Talk:Binance

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, KB from Binance here and I have a request for editors. Like before, I will not make changes myself because of my conflict of interest.

• Add to the India subsection of the Legal status section: "Binance registered with India's Financial Intelligence Unit India regulation in 2024 so that it could resume operations in India.^[1]"
  • Reason: Give update to show that Binance can operate in India.

• Add to the Legal status section: "At the start of 2024, Binance received a Virtual Asset Service Provider permit in Dubai.^[2]
  • Reason: Give update to show where Binance can operate, as of most recent reporting.

• Add to the History section: "Binance had 237 million users, as of 2024.^[3]"
  • Reason: Give the most recent size of Binance's user base.

I would be curious to hear editors' thoughts on the overall structure of this page and whether or not adjustments are needed. I notice there's a lot of WP:PROSELINE in History especially.

Thank you for taking a look at my request, let me know if you have any questions. KB at Binance (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I did go ahead and add your proposed changes. Note I added the size instead to the lead as i think it is useful there. The number is so large, it is thus important and DUE in the lead in my opinion. It gives the reader an idea of size and scope. I would not be keen to update this number continually, monthly, etc. As for the other country data, I am concerned about the growing WP:NOTDIR appearance to the list and would prefer that it be moved into prose. I thus put the Dubai content in a general section, to see if other editors first agree to get out of the list format. I dont want to see this list of countries continue to grow (other than the countries that are very notable in terms of coverage). I would rather see the list of sub-countries prunded down to a handful of notable cases, say 5 (just picking a random number) with the rest of the content merged into prose. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

These were trivial details, and these sources did not demonstrate any lasting significance or provide any context. Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR, and this kind of pro-corporate advocacy is not prodcutive. Grayfell (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I felt the size of the exchange's user base is particularly due in the lead as it shows reader the scope of the organization. Hundreds of millions of users is a large scope, and our summary doesn't do it justice. Yes, the source is a bit weak, but when i looked at it, it was a real newspaper with an expat employed writer focusing on a particular region. Maybe the COI editor can look for a better source, maybe Bloomberg or NYT, or something like that. I fundamentally disagree this is puffery in nature. While you might be able to argue that the COI editor is editing from a WP:Puffery goal, we are required to WP:AGF and given the subjects #1 position in a large market, the user numbers is not puffery in my opinion. Others might disagree. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, others disagree. That's why I reverted it. Our goal is to provide context to readers. If you need a specific detail to 'show the scope' than find a better source and summarize more neutrally.

As for the other changes, nowhere does the article even hint at what a "Virtual Asset Service Provider" is in Dubai or anywhere else, nor does it indicate why a permit for such a thing is important... but it sure sounds impressive, doesn't it? That is presumably why it was proposed -not to inform, but to promote.

The info on India was more confusing than informative, since it cited a source from May after a source from June -Binance applied for a permit the month before they were fined by the Indian government, but the article implied it was after. This would need a lot more context to make sense at all, and if this belongs, it needs to be integrated into the rest of the paragraph, not just misleadingly and redundantly dropped at the end.

I also noticed that the article vaguely and positively mentioned "a stablecoin project" with a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of a contemporary source. That source did mention the name of that stablecoin, because why wouldn't it? It was Terra. The article needs more work, in other words. It does not need more PR. Grayfell (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Your justification for the removal of the India content is what exactly? The previous content states they were fined and the new content states they were approved to operate. What is wrong with that exactly? Are you seeking to only include negative content? Why would we make the article intentionally out of date when we have an RS for it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding that at the end falsely implied that the company applied after they were fined, but it was the other way around. To avoid promotional factoids, this needs to be summarized appropriately. Doing so in chronological order would make this a lot more sensible, but as always, it would be better to use those later sources to provide context. In other words, it would be better to use sources to indicate why this even matters. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought it was an update on the legal status in India. Maybe I was confused. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf and Grayfell: We have a few topics running here, so I'll try to keep my thoughts organized in bullets:

