Topic: Is the Binance the next to bite the dust or FUD? - page 9. (Read 2224 times)

News update.

There is nothing shocking about this news, however, it can add to the argument that it might be the next of th biggest exchanges to bite the dust. Binance might also be an entertaining example of what centralized exchanges presently need to do to continue their service under strict regulations and under threat of a crackdown hhehehe.



Binance, one of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchanges, developed a plan to avoid the threat of prosecution by U.S. authorities as it started an American entity in 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.

Any lawsuit from U.S. regulators, who had signaled a coming crackdown on unregulated offshore crypto players, would be like "nuclear fall out" for Binance's business and its officers, the WSJ said, citing a Binance executive's warning to colleagues in a 2019 private chat.

The report is based on messages and documents from 2018 to 2020 reviewed by The Wall Street Journal as well as interviews with former employees.

Source https://www.reuters.com/technology/binance-execs-texts-documents-show-plan-avoid-us-scrutiny-wsj-2023-03-05/

The better the marketing, the worse the product and service. That's why they need all that marketing and to get in people's faces to make them buy and use their products. In fact, if you are in doubt whether to use a heavily marketed product or one that isn't, the one you don't see all over TV, the internet, and the billboards all over town is probably better for you.

Marketing, mostly. Objectively it is terrible. Poor security, multiple hacks, zero privacy, works with blockchain analysis, outrageous fees, has actively scammed some users, the list is endless.

Amazon is objectively terrible, but continue to be one of the biggest companies in the world. Companies like Apple and Nestle have been busted multiple times for literal slave labor, and yet continue to be some of the biggest companies in the world. This is not unique to crypto by any means.

You can see a table of recommend penalties here: https://bisq.wiki/Table_of_penalties

Nothing is set in stone, though. If you mutually agree to cancel a trade and both agree with the mediator that neither party will be punished, then you can both get back 100% of your deposit.

A good service can regulate itself with a well-thought out system. You can buy and sell bitcoin on Bisq for fiat without intervention from traditional regulators. it's not the fastest service, but it works as advertised. Try and scam someone who knows what they are doing on Bisq and see how it goes. Not only will you not succeed, buy you will also lose your security deposit, amounting to 30% or maybe 50% of the amount that was supposed to be traded. Although I think they made some changes recently that also affects the security deposits. Apparently, you don't always lose your security deposits if the trade goes sideways. 

You're asking the wrong person: ask the people who use it.
I used to use it, because they didn't ask KYC. Then they started demanding I hand over my paperwork to the Cayman Islands. I really don't get why anyone would do that.

Where? That's why exchanges move to weird locations in the first place. Crypto isn't limited to the country you live in.

My guess: most people don't care. They're the people who keep their crypto on an exchange, and some rich guy throws in a buzz word so they think it's "safu".

Me too but why is Binance so popular? Yeah, it fakes data but you can't deny that it's number one exchange in the world in terms of popularity and number of customers. So, I ask, why? How?

If Binance has to leave the market because of competition, that will be great but if it disappears (like FTX), I'm afraid this will create more chaos among people. Media will also multiply negativity ten times and probably we will lead to a situation where people will demand more regulated exchanges. I don't know if I am the only one who sees around himself that middle-aged and older people want more regulations. At the moment they are the most active ones, young people are quiet.

Yes, these fees are insane, they make enormous profit out of thin air but somehow it's still acceptable for people. Have they seen customer decline because of that? No. Have they seen any protest in social media because of that? No. So, they aren't crazy enough to say no to profit, especially when it's okay for a lot of people. It's not okay maybe for you and me but that doesn't mean much, that's a drop in the ocean.

By the way, we say how bad Binance is, which definitely it is but why is it still so popular among people? Especially when its hard to acquire and harder to maintain users.

Yes! There are several trusted exchanges out there that don't create and promote their own shitcoin, and don't try to trick users into accepting fake Bitcoins. I have much more confidence in an exchange based in San Francisco than a Chinese exchange that hides on the Cayman Islands.

Most of the "services" and shitcoins aren't needed at all. They're only created to make someone rich, and get someone else to spend their money on it.

Popularity has never been a good measure for quality or even honestly.

Binance doesn't give a shit about Bitcoin. Why else would they trick their users into withdrawing one of many fake coins?

I think Binance does more bad that good, and whether or not they they disappear, Bitcoin will be fine. It's their users who will be better off if they switch to an exchange with the right morals.

Do you also want world peace?
People who want privacy don't need companies to give it to them. Exchanges are there for the money: 0.25% trading fee on billions of dollars per day is a lot of money.

Yes, many: https://kycnot.me/

They promote their centralized shitcoins, while making bitcoin harder for people to own and use by charging frankly outrageous withdrawal fees and pocketing 99% of said fees as pure profit.

Again, there are plenty of better alternatives which don't deliberately fudge the numbers to make themselves number one.

There will be a short term blip only. Bitcoin would be stronger long term for not having such a centralized entity having so much control over the wider space.

No matter how hard the Forbes try to rank FTX with Binance, they can't succeed. FTX is already gone with the people's money but if you remember, there were record withdrawals from Binance at that time, but they survived and were able to process all the withdrawals. This event made Binance even more trustworthy.

For us, we should never trust Binance 100% and always keep the funds out of the exchange. Yes, for trading Binance is a good platform but once you are done with the trade always move your funds out to minimize the risk.

To be honest, I don't know whether it's me or not but for me Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't look sane. Look at his face, his mimics, his facial expressions, there is definitely something wrong this guy, he really looks like psychopath.

