Crypto analyst Benjamin Cowen, CEO of Into The Cryptoverse, has sparked fresh debate over the industry’s credibility after criticizing exchanges for repeatedly listing what he described as “dogshit memecoins” to capitalize on short-term retail interest. The comment quickly drew widespread engagement, highlighting a deeper tension around the effects of revenue-driven exchange practices on crypto’s long-term credibility.
Cowen: Memecoins Hurt Crypto Legitimacy
In an X post, Cowen argued that crypto exchanges could improve the sector’s legitimacy by refraining from listing low-quality memecoins purely for volume. “If we don’t respect ourselves, how can we expect others to respect us?” he wrote, framing the issue as one of internal standards rather than external perception.
Cowen’s critique centers on the idea that constant memecoin listings undermine crypto’s efforts to be taken seriously as financial infrastructure. As institutional adoption grows and regulators intensify scrutiny, he suggested that exchanges should be more selective about the assets they list.
The underlying concern is reputational. If trading platforms continue to prioritize short-term speculative memecoins that often fizzle out soon after listing, critics argue, it reinforces the narrative that crypto functions more like a casino than a developing financial system.
The Incentive Problem: Memecoins Volume Drives Revenue
While many users agreed with Cowen’s sentiment, several replies argued that the issue is structural rather than moral. Exchanges generate revenue primarily from trading fees, and memecoins tend to produce substantial trading volume during hype cycles. High volatility fuels frequent trades, which in turn drives exchange income. Listing fees, liquidity incentives, and user growth also play a role.
As one reply put it, “It’s not a respect problem, it’s an incentive problem.” From this perspective, exchanges respond rationally to market demand. As long as retail traders continue to chase trending memecoins, platforms have a financial incentive to supply them. This economic reality complicates calls for restraint. Exchanges operate as profit-driven marketplaces, and volume remains central to their business model.
Another response reframed the debate more bluntly: exchanges are marketplaces, not referees. They list assets that attract users and activity, not necessarily those deemed intellectually rigorous or technologically advanced. One commenter compared the availability of meme coins to junk food in grocery stores. Retail demand drives supply. Expecting exchanges to self-regulate against profitable listings may be unrealistic without external pressure.
Current Regulatory Infrastructure and Memecoins
The discussion inevitably touched on regulation. Some observers pointed to the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework as an early attempt to separate infrastructure-grade projects from purely speculative offerings. The United States, by contrast, continues to navigate a fragmented regulatory landscape.
Whether regulation should formally distinguish between speculative tokens and financial infrastructure remains an open question. For now, exchanges largely operate within incentive structures driven by volume and demand.
An Industry Identity Debate
Cowen’s post reflects a recurring identity crisis within crypto. As institutional capital enters the space and public scrutiny intensifies, questions about standards, credibility, and long-term direction resurface.
Whether the industry evolves toward stricter listing standards or continues to prioritize volume will depend, especially, on how retail traders allocate their attention and capital. For now, the tension reflects crypto’s dual identity as both an emerging financial infrastructure and a high-volatility trading arena.
Temitope Olajide
The CoinRemark Team
Brenda Kanana
