Binance Calls for Global Crypto Regulation

[bbc.reporter]

If you are shaking your head, this is clearly only a PR campaign from Binance to restore their image as a safe exchange that might not be taken down soon hehehe. After Binance’s avoidance to begin the much needed dialogues with regulators from different jurisdictions, it appears that they are presently forced to talk them. However, do the regulators want to talk to them?



Cryptocurrency exchange Binance called for “global regulatory frameworks for crypto markets” Tuesday with a publication of “10 Fundamental Rights for Crypto Users” and several crypto ads in major newspapers.

The 10 Fundamental Rights for Crypto Users “can serve as a guiding hand in regulatory discussions and development of global frameworks for crypto markets,” the company explained. The exchange believes that they “will serve as a guiding point to launch more productive conversations with the larger industry, including other exchanges, blockchain innovators, policymakers and world leaders.”

Many regulators worldwide have warned about Binance operating without authorization in their jurisdictions, including the U.K., Netherlands, South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand, Lithuania, Italy, Singapore, and Canada. U.S. authorities are also investigating Binance for possible market manipulation and insider trading.

Read in full https://news.bitcoin.com/binance-global-crypto-regulation-crypto-is-evil-ad-campaign/

[1715563990]

1715563990

[1715563990]

1715563990

[1715563990]

1715563990

[Charles-Tim]

If you are shaking your head, this is clearly only a PR campaign from Binance to restore their image as a safe exchange that might not be taken down soon hehehe.

I absolutely agree, a once no KYC exchange that recently made snapping oneself (picture) and identity verification mandatory now bringing up this. The exchange have gained popularity and it only know about how to make profit than any other thing as fundamental. It is just a strategy to get more recognition (acceptance) globally.

Cryptocurrency exchange Binance has called for “global regulatory frameworks for crypto markets.” The company has also launched a “Crypto Is Evil” ad campaign featuring “10 Fundamental Rights for Crypto Users.”

10 fundamental rights for crypto users? If privacy is not there, it is not complete, privacy should be the first fundamental right for crypto users.

Many regulators worldwide have warned about Binance operating without authorization in their jurisdictions, including the U.K., Netherlands, South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand, Lithuania, Italy, Singapore, and Canada. U.S. authorities are also investigating Binance for possible market manipulation and insider trading.

[buwaytress]

10 fundamental rights for crypto users? If privacy is not there, it is not complete, privacy should be the first fundamental right for crypto users.

I've to say Binance marketing has been hit and miss. I think this is, to me at least, a bit of a miss. https://yourcryptorights.com/ has all these 10 fundamental rights and the second and third ones already are a "requirement" from a business and not an individual right.

They do list privacy at 4th, but only says that PII should be strictly guarded.

Don't know but this makes them look pretty stupid for me. Shouldn't have called it "Rights" at least.

[Kyraishi]

Ahh, now they are calling for it after they have been subject to these regulations.

They are probably a bit desperate for customers. I have received an email every single day from them saying "you are only one step away from trading" (i.e., verification).

I'd stay away and ignore their message. Regulation is important, but they literally operated in a grey area for years themselves and that was the whole reason why they are successful.

[Darker45]

My impression with Binance has always been that everything they do is self-serving. So whenever they mention about the welfare of crypto users or even crypto itself, it is more about them and their business objectives and less about the individuals and the crypto market in general.

This latest Binance stunt is nothing but an attempt to please governments and their regulatory bodies. And they do this not because they want to maintain a healthy relationship with the governments but because they are already cornered such that they are already left with no choice but to offer a cooperative hand.

These so-called 10 fundamentals rights for crypto users are more garbage than not.

The 3rd of these rights goes: "Responsible crypto platforms have an obligation to protect users from bad actors and implement Know Your Customer (KYC) processes to prevent financial crimes."

That immediately comes before, "Privacy is a human right, and personally identifiable information (PII) data should be subject to strict levels of protection."

And even this 4th right which starts with a nice "privacy is a human right" line is nothing but a mere introduction to saying, "we will gather all your personal information but we will protect them," which is already questionable because they have already proven that they couldn't protect those private information with utmost care.

[bbc.reporter]

10 fundamental rights for crypto users? If privacy is not there, it is not complete, privacy should be the first fundamental right for crypto users.

I've to say Binance marketing has been hit and miss. I think this is, to me at least, a bit of a miss. https://yourcryptorights.com/ has all these 10 fundamental rights and the second and third ones already are a "requirement" from a business and not an individual right.

