines in the organization with clearly defined functional divisions, each reporting to different management levels. This “different teams, different reporting lines” structural design, on one hand, forms multiple checks and balances on listing decisions internally, avoiding excessive influence from single-point individuals on the listing rhythm; on the other hand, it also means that even if a BD member is mythologized in external narratives, their influence in formal processes remains limited. For the outside world, this structural information is seldom systematically presented, which provides space for the personification of “listing authority.”
● The imagined “decision-maker” versus the real process structure: For a long time, the cryptocurrency community's imagination of the listing authority within centralized exchanges often tends to condense complex processes into the subjective judgments of a few individuals, or even turn it into a “one-sentence matter.” From the limited information revealed in Binance's recent clarification, the real structure resembles a collaboration of multiple roles and steps: BD is responsible for the entry, the listing team is responsible for evaluation and approval, and ultimately, risk control and compliance may also be involved. It is this cognitive gap that leads the media to use a more readily transmitted title in place of a complex organizational structure, making the market more willing to believe that “someone can make the decision,” while neglecting the constraints and transparency issues of the process itself.
The Ripple of Media Misreporting: How Information Inaccuracy Amplifies Industry Noise
● Misreading of titles by leading media outlets: According to public summaries from sources like Rhythm and BlockBeats, some past reports have positioned Chase directly as the “Person in Charge of Listing,” without providing clear source attribution or official appointment basis in the text. This “preconceived” usage of titles causes downstream content creators and community opinion leaders to almost take it for granted as fact when sharing and re-reading, thereby amplifying the erroneous label over a broader range. Verification gaps might occur at multiple levels: insufficient cross-verification of the title described by the involved party, lack of inquiry into Binance's official organizational structure, and the choice of more sensational phrasing during the title-writing stage.
● Professional tension under traffic pressure: In the reality of the cryptocurrency industry, where information is extremely fragmented and news updates approach “minute-level” pace, media faces structural tension between being the first to publish and conducting in-depth verification. On one hand, the outlet that first secures a headline like “former Binance listing manager tells internal stories” is more likely to win traffic and dissemination advantage; on the other hand, cross-checking basic information such as positions, authority, and timelines requires substantial editorial resources. The result is often that the most easily disseminated version of the title takes precedence over the most factually accurate articulation, and once a path dependency is formed, it becomes difficult to correct at the same scale even if deviations are later discovered.
● The cost of triadic competition and information asymmetry: In the triangular relationship among project parties, exchanges, and media, information asymmetry is almost the norm. Project parties, driven by financing and endorsement needs, tend to overestimate their relationships with key figures at exchanges; media, in content production, might inadvertently amplify this “relationship narrative”; and exchanges, under compliance pressure, disclose limited internal processes. The ones who get hurt are often the ordinary investors at the end — when making decisions, they are likely to base their judgments on second-hand information such as “what a former listing manager said” or “certain projects are closely related to certain insiders,” thereby misjudging project listing probabilities, timing, and even valuation rationality. This information bias, starting from misreading positions, ultimately manifests as real risk exposure in market sentiment and capital flows.
New Price Highs and Under Currents of Public Opinion: Why the High Market is Especially Sensitive
● Complex emotions above $70,000: According to OKX market data, Bitcoin's price recently briefly breached the $70,000 mark, setting a new high in this phase. In terms of price levels, American institutional investors are still generally regarded as optimistic about Bitcoin's long-term allocation value (according to PAnews, Coin Market), but at the same time, some overseas funds have chosen to gradually withdraw at high levels to lock in profits or avoid potential pullbacks. This combination of “institutions holding long while some funds reduce positions” makes the market filled with directional discrepancies and emotional undercurrents beneath the strong K-line appearance.
● The intertwining of macro bullishness and structural differentiation: On the macro narrative level, there are signals from Michael Saylor indicating the potential disclosure of new Bitcoin accumulation data, reinforcing the long-term bullish narrative of “corporate balance sheets increasing their BTC holdings”; on the other hand, Binance's former CEO CZ mentioned on platform X that “the lack of privacy may be a critical missing link in the popularization of crypto payments,” reflecting ongoing attention to payment scenarios, regulatory struggles, and technological evolution. The bullish vision has not diminished, but under the realities of regulation, compliance, and capital structure differentiation, the market resembles a train accelerating at high altitude — the direction seems clear, but the path is filled with junctions.
