Listing preparation: what the decision maker looks at
Before a token reaches a listing decision, the person who signs off checks five things: who controls the token, whether holder communication has been tested, whether documents match across registries, whether the timeline still has room for correction, and whether any step already committed the project publicly. Nothing else changes the answer.
What changes once preparation starts
Once a project enters listing preparation, the clock starts moving in two directions at once. Internally, teams begin drafting the token description, the holder communication plan, and the governance summary an exchange will eventually ask for. Externally, any public statement, test transaction, or early announcement can be read as a commitment the project cannot quietly withdraw. The decision maker treats the second direction as the higher risk, because an internal draft can be corrected without anyone outside noticing, while a public statement usually cannot.
This is why preparation is judged less by speed and more by sequencing. A rushed draft that skips the holder communication test tends to resurface later, at the exchange's own review stage, adding weeks instead of saving them. A slower draft that closes each stage in order rarely needs to be reopened, because the checks that matter were already done once, properly, before anyone external saw the file.
Reopening a closed stage costs more than starting it late. A registry check redone after a public statement has to account for that statement as well as for the original discrepancy, which is why the decision maker treats the order of steps as fixed, not as a suggestion.
The point of no return
Not every step in preparation carries the same weight. Drafting a token description carries almost none: it can be rewritten as many times as needed. A test transaction on a public network, a signed term sheet with an exchange, or a public statement naming a listing date all sit on the other side of a line the decision maker treats as final.
Past that line, corrections have to be framed as updates rather than as changes, and any inconsistency becomes visible to holders and to the exchange at the same time. The practical rule is simple: nothing crosses that line until every earlier stage in this procedure has closed without an open question attached to it.
What to do before the file moves
- The project lead confirms who controls the token contract and who is authorised to sign on the project's behalf, before any document naming an exchange goes out.
- Legal counsel drafts the holder communication plan and tests it first on a small, non-public group.
- The compliance lead cross-checks the token description against every existing registry entry, including filings made under an earlier name.
- The project lead sets an internal cut-off date after which no further wording changes are made, and circulates that date to everyone drafting text.
- Legal counsel reviews any draft public statement before release, specifically for wording that could be read as a binding commitment.
- The compliance lead files a short internal record of each closed stage, so a later reviewer can see the check was done rather than assumed.
Who decides and by when
Internally, the decision to move from drafting to submission sits with whoever holds sign-off authority for the project, usually a director or a mandated legal counsel. There is no external forum at this stage. The exchange itself only enters the process once the file is submitted, and its own review timeline starts from that point, not before.
A firm internal deadline matters because early drafts tend to expand without one. Setting the cut-off date at the start of preparation, rather than near the end, keeps drafting from absorbing time that should be left for the exchange's own review after submission.
| Stage | Typical duration | Who moves it forward |
|---|---|---|
| Internal drafting and registry check | 2–4 weeks | Compliance lead |
| Holder communication test | 1–2 weeks | Legal counsel |
| Internal sign-off | 3–5 days | Project lead |
| Submission to exchange | Fixed by the exchange | Exchange's own review team |
Two ways this can go
If the project already has a tested holder communication channel from an earlier stage, preparation can move straight to the registry check and skip the test entirely. This is the faster branch, and it is only available to projects that kept a written record of the earlier test rather than relying on memory.
If the token has changed name, structure, or issuing entity since an earlier filing, the registry check takes longer, because every prior record has to be reconciled against the current one. Skipping that reconciliation does not remove the discrepancy. It only moves the discovery to the exchange's own review, at a later and far less convenient point in the process.
If no public statement has been made yet, the project still has room to adjust wording without consequence. Once a statement is public, that room is gone, and any later correction has to be presented as an update, not as a change to something already said.
Where this stops
This page describes the internal sequence a project runs before submission. It does not evaluate a specific developer before appointment, which is a separate question answered in the Counterparty report before appointing a developer.
It also does not check whether one particular document is ready to be filed with one particular office. That narrower check belongs to the Document report before filing with an office.
Where a deadline depends on how a local office actually behaves rather than on the written timeline, the relevant tool is the Jurisdiction report when a deadline depends on local practice.
Verified
This page was last reviewed on 5 March 2025, against publicly available exchange rulebooks and general regulator guidance current at the time of review. It does not name specific legal provisions, because this is a procedural page: the sequence it describes holds regardless of which underlying provision applies to a given project.
The team maintaining this material is described in How the firm is set up.
Related reading
The stage that follows preparation, once the file is submitted and holders need to be told, is covered step by step in Holder communication procedure step by step.
Frequently asked questions
How long does listing preparation take in practice?
Most files take six to twelve weeks from the first internal draft to submission. The range depends on how many registries need checking, whether the holder communication plan needs a first test or only a repeat of an earlier one, and how quickly internal sign-off moves through the project's own approval chain. A discrepancy found late in the registry check, after a name or structure change, can add two to three weeks on its own.
Which documents are needed to start?
Preparation needs a current token description, a record of any prior filing made under the same or a different name, a draft holder communication plan, and a short governance summary naming who is authorised to sign on the project's behalf. Everything else, including the exchange-facing package, is assembled during the stages set out above, not before them.
What happens if the other side does not respond?
At this internal stage there usually is no external counterpart yet, since the exchange only enters the process once the file is submitted. If a developer or a prior counterpart does not respond during the registry check, the project sets a short internal deadline, records the attempt in writing, and moves ahead on the documentation it already holds rather than waiting on a reply indefinitely.