They do list privacy at 4th, but only says that PII should be strictly guarded.

Don't know but this makes them look pretty stupid for me. Shouldn't have called it "Rights" at least.

Binance is limiting the damage brought on by all the negative news caused by some jurisdications’ announcements that the exchange do not have the licenses and it did not apply for the licenses. I think this problem would have been avoided if Binance were open to talking to regulators instead of avoiding them.

Changpeng Zhao’s statements, before the regulators banned Binance, were telling everyone that Binance does not have a physical address because it did not need it. It was almost making it appear to everyone that Binance can operate everywhere they want without following the rules.

[cabron]

10 fundamental rights for crypto users? If privacy is not there, it is not complete, privacy should be the first fundamental right for crypto users.

I've to say Binance marketing has been hit and miss. I think this is, to me at least, a bit of a miss. https://yourcryptorights.com/ has all these 10 fundamental rights and the second and third ones already are a "requirement" from a business and not an individual right.

They do list privacy at 4th, but only says that PII should be strictly guarded.

Don't know but this makes them look pretty stupid for me. Shouldn't have called it "Rights" at least.

Binance is limiting the damage brought on by all the negative news caused by some jurisdications’ announcements that the exchange do not have the licenses and it did not apply for the licenses. I think this problem would have been avoided if Binance were open to talking to regulators instead of avoiding them.

Changpeng Zhao’s statements, before the regulators banned Binance, were telling everyone that Binance does not have a physical address because it did not need it. It was almost making it appear to everyone that Binance can operate everywhere they want without following the rules.

A physical address could put CZ unsafe since crypto is becoming political already. I think Binance is really thinking about how worse it could become, he could be detained like what happened to Meng Wanzhou of Huawei who was only released after some deals under the hood.

It's true though that they wanted to work with regulators, they know they can't last to operate illegally in other countries. They wanted to make it look like they fight back for crypto users but they also hold huge crypto data that the world government wants from them.

[klaaas]

Ahh, now they are calling for it after they have been subject to these regulations.

Thought the same. 'If we cant dodge it no one should'

[buwaytress]

Don't know but this makes them look pretty stupid for me. Shouldn't have called it "Rights" at least.

Changpeng Zhao’s statements, before the regulators banned Binance, were telling everyone that Binance does not have a physical address because it did not need it. It was almost making it appear to everyone that Binance can operate everywhere they want without following the rules.

Yeah, that guy's always had a bit of an arrogant streak, but then don't all these big ego personalities do? He's tried to soften it with really good marketing people and campaigns otherwise, but like I said, they've always appeared hit and miss to me. This one a big, big miss.

It's true though that they wanted to work with regulators, they know they can't last to operate illegally in other countries. They wanted to make it look like they fight back for crypto users but they also hold huge crypto data that the world government wants from them.

Yeah, putting up a Rights campaign purporting to be fighting for individuals when half of the statements were about themselves. A big waste of money for an embarrassing outcome. Then again, maybe crypto people who use Binance like this type of hyperbole.

[Darker45]

Binance is limiting the damage brought on by all the negative news caused by some jurisdications’ announcements that the exchange do not have the licenses and it did not apply for the licenses. I think this problem would have been avoided if Binance were open to talking to regulators instead of avoiding them.

Changpeng Zhao’s statements, before the regulators banned Binance, were telling everyone that Binance does not have a physical address because it did not need it. It was almost making it appear to everyone that Binance can operate everywhere they want without following the rules.

Because, just like the observation of buwaytress, Binance and CZ have this extreme level of hubris. And now that they are caught in the corner they seem to be changing tune. But as you've said, this is simply damage control. In a way, this looks to me a fake cooperation.

It's true though that they wanted to work with regulators, they know they can't last to operate illegally in other countries. They wanted to make it look like they fight back for crypto users but they also hold huge crypto data that the world government wants from them.

Well, right now they really wanted to work with regulators. But it is only because they're left with no choice anymore. What else could they do? There is no point resisting anymore at this point because their business operations are already affected.

But before all these messes that Binance got caught with appeared, did they show any intention that they are willing to cooperate with governments? I think they didn't.

[bbc.reporter]

10 fundamental rights for crypto users? If privacy is not there, it is not complete, privacy should be the first fundamental right for crypto users.