• Regarding user numbers: This seems like common information that is included in articles about entities that have a user / member base and is often kept in the Infobox. Right now, the article cites 120 million users in 2023 to Forbes in the History section. I do not think the number would need to be updated more than annually, but it seems like information that is common to include along with other operational details such as staff, revenue, etc.
• Regarding Legal status - India: Adding the Reuters sources add more credibility, and can add additional context to the penalty that's already mentioned. The two can be summarized together as follows:

• Binance registered with India's Financial Intelligence Unit India regulation (FIU) in May 2024. A FIU official said the company would be able to resume operations after paying penalties for previous non-compliance. In June, the FIU imposed Binance with a fine of US$ 2.25 million, for operating in India in violation of local anti-money laundering regulations.^[1][2]

• Regarding Dubai: The Bloomberg source does have more context. Here's a larger summary:

• "At the start of 2024, Binance received a Virtual Asset Service Provider permit from Dubai's Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority, allowing the company to engage in retail cryptocurrency trading, having previously held a limited interim permit. The permit was granted on condition that former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao give up voting control of the company's Dubai entity.^[1]"

• Jtbobwaysf, I agree with your suggestion that the Legal status section is getting unwieldy and will need to be curtailed. I spent some time looking at how similar sections in other articles have been addressed, and one thing I found was a WP:CONTENTSPLIT, and I see that in some cases there's a litigation article separate from the main company article. If the content should stay on Wikipedia longterm, but is starting to clog this article, I wonder if that's a potential avenue?

• I am committed to following the rules for COI editors by making transparent edit requests using the best available sources (excluding cryptocurrency news outlets), seeking consensus with volunteer editors, and assuming good faith. I see the Wikipedia article as an important resource for anyone interested in learning about Binance, and my goal is to help maintain a balanced and well written article. To the point made earlier about not cherry-picking details, I believe this applies to both positive and negative content. Over the past year, I've noticed a tendency for news about litigation to be added, sometimes without context. The redundant and out-of-place mentions of the plea deal in the US were a good example of this. It's more informative to readers if they can see a summary of the whole story, which includes litigation and other updates such as large increases in usership that show growth.

Looking back at past requests, it appears we are repeating a similar pattern and I think it would be good if we had more editors involved in our discussion since it seems like we won't find consensus among the three of us. Rusalkii, you recently responded on this page, are you interested in weighing in on any of this? I can also invite editors from relevant Wikiprojects to join the discussion. Thanks, KB at Binance (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

You are attempting to WP:CANVASS other editors who you think might be more sympathetic to your promotional goals. To put it another way, it appears that you don't like the answers you're getting from me, so you want to find different editors who will help you promote your company. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, and tactical behavior like this will only undermine your credibility even further.

My point about Dubai was not that context did not exist, it was that the change to the article did not provide any of that context, nor did it indicate why this was even important enough to mention at all. As presented it was a vague factoid.

Regarding the context itself, if your employer already had an 'interim permit' in one particular jurisdiction (meaning the company had already been offering retail trading), why would this change be important to readers? This appears to be using routine activity to bloat the section, and the only reason for that is to displace more significant and less flattering information.

The current article is a mess, but it does, at least, explain why Binance's public reputation is what it is. It is not some great mystery why reliable sources will document the company's many legal issues. Our goal is not to inflate the article with false balance, it's to summarize reliable, independent sources in proportion to due weight.

Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

First to ping two different editors, you and me who are both participating in this discussion, is not at all remotely WP:CANVASS. It is clear that I am somewhat supportive of the editors changes and you are not supportive. Binance has a good reputation actually and this article does a poor job of that, and the false balance is in fact all the negative content. It is worded more as a hit piece. Sadly this is the case with many articles as the press tend to cover more negative stuff than positive. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy against cryptocurrency, see WP:SOAP. Next as for what the editor is suggesting, I am still a bit confused. I dont think that the legal status of the article is WP:UNDUE but I dont like the list format. I would prefer it to be put into prose. Part of Binance's history is its many legal dealings, which one editor thinks paints a negative light (eg public reputation), it in fact does not it shows that exchange has done a lot of work globally on compliance. KB, please just flesh the issues out on this talk page and we can use an WP:RFC on anything that we think is not covered properly. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

They also pinged Rusalkii, who has previously been sympathetic to this editor's requests. When a paid editor receives push-back, their first response cannot be to immediately start looking for someone else who will agree with them. This just leads to edit warring and similar. It's also not professional behavior, it's something children do when they want a cookie before dinner. I am not Binance's stern mom, and you shouldn't pretend to be Binance's permissive dad. Inviting even more editors into this at this early stage is only going to be disruptive, and is a great example of why so few editors like to handle COI requests at all.