Do we have better alternatives? That will offer a lot of service and easiness at the same time? Binance is too deep into the game and if it disappears, I think that will do more harm than good. Day to day Binance is getting more popular. While promoting its business, it is also promoting Bitcoin too. At the same time it owns Coinmarketcap. It has too many resources to disappear without negatively affecting bitcoin long-term.

I think we just need more competition and more demand on Privacy from people to push competitor companies to create more decentralized and secure platforms.

His ego is bigger than his morals.

What I see is that Forbes is spreading lies, misinformation, and FUD towards Binance, and Forbes is trying hard to rank FTX with Binance, but they are entirely different; I'm not a fan of CZ or any centralized platform, but what I see is that his tweet thread about this FUD that Forbes posted is enough to prove to the community Forbes' malicious intentions against Binance and the Chinese race of CZ. Forbes wants its name to be spread on social media and remains the talk of the masses because of these accusatory questions about Binance and misunderstanding of the facts. It profits from millions of visits to its site by Binance users and from their purchase of Forbes Premium Membership because I see that Forbes is the only opponent for Binance other than other news sites.

Yeah, I know that. If he could, he would definitely do this by now. But still, with such knowledge on blockchain and cryptocurrency, how come he even says that?

Besides, if I'm not wrong this reserve doesn't prove that they had collateral for their BUSDC token. For every BUSDC, they must hold 1 USDC. This is my understanding regarding this issue. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?

This doesn't prove anything about how much they owe their users. If their users think they have 300,000 Bitcoins on their exchange, they're "a few" coins short.

Even if that happens: that's not a problem for Bitcoin. Bitcoin will work at any price.
The real problem is people believing some tokens CZ pulled out of his ass are Bitcoins.

I stopped using Binance years ago, when the Chinese company started demanding my paperwork. Nowadays they're registered in the Cayman Islands. To me, a registration in the Cayman Islands tells me all the company cares about is making money, at all costs.

In Binance's case, you can take the "making money" literally.

Binance might one day finally bite the dust, but it's probably not the next. It had just survived billions in withdrawals in a matter of hours. Such huge and fast outflow of money could have brought other giant platforms to their knees.

In the interest of fairness, a scathing article like the one recently published by Forbes should have at least included the response of CZ. Otherwise, I would consider it ill-intentioned, more FUD than news. At least, that's how I know fair journalism works. I don't trust Forbes.

I have never been a fan of CZ and Binance-- let them fall any time, I don't care; I'm one with LoyceV-- but it is indeed noticeable how the guns and cannons are now all directed to them when the spotlight should be on SBF. Anybody could easily observe how utmost leniency and tolerance are readily afforded to SBF when in fact he's the one who made the most damage.

I was not implying that CZ would be called on the witness stand. I was speculating that it would be some FTX employees would be given time to speak during the trial as witnesses to tell the whole story. People in the cryptospace already know it was CZ that triggered the liquidity cascade on FTX's leveraged positions backed by FTT as collateral. However this might be big news for people from the mainstream. An occurence worthy for a movie about hustlers and scammers hehehehe.

In any case, if CZ was called on the witness stand, I reckon he would be forced to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. I am not certain if he can hide behind nondisclosure agreements or invoke his right to privacy in court.

Their proof of reserves is not worth the HTML it is printed on.

It is absolutely trivial for them to fudge the Merkle tree by simply including an account with a negative balance. This is exactly what FTX were doing to "balance" their books - they simply created a fake user account and then loaded it up with $8 billion in liabilities. And even if their Merkle root is not tampered with, it does not include any institutional liabilities, loans, open trading positions, and so on. Binance could be massive in the red and we would never know, regardless of what the proof of reserves says. And let's not even touch on the fact that they moved billions of dollars of crypto in to their account the day before they submitted to a third party audit, and then moved it all out again shortly after. Suspect much?

If Binance collapses, there will be $10 billion in BUSD people will be dumping and trying to convert back to bitcoin. There will be $50 billion in BNB and countless more billions in centralized tokens on the various Binance centralized scamchains people will be dumping and trying to convert back to bitcoin. There will be an unknown number of small alts where Binance makes up almost all of their volume, which people will be dumping and trying to convert back to bitcoin. And long term, there will be an awful lot of people who learn a hard lesson about centralized shitcoins and stick to bitcoin from then on.

While CZ clearly cannot be trusted, I think that Binance, even if it may be in a difficult situation, may get lucky. I think that Bitcoin price going up has relieved a lot of pressure from all those doing odd businesses, since now their reserves (most probably fractional) worth more in USD.

BUSD may go down. But it won't drag Binance with it. At least that's what I think.

A friend of mine in the US told me to be careful with Binance just this day. As that what he sees on the news and what a coincidence when this thread has been made.
I'll oblige and would take out the little fund that I've got there. It won't be surprising even Binance bites into dust as that's mostly will really happen to these centralized exchanges unless they're serious and real with their business. Even if they're quite big already, that doesn't make them exempted to any potential fall on their business.

You cannot trust figures from their proof of reserves, they only tell you want they want you to know and what would make you think that they are safe from collapse, so don't trust it.
I don't know how big the impact of Binance collapse would be to the price of BTC, it would surely cause a plunge in the price for sometime but BTC would surely be alright, and the long run benefits would be great. It would lead to many shitcoins being expunged from the crypto market. Many people believe Binance is infallible, a collapse would make them know better that self custody is the only right way to store BTC, it would also make many BTC users more interested in decentralized p2p exchanges and start using them for their trading.
Centralized competitors are not any better.