I've to say Binance marketing has been hit and miss. I think this is, to me at least, a bit of a miss. https://yourcryptorights.com/ has all these 10 fundamental rights and the second and third ones already are a "requirement" from a business and not an individual right.

They do list privacy at 4th, but only says that PII should be strictly guarded.

Don't know but this makes them look pretty stupid for me. Shouldn't have called it "Rights" at least.

Binance is limiting the damage brought on by all the negative news caused by some jurisdications’ announcements that the exchange do not have the licenses and it did not apply for the licenses. I think this problem would have been avoided if Binance were open to talking to regulators instead of avoiding them.

Changpeng Zhao’s statements, before the regulators banned Binance, were telling everyone that Binance does not have a physical address because it did not need it. It was almost making it appear to everyone that Binance can operate everywhere they want without following the rules.

A physical address could put CZ unsafe since crypto is becoming political already. I think Binance is really thinking about how worse it could become, he could be detained like what happened to Meng Wanzhou of Huawei who was only released after some deals under the hood.

It's true though that they wanted to work with regulators, they know they can't last to operate illegally in other countries. They wanted to make it look like they fight back for crypto users but they also hold huge crypto data that the world government wants from them.

It is not true. Binance was forced to work with regulators because the regulators of some jurisdictions began banning Binance. This is where you can witness the difference between Binance and exchanges like FTX. FTX was open to talks and did not avoid them, Binance avoided them until regulators forced them out.

[Charles-Tim]

Binance was forced to work with regulators because the regulators of some jurisdictions began banning Binance.

Yet, Binance was not forced, just that either the exchange comply to regulation or banned in some countries due to poor KYC and AML policies. To avoid further risks, Binance started stringent intermidiate verification for old and new users and discontinued basic verification. When it has follow the regulatory way, now doing what will help make the exchange to be recognized as it has been banned in some countries and some other countries may also likely ban the exchange if not following the stringent verification for its users.

[buwaytress]

It is not true. Binance was forced to work with regulators because the regulators of some jurisdictions began banning Binance. This is where you can witness the difference between Binance and exchanges like FTX. FTX was open to talks and did not avoid them, Binance avoided them until regulators forced them out.

Yeah, I don't think Binance is known for making friends with regulators first, and then going in. Same thing happened in Africa, where they were really doing a lot of work on the ground, even trying to partner with universities there to get students to open wallets and stuff. And then when the regulators began noticing, they did a bit of a dance and then finally pulled out -- at least, that was the impression I got from what was publicly available.

[bbc.reporter]

Binance was forced to work with regulators because the regulators of some jurisdictions began banning Binance.

Yet, Binance was not forced, just that either the exchange comply to regulation or banned in some countries due to poor KYC and AML policies. To avoid further risks, Binance started stringent intermidiate verification for old and new users and discontinued basic verification. When it has follow the regulatory way, now doing what will help make the exchange to be recognized as it has been banned in some countries and some other countries may also likely ban the exchange if not following the stringent verification for its users.

How was Binance not forced to comply? The regulators in some countries have told the exchange to leave their jurisdictions if they do not comply hehehe. Also, that is the purpose or regulations. To force people and businesses into compliance. What would force Binance into compliance if there were no regulations created for them to follow?

[Charles-Tim]

How was Binance not forced to comply? The regulators in some countries have told the exchange to leave their jurisdictions if they do not comply hehehe. Also, that is the purpose or regulations. To force people and businesses into compliance. What would force Binance into compliance if there were no regulations created for them to follow?

I understood your point, not that I was implying that you are wrong, but using the word 'force' could be confusing. To force a person or an organization to something means the person or company is not requested to do it (not a request but a command), it was made as compulsion for them in a way they just have to comply without having any decision makingm. But Binance had decisions to make, the exchange later preferred to go for regulation when the exchange have customers already and knowing that not going against the governments will do more good than harm if compared to just remaining as it was before by not following regulatory standard.

[bbc.reporter]

It appears that Changpeng Zhao’s will is beginning to bend to the will if the authorities hehehe. It also appears for me that the real reason behind his willingness to sell some stakes in the exchange is not to improve perception and relationship with regulators. I am skeptical of this. I speculate the real reason might be CZ is looking to sell his shares and exit from Binance to avoid legal problems coming to him.



Binance Seeks Investments From Sovereign Wealth Funds

The cryptocurrency exchange’s global entity is looking to ameliorate its relationships with governments.

