The cryptocurrency market has undergone significant transformation since its explosive growth in 2017. What followed—commonly referred to as the “crypto winter” of 2018 and early 2019—forced the industry to reassess priorities, shed underperforming projects, and focus on sustainability. During this period, declining prices, waning investor interest, and reduced trading volume led to a natural market purge. As a result, many digital assets that failed to gain traction or maintain credibility were quietly removed from major exchanges.
This trend, known as delisting, has become a standard practice among leading cryptocurrency platforms. While some delistings are driven by legitimate concerns like regulatory compliance and low liquidity, others raise ethical questions about transparency, fairness, and market manipulation.
Key Reasons Behind Cryptocurrency Delistings
Crypto exchanges regularly review their listed assets to ensure they meet evolving standards. When a token no longer aligns with an exchange’s criteria, it may be delisted. Below are the primary factors driving these decisions.
Regulatory Pressure and Compliance
One of the most compelling reasons for delisting is increasing regulatory scrutiny, particularly in jurisdictions like the United States.
In May 2019, Poloniex announced the removal of nine trading pairs due to uncertainty over whether certain tokens could be classified as securities under U.S. law. The exchange emphasized that while it disagreed with such classifications, compliance with local regulations was non-negotiable.
Similarly, Bittrex restricted access for U.S.-based customers to 21 digital assets, citing regulatory requirements. These tokens remained available internationally through Bittrex Global, highlighting a growing trend: the bifurcation of global and region-specific exchange offerings.
👉 Discover how compliant exchanges are shaping the future of crypto trading.
Even more drastic was Binance’s response: rather than limit access, it completely blocked U.S. users from its main platform and launched Binance.US, a separate entity operating under American regulatory frameworks. Initially offering just 28 trading pairs, the move underscored how compliance can drastically reshape asset availability.
FATF Guidelines Impact Privacy Coins
Regulatory influence isn’t limited to the U.S. In South Korea, adherence to Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidelines prompted major exchanges to delist privacy-focused cryptocurrencies.
On September 10, 2019, OKEx Korea removed Dash (DASH), Monero (XMR), Zcash (ZEC), Horizen (ZEN), and Super Bitcoin (SBTC). The reason? These “dark coins” hindered compliance with FATF’s “Travel Rule” (Recommendation 16), which requires exchanges to collect and share sender and recipient information during transactions.
Two weeks later, Upbit followed suit, delisting Monero, Zcash, Dash, Haven, BitTube, and PIVX. Though Upbit didn’t explicitly cite FATF rules, the timing strongly suggests alignment with international anti-money laundering (AML) standards.
With the January compliance deadline looming at the time, these actions signaled a broader shift: privacy features, once celebrated, now pose operational risks for regulated platforms.
Liquidity Concerns Drive Pair Reductions
Low trading volume is another major factor behind delistings—not always of entire assets, but of specific trading pairs.
In September 2019, Binance delisted 30 trading pairs, including those involving tokens launched via its own Binance Launchpad and even Tron’s BitTorrent Token (BTT). The exchange stated the move aimed to “improve liquidity and user trading experience.”
Poloniex had taken similar action a month earlier, removing 23 low-volume pairs such as LTC/XMR and GNT/ETH. While not full delistings, reducing trading options limits accessibility and can indirectly affect an asset’s market performance.
Liquidity is crucial for price stability and investor confidence. Assets with minimal trading activity struggle to attract institutional interest and are more vulnerable to volatility and manipulation.
Ethical Gray Areas: The BSV Controversy
Few delistings have sparked as much debate as the case of Bitcoin SV (BSV) in April 2019.
The controversy began when Craig Wright—the self-proclaimed creator of Bitcoin—launched defamation lawsuits against prominent critics, including podcaster Peter McCormack and Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin. In response, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao tweeted: “Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Anymore of this sh!t, we delist!”
BSV was removed from Binance within days. Other exchanges followed: Kraken cited user sentiment after a poll deemed BSV “toxic”; Shapeshift and Blockchain.com also delisted the coin.
While many applauded the move as a stand against alleged fraud, critics warned of dangerous precedents.