Your personal opinion that Binance has a good reputation is not well-supported by those reliable sources which are already cited in this article. Outside of the unreliable pro-crypto bubble, every cryptocurrency platform is mainly discussed in reference to problems: gambling, money laundering, pig butchering, sanctions evading, rug pulls, darknet markets, etc... While this is not specific to Binance, Binance is not exempt from this coverage since it is the largest provider of these services. For example, just this week in the New York Times: "When victims sent money to the accounts, the funds quickly moved to a bank in the Bahamas. From there, the money was used to purchase Tether cryptocurrency held on the exchange Binance." You can make whatever comparisons you want to how banks and fiat currency are covered, but that doesn't change anything here. I would guess that these kinds of issues represent the overwhelming majority of coverage of Binance in reliable sources. Any attempt to artificially shift the article away from how most reliable sources cover the topic is non-neutral. This is why Binance and so many other crypto projects need to rely on pro-crypto pseudo-journalism to assist them with their PR. It's also likely the reason they pay people to try and edit Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Binance is the largest global exchange, its no surprise that it is used to purchase a stable coin. I think you are right the majority of coverage is negative. However, the COI editors edits, which we can be assumed to put the company is a positive light, are acceptable from my POV regardless. User quantities and expansion of a sub-section are quite non-controversial edits which you reverted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The source isn't talking about 'purchasing a stable coin' in isolation, it's talking about laundering money which was stolen from victims of fraud. You do understand this, right? So from sources like this, how did Binance become so large? Per many reliable sources, this isn't exactly a coincidence.

Since I have controverted them, the changes are not 'non-controversial'. Find better sources, and look at what those sources are actually saying in total, not just the bits which are useful from your POV. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I recognize that you want to introduce negative light edits on to this article. That is your own pejorative. However, you are using that to state that WP:DUE inclusions are not valid as it might somehow show that Binance is large and/or has some sort of license in India. Your conclusion is incorrect and is bordering on POV pushing. There is no reason not to include all types of properly sourced content to this article. Are we going to have to start putting these simple changes to RFC? Seems silly, but maybe necessary if you continue with this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I assume by 'pejorative' you mean 'prerogative'. My goal is not to "introduce negative light edits on to this article". My goal is to summarize reliable sources according to due weight. The way to resolve these issues is with neutral proposals which provide enough context for readers to properly assess these details for themselves. For many of these details, that is impossible, because they are undue and trivial.

Not every detail which can be sourced belongs in an article. This is what editing means -deciding what to include and what to leave-out.

Reliable sources are, by definition, sources which are willing to critically examine a topic. Sources which merely pass-along minor details or press releases are fundamentally less reliable.

So, when a reliable secondary source covers some detail, it also includes at least some context. Editing means we have to evaluate if we should summarize a detail, and how to do that proportionately. Binance having applied for "some sort of license in India" is not inherently noteworthy. It needs context, and that context needs to come from a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to say prerogative. Thank you. We have a subsection on India in this article. There is no reason not to expand it. The other route would be to kill the sub-section entirely and merge it all into prose. Arguing that a tiny couple sentence sub section is enough and cannot handle any expansion is silly. Properly sourced and neutral content is due for inclusion even if it is suggested by a COI editor. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point and putting words into my mouth. At no point did I say that it "cannot handle any expansion". As I've said several times, these details need to provide context to readers, otherwise there is no point in including them. Without context, this is just an isolated factoid. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

So you are saying the India content is ok it just needed to be re-worded to add context? What context was the user numbers missing? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf and Grayfell: I'm curious to hear Grayfell's thoughts on what context would be helpful here. If we're still having trouble finding consensus among the three of us, I suggest we ask editors from WikiProject Cryptocurrency to join the discussion. Thanks, 10:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC) (— Preceding unsigned comment added by KB at Binance (talk • contribs) 10:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC))

