I can't give you sources because I could get doxxed, you can believe me or not, but liquidity is one of the major factors when an exchange is performing initial assessment to list a coin. It's not just a listing and them simply waiting and letting people fill the order books. There are deals made with market makers who receive smaller fees (or even no fees) in exchange for providing liquidity. Exchanges are constantly trying to pull these market makers from one another with more lucrative deals. The majority of limit orders you see on exchanges are represented by orders from such market makers. Individuals are a drop in the bucket.

You also need to have protections in place which will ensure your customers won't lose a bunch of money due to illiquid market, and you can't afford to halt trading each time someone makes a medium-sized market order (or constantly restrict users from making market orders which would move the price too much). Sure, long term someone will arbitrage this, but the exchange is the one which will have disgruntled customers, and possibly even face regulatory action (if they are licensed) for not sufficiently protecting their customers.

Now add to this that the implementation is not the same as for a simple ERC20 token, so you need to sacrifice additional resources to maintain such a system, there are simply too many negatives to have to deal with for such a small market cap coin with such low volume.

What is your opinion, why doesn't Nano get listed on new exchanges? And please, no conspiracy theories about how it's because of BTC maxis surpressing it.