Jimmy Nguyen, President of the Bitcoin Association and BSV advocate, argued that delisting based on a founder’s behavior sets a troubling standard: “Should Ethereum be delisted if Vitalik Buterin offends an exchange CEO?” He stressed that legal disputes should be resolved in court—not by exchange executives wielding unilateral power.
This incident highlighted a critical tension: where should exchanges draw the line between protecting users and overstepping into governance?
Pay-to-Stay Allegations and Market Integrity
Perhaps the most troubling reason for delisting involves allegations of pay-to-list or volume manipulation demands.
In 2018, Bitcoin Gold (BTG) claimed it was delisted from Bittrex after refusing to pay 12,372 BTG (~$85,000 at the time) to cover losses from a double-spend attack. Bittrex countered that the decision was security-driven, but BTG maintained that payment demands were central to the issue.
Similarly, Rahul Sood, CEO of UnikoinGold, accused OKEx of demanding artificial volume boosts or face delisting: “OKEX straight up asked us to increase volume by any means necessary or get delisted.”
Such claims point to potential systemic issues—exchanges leveraging their gatekeeper status for financial gain or inflated metrics. If true, these practices undermine market integrity and erode trust in listing processes.
What Happens After a Delisting?
A delisting can severely impact a cryptocurrency’s visibility and usability.
Traders holding a delisted asset must either sell before withdrawal deadlines or transfer funds to another platform that still supports it. As Megan Knab of VeriLedger noted: “You’ll need to use an OTC desk or trade directly with trusted parties.”
Market liquidity often drops sharply post-delist, increasing price volatility. Investor confidence may wane, especially if the delisting is tied to controversy or regulatory failure.
Yet delisting isn’t always fatal. Despite being dropped by major exchanges, BSV’s price eventually recovered—a testament to resilient communities and underlying network utility. Jimmy Nguyen attributed this rebound to “organic value being built over time,” suggesting that long-term viability depends more on technological adoption than exchange presence.
👉 Learn how resilient blockchain networks maintain value beyond exchange listings.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why do crypto exchanges delist tokens?
Exchanges delist tokens for several reasons: regulatory non-compliance, low liquidity, security concerns, failure to meet listing standards, or controversies involving project leaders. The goal is usually to protect users and maintain platform integrity.
Can a cryptocurrency recover after being delisted?
Yes. While delisting often causes short-term price drops and reduced accessibility, recovery is possible if the project continues development, maintains community support, and finds alternative trading venues or OTC markets.
Are privacy coins at higher risk of delisting?
Yes. Due to their resistance to transaction tracking, privacy coins like Monero and Zcash face increased scrutiny under AML regulations such as the FATF Travel Rule. Exchanges in regulated regions may delist them to avoid compliance risks.
Is it legal for exchanges to demand payment to avoid delisting?
No ethical or compliant exchange should demand payments to retain listings. Such practices could constitute coercion or extortion and violate financial regulations. Projects facing such demands should report them to relevant authorities.
How can investors protect themselves from delisting risks?
Investors should diversify holdings across multiple exchanges, monitor project health (team activity, development progress), stay informed about regulatory developments, and avoid overexposure to low-volume or controversial assets.
Does delisting mean a coin is worthless?
Not necessarily. Delisting reduces convenience and liquidity but doesn’t invalidate the underlying technology or community. Some projects thrive independently through decentralized exchanges (DEXs) or private trading networks.
👉 Stay ahead of market changes with real-time insights from a trusted crypto platform.
Final Thoughts
Delistings are now an integral part of the maturing cryptocurrency ecosystem. While necessary for maintaining order and compliance, they also expose vulnerabilities in governance, transparency, and fairness.
As the industry evolves, exchanges must balance regulatory obligations with ethical responsibility. Projects must prioritize utility over hype. And investors must remain vigilant—understanding not just what they’re investing in, but where it’s listed and why.
The fate of a cryptocurrency isn’t solely determined by exchange availability. True value emerges from adoption, innovation, and resilience—even in the face of adversity.
Core Keywords: cryptocurrency delisting, exchange compliance, FATF guidelines, low liquidity crypto, regulatory pressure crypto, BSV controversy