● High position + uncertainty = Amplifier for listing narratives: At a stage where prices are at historical highs and the future course of regulation is unclear, any stories related to “listing,” “insiders,” or “future resources” are likely to be amplified by the market. For capital, a title like “former Binance Listing Manager” signifies a potential “intelligence source” controlling the list of future hot coin types; for project parties, it means shortening the time from issuance to secondary market circulation; for retail investors, it is an attempt to capture an opportunity to “get on board early” before formal notices. In such a context, clarifying a position becomes not just an HR-level correction but directly touches on the safety and expectation management of market participants; any whispers about “listing authority” can quickly evolve into a whirlpool of public opinion.
From Personal Disputes to Industry Reflection: Projection of Listing Resource Anxiety
● Resource hunger behind position disputes: The process through which Chase’s position is misinterpreted as the “Person in Charge of Listing” essentially reflects the strong desire of project parties and intermediaries for listing resources from exchanges. For most small and medium projects, landing on a leading exchange means a threefold leap in liquidity, valuation, and narrative, and in the absence of transparent listing standards and public queuing mechanisms, anyone perceived as “close to the decision-making core” will be projected as a potential “shortcut.” The mythologizing of individual titles is, in fact, a collective anxiety response faced by the entire industry when confronted with resource scarcity and unclear rules.
● The defensive significance of Binance's clarification at this time: Choosing to clarify the position of a former employee by a co-founder at a moment when Bitcoin is at a high, and when institutions and regulators are watching is, on one hand, correcting exaggerated expectations about personal power, and on the other hand, actively maintaining Binance’s narrative dominance in fairness and compliance of listing. In an environment where global regulators are increasingly concerned about whether exchanges engage in insider trading and profit transmission, allowing the impression of a “former listing manager telling internal stories” to ferment would undoubtedly add unnecessary burdens to compliance image. By reiterating that “BD does not participate in listing decisions, with different teams and reporting lines,” Binance attempts to convey a signal to the outside world: that the listing process is constrained by systems rather than the private networks of individuals.
● Over-personification and structural issues of process invisibility: This incident also once again reveals that the industry narrative has long faced two major structural imbalances: overestimating individual roles while underestimating process transparency. On one hand, the market is eager to anthropomorphize complex mechanisms, constructing stories of “gods of listing” and “internal big shots” to meet the need for dissemination and emotional venting; on the other hand, exchanges have limited openness about listing standards, evaluation processes, and veto mechanisms, lacking rules that can be externally verified. In such a context, personal resignations, job changes, or even interviews could easily be magnified into dark lines of “resources moving from A to B,” while the institutional constraints that ultimately determine project fate always elude public view.
Before the Next “Position Storm” Arrives: Key Lessons for the Industry
This position clarification incident demonstrates that the limited disclosure of internal decision-making at exchanges and the delayed external communication have left space for misinterpretation. Once the media, community, and project parties resonate around the narrative of “former Person in Charge of Listing,” the exchange is only passively prompted to rectify. For any leading platform, this serves as a reminder: relying solely on generalized self-descriptions like “internal processes are rigorous” is insufficient to build trust; providing moderately verifiable information at critical positions, authority boundaries, and process nodes is the only practical path to reduce misreadings and conspiracy theories.
For the media, this incident also constitutes a redefinition of professional thresholds. When using titles such as “Person in Charge of Listing,” “internal executives,” or “former core members,” there should at least be three bottom lines established: first, trace the original source of the title and its credibility; second, proactively seek official or multiple cross-verifications; third, when deviations or disputes on positions are discovered, promptly correct public records through updates or corrections. In an industry where information dissemination speed far exceeds correction mechanisms, establishing a trustworthy self-correcting process has become a prerequisite for media survival and accountability, rather than merely a moral bonus.
Looking ahead, in the context of Bitcoin's high volatility and sustained institutional entry, the battle over listing rules and information disclosure will only intensify. Whether exchanges actively publish more detailed listing standards and process frameworks, or whether media systematically present the power boundaries of “people” and “systems” in their reports, or whether project parties downplay “relationships” while emphasizing compliance and product itself, all these are necessary steps toward a mature market. Before “some former listing manager” becomes a hot topic again, whether the industry can first address the basics of positions, processes, and power will directly determine the outcome of this battle for trust — and how much of a real anchor ordinary investors can still grasp amidst the flood of information.
Join our community, let’s discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
