What's your take on refunding 800 BNB that are effectively burned?

[mersal]

Reversing transactions is possible but it is best to return the money to the person who lost the money and burn the wrongly deposited tokens. That would be better than the way he reversed the trade because people didn't like it.
He needs to take responsibility for his mistake whether it was accidental or intentional.

Crypto transactions are not reversible but here the user made deposit to the wrong address which result into permanent stuck that is why CZ wants to burn 800 tokens lesser than the tokens they have to and return the 800 to the user but at the end no one lost or gained from this changes but this shows the centralization of cryptos.

[xOdiumNostrumx]

I mean, I guess its a noble to give this guy a refund, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the question if this is really a principled thing to do. They will "refund" this guy, but what will happen to the next one that makes the same mistake? I am pretty sure this is not the first time this thing happened with BNB, so what about refunding mistakes from the past? They opened a Pandora box with this decision.

[tvplus006]

I mean, I guess its a noble to give this guy a refund, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the question if this is really a principled thing to do. They will "refund" this guy, but what will happen to the next one that makes the same mistake? I am pretty sure this is not the first time this thing happened with BNB, so what about refunding mistakes from the past? They opened a Pandora box with this decision.

A few days ago, there was a similar situation when a user transferred 1 million USDT tokens to the wrong address. And these USDT were returned to the user by Tether. https://www.somagnews.com/defi-user-who-lost-1-million-usdt-got-his-money-back/ And this practice will be solved in the future in a similar way. We must accept the reality that cryptocurrency is centralized, with the exception of BTC.

[Killrbit]

I mean, I guess its a noble to give this guy a refund, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the question if this is really a principled thing to do. They will "refund" this guy, but what will happen to the next one that makes the same mistake? I am pretty sure this is not the first time this thing happened with BNB, so what about refunding mistakes from the past? They opened a Pandora box with this decision.

A few days ago, there was a similar situation when a user transferred 1 million USDT tokens to the wrong address. And these USDT were returned to the user by Tether. https://www.somagnews.com/defi-user-who-lost-1-million-usdt-got-his-money-back/ And this practice will be solved in the future in a similar way. We must accept the reality that cryptocurrency is centralized, with the exception of BTC.

I mean on the one hand its obviously good that both these individuals were able to recover their money, and is is undoubted that these sort of situations will happen again the future. However IMO a crypto currency needs to be immutable in order to be purely permission-less and trust-less. Also given that we will most likely see state backed currencies ( CBDC) in the next few years what than would be the advantage of using CZ's coin over one by backed by the state.

But yea almost all coins are by and large centralized apart from BTC, but it is only because BTC is immutable that it is the only coin worth truly holding onto in the long run.


All this just reminds me of the whole Ether/ether classic fiasco from 2016 though.

[pixie85]

Then it will set a precedence, not just for Binance for any other burn token algorithm. And it will shows how powerful Binance and CZ. Don't forget about this one as well, Binance Considered Pushing for Bitcoin ‘Rollback’ Following $40 Million Hack. If he did do a rollback back then, it will be a wrong move for him. I sympathize with him, offering to help the guy, but the repercussions is big. If he wanted to show good will, give back $20k to the guy, that's it, instead of removing 800 BNB, that's just my opinion.

It sure would be a better choice to pay him back with his own money but I guess he didn't want to take responsibility for the situation. He chose to make the system responsible and show himself as the generous boss. This is all well calculated. Next time this happens people won't ask him for money directly like they would if he paid that guy. 

These are the things I am getting at. Those who are "okay" with CZ burning BNBs less the 800 that are supposed to gone permanently are underestimating the future impact of such action.

We are very critical when it comes to coins or tokens supply, from circulating to locked or to team holdings, but we're just fine if developers and owners can easily play with it?

Those who invest in BNB should know that it's a centralized token. You know what you're getting yourself into and that the coin will depend on future actions of CZ and Binance.

If Binance gets into the same trouble as Bithumb you'll be able to buy a bottle of vodka to drown your sorrows in with your whole BNB investment.

