[2021-07-28]Binance CEO says he’s willing to step down as world's biggest crypt

[bbc.reporter]

Compliance to regulations will always be reactive because there would be no regulations to be proactive to judge if something is illegal or legal until the regulators say they are illegal or illegal.

Not necessarily. It's been obvious to everyone for quite a while that unverified non-KYC accounts will not last, and will eventually be clamped down on entirely. We don't need to wait on Congress passing laws to that effect to know that it is coming. We know that crazy leverage will be clamped down on. We know that these ridiculous interest and lending accounts will be clamped down on.

This statement from CZ should be taken as a warning to all Binance users. Expect more restrictions, more KYC requirements, more privacy invasion.

However, you reckon that CZ and Binance would become more proactive in their approach on compliance if the different regulators around the world did not pressure them in their own jurisdictions? I would argue that CZ’s proactiveness is reactive hehehe.

[SFR10]

I don't think it would be such a bad thing. They already have far too much power in the cryptocurrency sphere, from the exchange, to Brave browser, to Coinmarketcap, to their own shitcoins, and so on. One company having so much power over users, what they buy, what they see online, even how coins and exchanges are "ranked", is not a good thing. Having them broken up a bit would be a good thing, in my view. Not to mention that having so many users' data and so many funds being stored by one exchange is a huge target for hackers and a huge security risk.

When you put it that way, I guess it's not a bad thing that they're being squeezed out from all sorts of angles.

Huh.  I wonder what's going on there that the Binance US unit's CEO would step down.  That rarely happens unless something is seriously wrong with the company or it's a ruse, and the CEO was actually fired.

I was shocked as well and given the fact that they just appointed him back in May ^{[less than four months ago]}, there has to be an underlying reason other than the "strategic differences" and despite claiming that they "operate independently", I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with Binance holdings as a whole.

[o_e_l_e_o]

However, you reckon that CZ and Binance would become more proactive in their approach on compliance if the different regulators around the world did not pressure them in their own jurisdictions?

No, of course not. They have been evading regulations and governments since their inception, moving their headquarters God knows how many times (China, Japan, Taiwan, Malta, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Seychelles, Jersey...) to try to avoid various rules and requirements. Obviously, things have finally caught up with them, with multiple jurisdictions restricting some aspects of their business or banning them altogether. So know they are trying to be seen as being "proactive" and complying with everything left, right, and center, in an effort to retain their customers and maintain their profits.

there has to be an underlying reason other than the "strategic differences"

My guess is that Brooks came in with a view to try to sort things out and comply with regulations, has realized with a complete shitshow Binance actually is, and has decided to get out before he gets too involved and becomes liable for any of the mess he inherited or left behind. Not a great look for Binance.

[PrimeNumber7]

And this may be the end of an era, the era of big centralized exchanges (if getting regulated I expect Binance "deflate").
Maybe this is when the era of decentralized exchanges begins for real?!

Probably not. I think crypto exchanges have attracted too much money from various investors around the world for governments and regulators to stop ignoring them. Dealing with cryptocurrencies is like dealing in the Wild West. Exchanges engage in practices and offer products that would be disallowed in the world of the stock market.

Exchanges often comingle customer money with their own, they list coins in a non-transparent way. Some of the shady exchanges have fake volumes and allow traders to engage in practices that can reasonably be described as market manipulation.

I suspect that governments will regulate crypto exchanges in ways similar to how they regulate other financial markets. Regulators may have slightly different rules for crypto exchanges, but there will be regulations. Those exchanges that try to hide from regulators by doing things such as moving their headquarters repeatedly, or not allowing customers from major markets due to regulation, will eventually die out. They will be replaced by exchanges that are willing to follow regulations.

[bbc.reporter]

This statement from CZ should be taken as a warning to all Binance users. Expect more restrictions, more KYC requirements, more privacy invasion.

At this rate, I'm not sure if there'll be a Binance exchange by 2022 ^{[I hope I'm wrong]}.
^{- By the look of things, they're falling apart and only have themselves to blame!}
On a slightly related matter, Brian Brooks ^{[CEO of Binance.US]} has resigned:

• Greetings #crypto community.  Letting you all know that I have resigned as CEO of ⁦⁦⁦@BinanceUS . Despite differences over strategic direction, I wish my former colleagues much success.  Exciting new things to come!

Another person who was also formerly with government has also resigned from a position from a cryptocoin exchange. Brett Redfearn was a former SEC director before he was hired to be Coinbase head of capital markets.

Is this only coincidence? I speculate these former directors and comptrollers of government were hired for their connections, however, when the DOJ began its move against the cryptospace, the exchanges might have recognized that these people are not the type of executives who could save them.



Brett Redfearn, a luminary of the market structure world and former director at the Securities and Exchange Commission, has left his post at Coinbase after only four months with the cryptocurrency exchange.

Source https://www.theblockcrypto.com/amp/linked/113978/former-sec-director-brett-redfearn-leaves-coinbase-after-four-months

[o_e_l_e_o]

Is this only coincidence? I speculate these former directors and comptrollers of government were hired for their connections, however, when the DOJ began its move against the cryptospace, the exchanges might have recognized that these people are not the type of executives who could save them.

I don't think there is anybody who can "save them", regardless of their connections. The government want to heavily regulate and tax cryptocurrencies and associated businesses, and it doesn't matter if their executive officers used to work for the government or not.

