Do exchanges intentionally leak information for brand building ?

[krishnaverma]

Recently came across this news

https://www.businessinsider.in/cryptocurrency/news/read-the-full-memo-the-ceo-of-binance-sent-to-staffers-after-the-exchange-was-hit-by-more-than-1-billion-of-withdrawals-in-a-day-amid-the-ftx-fiasco/articleshow/96246092.cms

Makes me wonder if CZ intentionally did this and was aware that the news will get leaked in public.

CZ also later addressed this issue of mass withdrawal in one of his tweets

https://twitter.com/cz_binance/status/1602676998094069760

Do you think such type of incidents are pre planned to benefit the exchange ?

[Getmon]

It was pre planned. CZ exudes self-assurance and boasts that he and his company are not touching the money of the depositors. Furthermore, he is sending signals to the public that they are liquid and solvent.

I like what CZ is doing, but I have my doubts that Binance is not using the money of its depositors. It is possible that they had already begun securing the funds of all depositors. So he has the courage to challenge the other CEX for regular test withdrawals. It is not a bad idea at all. Although the majority of us dislike him, his proposal is beneficial to crypto.

[YOSHIE]

Do you think such type of incidents are pre planned to benefit the exchange ?

The exchange is currently experiencing a decline and trust from crypto investors & users, that's one way CZ wants to prove to Binance investors & users, that they really have funds without having to steal, they have millions of dollars in savings, they want to prove Binance is responsible.

What CZ is doing, is the mission & vision to convince investors and crypto users in general, but we really don't know what will happen in the future and we can't see what we can't see yet, The news that you provide is one way that can be seen, you do not know for the continuation.

What is certain is that anything can happen on a crypto exchange unexpectedly, it's a good idea to just stick to this advice: Reminder: do not keep your money in online accounts.

[hugeblack]

We can expect that everything will happen, and therefore all the news now will be either in the interest of the platform or an attempt to banish it, but there is a problem of liquidity in most platforms, the way to search for solutions to it differs from one platform to another, some of them deny rumors, and others try to spend more.

In general, it does not prove anything, because the liquidity problem, if it was true, would have appeared after the recent exposure to FTX,  it would happen suddenly, and therefore we may hear about it during the coming months if the current monetary policy continues.

[JeromeTash]

Do you think such type of incidents are pre planned to benefit the exchange ?

Some are preplanned, others are not. Sometimes FUD can hit you when you haven't planned for it, and we have seen that happen to a number of platforms right before they collapse. Regardless, I still don't trust CZ and Binance. SBF uttered similar words before the FTX disaster.

[JamesByrom]

It is possible that some exchanges may intentionally leak information in order to build their brand or generate buzz. However, it is important to note that intentionally leaking information can be illegal and unethical, and exchanges that engage in this behavior may be subject to legal or regulatory consequences. Additionally, intentionally leaking information can damage an exchange's reputation and credibility, which can ultimately harm its business. It is generally in the best interests of exchanges to be transparent and honest in their communications and practices, rather than engaging in deceptive or manipulative tactics.

[fuguebtc]

Regardless, I still don't trust CZ and Binance. SBF uttered similar words before the FTX disaster.

Believe it or not, it is your right. But the collapse of FTX does not mean that Binance is also collapsed. It's like the collapse of Luna doesn't mean ETH will collapse, both are centralized, but they are 2 completely different entities.

It is possible that some exchanges may intentionally leak information in order to build their brand or generate buzz. However, it is important to note that intentionally leaking information can be illegal and unethical, and exchanges that engage in this behavior may be subject to legal or regulatory consequences. Additionally, intentionally leaking information can damage an exchange's reputation and credibility, which can ultimately harm its business. It is generally in the best interests of exchanges to be transparent and honest in their communications and practices, rather than engaging in deceptive or manipulative tactics.

I consider this a branding ploy, and this has been commonly used by traditional companies before, I don't see anything illegal or unethical. As long as they don't scam, don't use customers' money indiscriminately, they can do anything to improve their reputation.

[bittraffic]

It's CZ's memo. He may have intentionally leaked it for all to reassure them they are fine and he also said they have seen it before. He knows they have been attacked several times so yep it's been planned by CZ. Even in the interviews, he reassures the public that they can withstand the fud.

Hew is obliged to because people will panic more if they just beg for people not to withdraw.

