The proposition of taking 2500Ma B. P. as the age of the Archean-Proterozoic(Ar/Pt) boundary was accepted at the 28th IGC. But it doesn't mean that 2500Ma B. P. is always the best choice for the age of the Ar/Pt boundary.As a matterof fact, the Ar/Pt boundary has long been intensively controversial. The implicationof the current Ar/Pt boundary is not clear. The grounds for its establishment donot agree with those for the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic boundary and the importantboundaries within the Phanerozoic. Taking 2500 Ma as the age of the Ar/Pt bound-ary is a temporary agreement and was only supported by 78 percent ofvotes at the 28th IGC. Hence,the age,implication and establishment marks of theAr/Pt boundary should be further studied. It is likely that the current Ar/Ptboundary will be revised or replaced. A great deal of data indicate that a global catastrophe in geologic environmentoccurred at about 2300 Ma B. P. The atmosphere and hydrosphere turned oxidicfrom reducing; volcanics as the dominant component of the surficial rocks gaveplace to sediments. A great leap occurred in the evolution of life and stramatolitedeveloped in large amount. Climate got cold abruptly and the firsrt global glacialevent in the geologic history happened. In addition, phosphorite, evaporite,red beds, banded iron-formation of superior type etc. started to develop. Thecatastrophic event at 2300 Ma B. P. have many similarities to those at the Proter-ozoic-Phanarozoic, Paleozoic-Mesozoic and Mesozoic-Conozoic boundaries. It shouldbe the ideal mark for the Ar/Pt boundary. The catastrophe at 2300 Ma B. P. waswell recorded in the Precambrian of China.