CZ personally steps into the fray! Explain why people always FUD Binance

Regarding the recent severe FUD surrounding Binance, ChainNews has compiled many related reports, with arguments focusing on the inability to undergo the four major audits, failure to disclose company debts, and CZ's inability to provide a direct response to the CNBC host's questions during an interview. Today, CZ chose to speak out to the community, sharing his perspective and explaining why people are spreading FUD about Binance.

Reasons People FUD Binance

There are some individuals in the industry who simply dislike centralization, regardless of whether centralized exchanges can help drive faster adoption of cryptocurrencies. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and to voice them, which is perfectly fine.

Some people tend to blame or attack Binance when they lose money or encounter other issues, but not everything is black and white.

For instance, a user might blame Binance for not being able to access it due to router issues, which could be a misdiagnosis or unverified claim. Even if others do not face the same issue at the same time, and Binance's customer service monitoring system shows no high traffic or overload.

Some industry insiders see Binance as a competitor, and we have witnessed some individuals going to great lengths to lobby against us or providing significantly higher loans than market value to certain small media outlets, including buying their CEO's house.

As a result, some media outlets are bought to FUD Binance, while some are entirely owned by our competitors. Some may mistakenly believe that we cut off their funding and blame Binance for their own failures, regardless of the legality of their funding sources.

Cryptocurrency has yet to achieve mass adoption, with global usage possibly less than 5%, and many still hold a skeptical view of the industry. Some media outlets cater to a more traditional reader base and tend to align with their viewpoints. However, there is no right or wrong in this. I have encountered leaders who want to "protect" their banks rather than disrupt their leaders with cryptocurrency.

Politicians and policymakers are no different, not everyone is a forward-thinking innovator, and there is nothing wrong with maintaining a conservative stance. I have met leaders who want to "protect" their banks rather than change industry traditions with cryptocurrency.

Of course, I hold the opposite view. I believe the best way to protect banks from disruption is to adopt blockchain technology early. However, my perspective on this part may be wrong as well.

There is now a common narrative: "If one centralized exchange is bad, then all other centralized exchanges must be bad too." Especially for those who once favored centralized exchanges but later found them to be subpar, they tend to hate other centralized exchanges with a stronger sense of revenge.

It is also possible that a small fraction of people do so out of jealousy or simply due to racial discrimination against Chinese-Canadians. Who knows? But we don't care.

Scale also plays a role, as articles related to Binance garner more attention, while those about smaller exchanges receive less. Scale has its pros and cons.

Most of the above content has no absolute right or wrong. This is our world; we just need to acknowledge and understand it. We are not perfect and welcome feedback, but ignore the FUD. With your support, we focus on building our products.

Merry Christmas!