Zhao hopes that Binance’s “perception and relationships” with regulators around the world would improve if sovereign wealth funds took a stake in the company, according to the report. “But it may also tie us to specific countries[,] ... which we want to be slightly careful with,” Zhao said.

The exchange is also looking to set up global headquarters, a 360-degree turn from its decentralized operations model.

Source https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/11/23/binance-seeks-investments-from-sovereign-wealth-funds/

[magneto]

Completely agree with the sentiment of Binance being self-serving.

You simply can't take their word for it. They are seeing crypto as an endless moneymaker which has brought billions in revenues. If unregulated cryptos are better for them, they'll campaign that way. If regulation favors them, they will also campaign that way.

I have ditched them since they stopped offering KYC free accounts and many others have too.

[bbc.reporter]

What some people have said in this thread might be true, that CZ has this level of arrogance or hubris. However, this might not only be about CZ’s attitude. It might also be because Binance has something to hide which might be what the regulators are speculating. I would not be very shocked if Binance is used as part of the process for a complex global money laundering ring.

In any case, Binance is applying for a UK license while it is being investigated in other jurisdictions. This is the first test, I reckon. If this is a success and they are awarded a license, Binance might also get clearance in those other jurisdictions. However, if denied and regulators keep investigating, it might be the beginning of something similar to the failure of Bitmex.



Binance Will Apply for UK License Despite Its Local Regulatory Issues

Changpeng Zhao – Chief Executive Officer of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance – said his company will apply for a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) license in the United Kingdom. While there has been tension between the trading venue and the local watchdog for some time, the exec assured their relationship had improved lately.

In a recent interview with The Telegraph, CZ revealed that Binance is looking to re-establish its presence in the United Kingdom and “serve UK users in a fully licensed and fully compliant manner.” He outlined several company changes that will resolve some of the issues with the local regulator.

“We’re fully re-engaged there. We’re making a number of very substantial changes in organizational structures, product offerings, our internal processes, and the way we work with regulators.”

Having received public backlash not only from the UK regulator but also from many others worldwide, the trading venue decided to re-adjust its structure. Established as a decentralized platform with “no headquarters and no borders,” it is now looking for a place to settle.

Source https://cryptopotato.com/cz-binance-will-apply-for-uk-license-despite-its-local-regulatory-issues/

[bbc.reporter]

Similar to how it was mentioned in this news, I had the same reaction when I read the title of this article. It appears that Binance is having much difficulty in finding the right people for their compliance team. However, this might also indicate that no person who has an expertise in compliance wants to work in Binance. This makes another indication that Binance might be on their way down?



Journalist bluffs his way into a senior Binance job worth $220K per year

As detailed in fintech blog Disruption Banking, reporter Harry Clynch responded to a Binance job advert for a “Senior Regulatory Advisor – Futures Business” last year.

He submitted a fake resume and LinkedIn profile under the name of Daniel Somerset. Clynch claimed to be an anti-money laundering expert working in the advertised role for Binance competitor Coinbase.

“I was keen to investigate how serious Binance really is about cleaning up its act, and how robust their regulatory recruitment processes are,” wrote Clynch. “So I decided to apply for the role under a fake name and with false credentials.”

Considering the seniority of the role and Binance’s seemingly endless bad press, Clynch assumed he’d fail at the first hurdle. “I envisaged crumbling when asked some complex question about derivatives licensing regulation.”

But four interviews later, Binance offered him the job with a salary of £160,000 ($218,500) and promised a sign-on bonus of £60,000 ($81,900) in Binance Coin (BNB) after six months.

Considering the ease at which Clynch secured his senior regulatory role, Binance may be finding difficulty in putting together a team of regulatory experts from scratch.

Binance last year pledged to hire regulatory experts after warnings from swathes of watchdogs worldwide, as well as probes from the US Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department.

Many governmental agencies allege that Binance enables money laundering and tax evasion.

Source https://protos.com/journalist-bluffs-his-way-into-a-senior-binance-job-worth-220k-per-year/

[Darker45]

~snip~

Assuming this is true, this speaks a lot of Binance's lack of commitment to submit to regulations and probably also of curbing money laundering which is said to be taking place on its platform. To be specific, however, I am curious who the people are who made the interviews? Perhaps they themselves didn't know the specific role and tasks of a senior regulatory advisor. Or was it simply a case of hiring someone just to fill a particular position vital to its attempt to appear compliant with various countries' regulations?