Still understandable. The listing of a token on a major exchange is essentially about being responsible to users—giving everyone an explanation. Isn't this also a manifestation of trust? After all, one could simply choose to ignore it and not care, but they still decided to list.

From another perspective, this is the most direct expression of being user-centric. But on the other hand, there are always voices in the community saying "If you're not going to pump the price, it's better not to list." This logic is quite interesting. Suppose in the future, for some reason, similar tokens can no longer be listed, will we then turn around and complain that the exchange isn't taking care of retail investors? And then reminisce that the current listing mode isn't so bad after all?

It's like a deadlock—if they do, they get criticized; if they don't, they still get criticized. The exchange is actually caught between the dual expectations of users. What truly constitutes "being good to users" may have different answers in everyone's mind.