[Jackl87]

I would help that guy. I mean 20.000 $ dollars is a huge sum and could be worth 5 years of working, depending on where the guy is located in the world.
It would be a great sign that crypto is not only about greed and quick money but also about community.
On the other hand, CZ uses this as a marketing tool to present himself as a caring guy, while he is still working on making crypto more and more centralized by buying cmc and so on.

[Dana888]

I mean, I guess its a noble to give this guy a refund, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the question if this is really a principled thing to do. They will "refund" this guy, but what will happen to the next one that makes the same mistake? I am pretty sure this is not the first time this thing happened with BNB, so what about refunding mistakes from the past? They opened a Pandora box with this decision.

A few days ago, there was a similar situation when a user transferred 1 million USDT tokens to the wrong address. And these USDT were returned to the user by Tether. https://www.somagnews.com/defi-user-who-lost-1-million-usdt-got-his-money-back/ And this practice will be solved in the future in a similar way. We must accept the reality that cryptocurrency is centralized, with the exception of BTC.

Why did you decide that it is not decentralized? The fact that a person is sitting on the other end of the wire and has the ability to send you tokens back does not mean that everything is completely contralatable. Do not forget that you primarily interact with people, which means that the human factor will always affect the processes that are taking place.

[Yogee]

.....
Those who invest in BNB should know that it's a centralized token. You know what you're getting yourself into and that the coin will depend on future actions of CZ and Binance.

Sure the success of the coin depends on the success of Binance exchange and of CZ as the head but I doubt they had any idea that CZ will tweak the burning mechanisms that was already in place when the native BNB was announced.

People seems okay because 800 is just a small amount compared to the circulating and total supply. If this happened to be at least a million, I bet the reaction would be different.

[(o)(o)ilikeboobs(o)(o)]

Reversing transactions is possible but it is best to return the money to the person who lost the money and burn the wrongly deposited tokens. That would be better than the way he reversed the trade because people didn't like it.
He needs to take responsibility for his mistake whether it was accidental or intentional.

Crypto transactions are not reversible but here the user made deposit to the wrong address which result into permanent stuck that is why CZ wants to burn 800 tokens lesser than the tokens they have to and return the 800 to the user but at the end no one lost or gained from this changes but this shows the centralization of cryptos.

Yes, I was wrong to assume that trading is reversible. Binance focuses on what they are. From the way they create Dapps on their platform (developers pay a sizable fee to generate tokens) shows they are going against the principles of cryptocurrency.
Cryptocurrency developers have also voiced their opposition to Binance's approach.
https://twitter.com/burn_the_state/status/1304995734354231296

[shoreno]

it hard to believe that it's that easy to change BNB's supply. I mean, they should just stick to burning BNB's they originally planned

the way they plan of burning the coin is already an act of manipulating the supply but whats shocking with that . they arent the only one that do this but others are also increasing the coins supply if not decreasing it .

why not use another coin to refund the guy if its really a big deal but im not sure if the guy will agree easily because he also think that bnb price can rose more once burning of supply happened or binance can pay more , estimate to what have the lost bnb have growned .

[minairia3]

I think they should refuns it. Its only a personal help that knowing the guy made an honest mistake. We all knew that having a human error in cryptocurrency is not on the exchange fault but he should have conscience knowing that he already knew the reason. Misinformed is a bad thing and its really hurting to see that kind of scenario. I know CZ will refund it.

[Wexnident]

I suppose there was nothing wrong with refunding it. I mean, the man himself asked for help, and the issue was an honest mistake, no illegal actions were done, and seeing as CZ has the ability to return the man his funds plus nothing would really be lost with doing as such, why not? $20k is a huge amount no matter what, and simply ignoring someone you could've helped without much issue seems arrogant.

Sure the success of the coin depends on the success of Binance exchange and of CZ as the head but I doubt they had any idea that CZ will tweak the burning mechanisms that was already in place when the native BNB was announced.

People seems okay because 800 is just a small amount compared to the circulating and total supply. If this happened to be at least a million, I bet the reaction would be different.

Well, if it were going to have a huge influence on BNB itself, naturally people would start talking. But on the other hand, if CZ were to tinker with it but no negative influence really happens to coin owners I doubt they'd actually take a stand.