I think, more likely, is that Brooks and now Redfearn chose to leave, rather than being fired or forced out. I suspect they are well aware of how the government operates in these matters, can see what is on the horizon for these exchanges, and don't want to be around when the shit hits the fan, so to speak.

[bbc.reporter]

@o_e_l_e_o. Why were they hired? Was it not because of their experience in government and their knowledge in maneuvering regulations and the political connections they created throughout their careers? Also, yes they were not fired, however, I speculate that it might be a separation of mutual consent offered first by the exchanges.

[PrimeNumber7]

@o_e_l_e_o. Why were they hired? Was it not because of their experience in government and their knowledge in maneuvering regulations and the political connections they created throughout their careers? Also, yes they were not fired, however, I speculate that it might be a separation of mutual consent offered first by the exchanges.

Typically speaking, a former regulator is hired for their connections to other regulators. This enables companies to foster better relationships with regulators and to gain advice as to how to incrementally reduce scrutiny from regulators.

Bitcoin-related companies are currently not regulated. So there is no "department" or group of government employees that typically oversees an industry that a previous government employee has contacts with. Similarly, no one who used to work at a regulatory agency will know the type of things said agency will want to look at once they start overseeing bitcoin-related companies.

The above reason is why bitcoin-related companies will gain minimal value from hiring people who have recently worked for regulatory agencies. Companies such as Coinbase will be better off hiring people who have worked at fintech firms that have experience dealing with regulators, rather than former regulators themselves.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Was it not because of their experience in government and their knowledge in maneuvering regulations and the political connections they created throughout their careers?

Perhaps. Perhaps exchanges initially did mistakenly think that such individuals could indeed "maneuver" around rules and regulations, but as the US government continues to push for more and more aggressive regulations (such as those in the Infrastructure Bill currently going through Congress), they realized that such efforts were futile.

Also, yes they were not fired, however, I speculate that it might be a separation of mutual consent offered first by the exchanges.

Sure, but I speculate it is the other way around. He's not the first executive officer to resign from Binance, and he won't be the last. Although I can't find a source for these claims, various news articles are claiming things such as this:

Brian Brooks, the CEO of Binance US, is stepping down after only a few months on the job, citing a litany of compliance issues and regulatory investigations involving the crypto exchange’s sister firm.

Still, does it really matter? Whether he resigned or he was fired or whatever else, a CEO leaving after 3 months in the role is hardly a good sign. Combine this with CZ's tweet from above, and things are obviously not going well for Binance.

[DooMAD]

I'm hoping it'll be a case of necessity spurring innovation.  If centralised exchanges start to buckle under regulatory pressures, hopefully some bigger breakthroughs will be made with DEX (and by that I mean as though it were a universal protocol, not just a gimmick to sell crappy tokens).

[stompix]

Was it not because of their experience in government and their knowledge in maneuvering regulations and the political connections they created throughout their careers?

Perhaps. Perhaps exchanges initially did mistakenly think that such individuals could indeed "maneuver" around rules and regulations, but as the US government continues to push for more and more aggressive regulations (such as those in the Infrastructure Bill currently going through Congress), they realized that such efforts were futile.

I think that exchanges just tried to mimic other businesses, from the pharmaceutical to oil to military and even IT&C a lot of companies apply the same tactic, they hire people who have some sort of connection to lobby for their interest, not for their qualities in the job they occupy but strictly for their influence. When they realized they will not be able to achieve their goals and they don't have the power to change anything it went probably like bbc.reporter said, you can't help us, then here is a goodbye gift and bye!

But I doubt it was in order to protect a certain company from regulation and more to try and persuade the legislators into drafting a favorable bill on the whole, the timing between their leave and the "infrastructure bill" is intriguing and a bit unsettling, even unsuccessfully they still have connections, so it might be possible that a storm is brewing and they don't want to be caught on the wrong side. Remember that their main selling point is their reputation, if they are seen as unable to do stuff this drops to zero and no company wants a loser lobbyist.

[bbc.reporter]

Also, yes they were not fired, however, I speculate that it might be a separation of mutual consent offered first by the exchanges.

Sure, but I speculate it is the other way around. He's not the first executive officer to resign from Binance, and he won't be the last. Although I can't find a source for these claims, various news articles are claiming things such as this:

Brian Brooks, the CEO of Binance US, is stepping down after only a few months on the job, citing a litany of compliance issues and regulatory investigations involving the crypto exchange’s sister firm.

We might never know the truth.

I speculate that those articles were written that way to save those people’s reputations and to show the truth that both parties did not do anything wrong with the other. It is a simple press release informing the public and to avoid controversy.

[bbc.reporter]

Binance has hired another expert in market regulations for its exchange in the jurisdiction of Singapore. How many months should we give him? I reckon not more than 6 months particularly if the cryptomarket continues the pattern of the bubble bursting every 4 years.



Binance Hires Former Abu Dhabi Global Market Head as Singapore CEO

The move provides an opportunity for to get ahead of the regulatory curve – a sore point for the exchange in recent weeks.

Binance has hired Richard Teng, the former CEO of Abu Dhabi’s financial watchdog, to head the exchange’s operations in Singapore, the company said in a press release on Monday.

Teng spent six years at the Financial Services Regulatory Authority at Abu Dhabi Global Market as its head.
He also spent seven years as the chief regulatory officer of the Singapore exchange and 13 years with the Money Authority of Singapore, according to his Linkedin profile.

Source https://www.coindesk.com/binance-singapore-hires-richard-teng-former-ceo-abu-dhabi-global-markets