Three different things people mean by "listed"
Most projects say "get on CoinGecko" but want one of three outcomes, and the difficulty gap is wide.
- Listed — the token appears in search and on a project page, with price and market cap. This is the realistic goal
- Credible pricing — price and volume come from real pools, not wash trading in your own pool
- Ranked — Trending or market cap leaderboards, which need genuine volume and holder distribution
Most projects only need the first. The other two are traded into, not submitted into.
What they actually check: five hard requirements
The published standard is simple. The hard part is that every item needs verifiable evidence.
- Verified contract — source code readable on the block explorer, not just bytecode
- A real trading pair — liquidity on at least one DEX, with a price to read
- A supply definition that adds up — total, unlocked and circulating reconcile
- Website and whitepaper — both open, both describe the project
- Active socials — X and Telegram updated regularly, not dormant
The six most common rejection reasons
| Reason | What reviewers see | What to change |
|---|---|---|
| Holder concentration | Top 10 addresses hold 80%+ and get flagged | Distribute holdings, or document vesting addresses |
| Supply mismatch | Claimed 300M circulating, 80M actually transferable | Report on-chain transferable supply and explain locks |
| Unverified contract or risky permissions | Closed source, or pause / tax-change functions present | Publish source and renounce, or justify in the docs |
| Socials do not match the site | The X account on the site is not the one submitted | Use one official set and cross-link site, X and Telegram |
| Volume looks artificial | Same addresses cycling, 24h volume far above holder count | Stop wash trading and let real volume accumulate |
| Incomplete file | No whitepaper, no review, no team info | Fill the checklist — explain gaps rather than leaving blanks |
Pre-submission checklist
Clearing these first saves one 2–4 week round trip.
- Contract verified and readable on the explorer
- Site opens, shows the contract address and social links, works on mobile
- X or Telegram has been updated for at least two weeks
- Total supply, circulating supply and vesting live in one document
- Token icon is a transparent PNG at 256×256 or larger, not a screenshot
- A mailbox that actually receives mail — not a throwaway address
Timeline: from submission to a live page
The normal path is: form → automated screening → manual review → data live. Each stage can stall.
There is no official "express lane". What the market sells as expedited is really a file prepared to the reviewer standard, so fewer resubmissions. That is also why quotes range from a few hundred to several thousand for the same nominal service — the difference is how many times it gets bounced.
We price the work, not a channel fee.
| Stage | Typical duration | Where it stalls |
|---|---|---|
| Submission and screening | 2–5 business days | Missing items stop at screening |
| Manual review | 1–3 weeks | Supply and holder distribution are the usual doubts |
| Data live | 24–72 hours | Charts appear once a price source is attached |
If you get rejected: diagnose before resubmitting
Rejection mails are usually one or two lines, but they fall into two buckets: file problems and data problems.
File problems can be fixed and resubmitted within one to two weeks. Data problems — concentration, artificial volume — need time for on-chain state to change naturally. Hammering the submit button only lengthens your review history.
We decide "resubmit now" versus "wait two weeks" before touching the form. Resubmitting into a known data problem is how accounts get flagged as repetitive.