[tvplus006]

I mean, I guess its a noble to give this guy a refund, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the question if this is really a principled thing to do. They will "refund" this guy, but what will happen to the next one that makes the same mistake? I am pretty sure this is not the first time this thing happened with BNB, so what about refunding mistakes from the past? They opened a Pandora box with this decision.

A few days ago, there was a similar situation when a user transferred 1 million USDT tokens to the wrong address. And these USDT were returned to the user by Tether. https://www.somagnews.com/defi-user-who-lost-1-million-usdt-got-his-money-back/ And this practice will be solved in the future in a similar way. We must accept the reality that cryptocurrency is centralized, with the exception of BTC.

Why did you decide that it is not decentralized? The fact that a person is sitting on the other end of the wire and has the ability to send you tokens back does not mean that everything is completely contralatable. Do not forget that you primarily interact with people, which means that the human factor will always affect the processes that are taking place.

It is these examples that we see with the return of BNB and USDT that show us that the cryptocurrency is not decentralized. I used to know and was sure that no transaction can be returned, now I see that I was wrong. If the transaction is canceled, we see that the cryptocurrency becomes similar to the national digital currency.

[tabas]

CZ is kind. If they were able to return the funds from the hacking on their exchange. This $20,000 isn't going to cost that much.
He's asking to gain the sentiment of the community and I commend him if he'll refund the poor guy who did the honest mistake.

[GatotKaca]

burning is the main way to increase the price of coins in the market because the total supply becomes less and coins are becoming scarce on the market
As far as I know coins that have a little total supply will be easier to increase and I think BNB is doing the right thing

[qiwoman2]

Let's hope when and if the guy gets refunded he doesn't go and dump it all and does at least something good with it. 800 BNB won't exactly crash the market if they are refunded and it will show Binance and CZ in a good light as well and not just as a money making machine. I got a little bit of BNB parked in savings at the moment to get some free BELLA, so hope BINANCE do more incentives like this for us hodlers and savers and hope the guy get's his 800 BNB back.

[FinneysTrueVision]

I mean, I guess its a noble to give this guy a refund, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the question if this is really a principled thing to do. They will "refund" this guy, but what will happen to the next one that makes the same mistake? I am pretty sure this is not the first time this thing happened with BNB, so what about refunding mistakes from the past? They opened a Pandora box with this decision.

A few days ago, there was a similar situation when a user transferred 1 million USDT tokens to the wrong address. And these USDT were returned to the user by Tether. https://www.somagnews.com/defi-user-who-lost-1-million-usdt-got-his-money-back/ And this practice will be solved in the future in a similar way. We must accept the reality that cryptocurrency is centralized, with the exception of BTC.

Decentralized finance isn't so decentralized when there are central authorities that can undo mistakes.

[AlexAtom]

What smart contract is the sender sent to ? If the smart contract is on Binance's control, i think the coin will be able to be sent back to him.
But if the guy sent the coin to the burn address, even CZ won't be able to send the coin back to him.
CZ is humble and low profile, he asked the community about the decision instead deciding alone.

[Kotone]

As far as I can see, the money was lost so let it go, just pay back $ 20,000 is okay.

I think CZ will refund it. We already know how much money he is making and we could say that the loss funds can be attributed to their quarterly burning also. So it might be a good chance that the guy mistakenly send will be refunded. Its not that much for CZ anyways.

[imstillthebest]

What smart contract is the sender sent to ? If the smart contract is on Binance's control, i think the coin will be able to be sent back to him.
But if the guy sent the coin to the burn address, even CZ won't be able to send the coin back to him.
CZ is humble and low profile, he asked the community about the decision instead deciding alone.

didnt you read the first post . it says it was send to binance chain but cz never said that it can be recovered so i assume that its not really recoverable even if we say that the smart/chain was owned by binance  . if the guy send the coin to other address that werent related to binance then the coin wont be returned to him . cz could have pay the guy straight but the reason why he ask the public is because maybe he was planning to send some of bnb that is suposed to be destined to burned .