[uneng]

If this whole situation was made up to encourage mass withdrawals and raise the company's reputation, this event should be ignored as proof Binance is solvent. The real test happens when the CEO and his team are taken by surprise, what seems to not be the case here. I liked what CZ said about exchanges, though:



It's really simple. Exchanges just need to respect users' funds. If you have 1 BTC deposited on the platform, they must keep that 1 BTC there, instead of exchanging it into altcoins to run their schemes. Moreover, when the community points alerts on possible exchanges which are potentially going bankrupt, the accused exchanges shouldn't victimize themselves, but to deal with the situation as something normal, since they have the necessary funds to fulfill with their obligations.

[krishnaverma]

It's really simple. Exchanges just need to respect users' funds. If you have 1 BTC deposited on the platform, they must keep that 1 BTC there, instead of exchanging it into altcoins to run their schemes.

I am not sure but ignoring this aspect was the primary cause behind what happened to FTX.

[sunsilk]

It's really simple. Exchanges just need to respect users' funds. If you have 1 BTC deposited on the platform, they must keep that 1 BTC there, instead of exchanging it into altcoins to run their schemes.

I am not sure but ignoring this aspect was the primary cause behind what happened to FTX.

With the proof of reserve, that's what making everyone to think that their funds are safe into exchanges, mainly in Binance. But, with that idea also, everyone must be aware right now that if you deposit an exact btc or any altcoin on them, they're using it somewhere else for their personal gain.

Just as the banks, that's what they do and that's why they've got earning offers that will make people earn and deposit on their platform. But having that lot of users and they're not really parking the exact crypto that's deposited on them. It's making most of us aware that they're not really a safe place to keep it.

Well, we've known that ever since though.

[Darker45]

It's really simple. Exchanges just need to respect users' funds. If you have 1 BTC deposited on the platform, they must keep that 1 BTC there, instead of exchanging it into altcoins to run their schemes.

I am not sure but ignoring this aspect was the primary cause behind what happened to FTX.

With the proof of reserve, that's what making everyone to think that their funds are safe into exchanges, mainly in Binance. But, with that idea also, everyone must be aware right now that if you deposit an exact btc or any altcoin on them, they're using it somewhere else for their personal gain.

Proof of reserve should be that if there are 100,000BTC deposited by clients, there should also be 100,000BTC kept in a safe storage. There's big trouble when clients deposited a total of 100,000BTC and the exchange simply says it has $1,683,140,000 worth of assets that back it.

There's even bigger trouble when 100,000BTC is supported, still by an equivalent worth of assets, only that it is in their own tokens. Alert bells should be ringing extremely loud. So, if 100,000BTC is supported by $1,683,140,000 in FTT or BNB or BUSD or KCS or HT or whatever exchange token, everybody should start worrying.

[sunsilk]

With the proof of reserve, that's what making everyone to think that their funds are safe into exchanges, mainly in Binance. But, with that idea also, everyone must be aware right now that if you deposit an exact btc or any altcoin on them, they're using it somewhere else for their personal gain.

Proof of reserve should be that if there are 100,000BTC deposited by clients, there should also be 100,000BTC kept in a safe storage. There's big trouble when clients deposited a total of 100,000BTC and the exchange simply says it has $1,683,140,000 worth of assets that back it.

There's even bigger trouble when 100,000BTC is supported, still by an equivalent worth of assets, only that it is in their own tokens. Alert bells should be ringing extremely loud. So, if 100,000BTC is supported by $1,683,140,000 in FTT or BNB or BUSD or KCS or HT or whatever exchange token, everybody should start worrying.

Yeah, the ratio should tally on how much deposits are there. But these exchanges don't follow that, they're reinvesting it somewhere else or mostly buying their own tokens for that demand.

And as for Binance, I think that's what they have to prove that the ratio should be accurate on how much deposits are there and how much are withdrawable any time just as what happened recently.

[krishnaverma]

And as for Binance, I think that's what they have to prove that the ratio should be accurate on how much deposits are there and how much are withdrawable any time just as what happened recently.

Question is who will force them to prove this ?

[sunsilk]

And as for Binance, I think that's what they have to prove that the ratio should be accurate on how much deposits are there and how much are withdrawable any time just as what happened recently.

Question is who will force them to prove this ?

Well, their users but do we have power for them to do that? I doubt it.

That's why if the government steps in and forces them to do this, like the FED or FBI or the government where they're doing their main operations. Then they should be forced to prove them that it's 1:1.

It will make them brave and proving that they're really for their customers and have enough reserve funds as what's deposited to them.