Hacker News Reader

Comment by rippercushions | Hacker News Reader

Off the top of my head:

- "A lot of activity" here means people withdrawing on the order of $4 billion from Binance in the last week alone, and that's net (deposits - withdrawals)

- CZ's much-touted Mazars "audit" that was nothing of the sort: liabilities missing entirely, Binance's massive stablecoin holdings missing entirely, only partial coverage of BTC/ETH holdings, sketchy transfers of large amounts into those account before the attestation and out right after, etc. Here's a good summary: https://youtu.be/42VnEndJ9mo

- Numerous regulatory organizations announcing investigations into Binance

- CZ's own leaked private comments about $250k withdrawals of Tether threatening to destabilize crypto as a whole (!?)

- Binance losing an unknown quantity to the FTX collapse, but at the very least a significant fraction of the $500M or so they had in FTT

View on HN

Your comment is a lot better (and more information dense) than the submission article. Can we change the URL to just point to your comment instead?

Many of those things are not mentioned in the article at all, so thanks for adding additional information.

> Your comment is a lot better (and more information dense) than the submission article. Can we change the URL to just point to your comment instead?

No it’s not. It’s unclear why some of the points are relevant to Binance’s health.

Edit: @rippercushions they are factually correct, but there is no context. With context, the points make even less sense.

Edit 2: @rippercushions Sorry then it’s not on your comment, just the parent’s proposal that it stands alone better than the speculation offered in the article.

I don't suppose you'd like to expand a little on what, exactly, is factually wrong with my comment?

GP was claiming there are "no indicators" that Binance is fucked, so I provided a list of recent things about Binance that sound pretty fucked to me.

It says something negative about crypto and to many people that makes it factually wrong.

If Binance is not running as an unregulated fractional reserve bank, they could be fine. If I am holding a million dollars in customer money and all but a dollar is withdrawn I am fine if I actually have it all in custody.

Somehow I doubt that Binance is that on the level.

Coinbase maybe because they are US based and seem to be run by somewhat sane people.

Coinbase makes their money on the 1% spread they charge. Kraken is in this ballpark too, with a little more variance. Binance, like FTX, charges a tenth of that. If they're not making up for that disparity somewhere, in a not so great way, I'll be quite surprised.

Binance offers margin, with tiers including up to 10x leverage. This is a level you can only typically get to with Treasury securities in the US, which otherwise hearkens back to the 1920s before regulations to avoid this were put in place for very good reason, on securities that are much more stable than cryptocurrencies.

Solvency is dubious at best.

Another point on the Mazars element is that (at the moment) it appears that Mazar's have suspended these services https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain/status/1603689768356675584?...

That “good summary” video is anything but, and contains numerous incorrect claims, starting with not being aware of differences between tokens and chains. He claims that Binance hasn’t provided any “Token addresses”, when they provided their ETH addresses (that contain tokens).

Huh? The video discusses the ETH holdings covered by the attestation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com