Briefly reviewing the discussions here: It would be of great help of KB at Binance would follow WP:COI more closely. --Hipal (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Spelling error - Change "npt" to "not" in the last paragraph of the "2020–2023: acquisitions and investments" section. HugoTro (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Good catch, thanks. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, KB here with another request. The article has a few tags about needing better, or non-primary sources, so I've looked around and have suggestions for addressing those tags:

• In 2018–2019: launch of stablecoin and security breach there's a "better source needed" tag for "Withdrawals resumed by 19 May.^{[1][better source needed]}" with the reason in the tag being "Citation is the Binance company website, which is not objective". The claim is verifying a date, which seems non-controversial enough, but also like it's not a crucial date to include in the history of the company longterm. I did not locate a source in mainstream press to verify the same claim, so I propose the following change:

• In 2020–2023: acquisitions and investments, "On 13 June 2022, Binance announced that for an unspecified period of time users would not be unable to withdraw their funds held in bitcoin, as the value of cryptocurrencies suffered serious declines.^[2] Two hours after that announcement, bitcoin withdrawals were allowed to resume.^{[3][better source needed]}" with the same reason that the company's website is not objective.

• I was able to locate this CBS News article confirms that withdrawals resumed the same day.

• In BNB there's a "citation needed" tag for "BNB (Build'N'Build) is a token on the BNB chain. It was originally called Binance Coin when it was launched in July 2017,"

• This Bloomberg article confirms the ICO was in 2017, and that the token's original name was Binance Coin.

• In First Digital USD there's a "non-primary source needed" tag for the entire section.

• I didn't see much mainstream press that covered this, but did find this source from The Business Times that confirms Binance discontinued support for BUSD. I could not locate a source that verifies "The company advised users in possession of Binance USD assets to migrate to First Digital USD (FDUSD), with the conclusion of this transition set for February 2024.". I suggest cutting that sentence, and moving the remaining content from this section to the end of Binance USD (BUSD).

Because of my COI, I do not make direct edits to the article. Thanks for taking the time to review my suggestions. KB at Binance (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have implemented the second and third of these four proposals, and have partially implemented the fourth. The first one still needs a source. The source for the fourth doesn't appear sufficient for this, but I agree that the line about 'First Digital' should be axed, which makes the subsection unnecessary. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Thanks for implementing those changes. I took another look around for the first and fourth, here's what I found:

• In 2018–2019: launch of stablecoin and security breach: The Asia Times article currently cited in the article says "The exchange continued to state that all transactions have been suspended while the investigation continues and that stolen funds will be reimbursed in full. The security review is expected to take a week during which time users will still be able to trade but cannot deposit or withdraw funds from the exchange." Is that adequate to support the change I suggested?
• First Digital USD: I looked around again and only found mainstream press that covered the order to stop minting BUSD in Feb. 2023, everything about discontinuing support was primary, in crypto press or a WP:FORBESCON. At any rate, I think this is better now. The discontinuation seems like a reasonable detail to include, but since there's not a third-party source I'll defer to your judgment on whether it belongs in the article at all.

Thanks again! KB at Binance (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The Asia Times article is talking about things that were 'expected' to happen in the future according to Binance itself. This is only slightly better than the blog source. A later source which confirms what actually happened would be much better. Grayfell (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

KB, to echo Grayfells' point, please remember that WP:CRYSTAL applies to our sourcing policies. So if something was predicted to happen at future date in an old source (and the prediction came true) we normally would not be able to use the older source to document the event. We need a source after the event that makes it encyclopedic. We are editing and encyclopedia and for the most part we are documenting things that actually happened. Yes, we do in some cases document things that didnt happen, but for our purposes here on this Binance article we are probably going to need sources after the event, rather than before the event. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf and Grayfell: I see what you both mean with that rule. Luckily, I have found an article from TechCrunch that says, "...that hack, which saw Binance pause withdrawals and deposits for a week...", referring to the May 7, 2019 security breach. I think "for a week" confirms the pause was temporary, in line with my earlier suggestion. Also, there are some other sources, too, but this one looks like the best to me.

Here is the suggestion again with the new source:

Binance temporarily halted further withdrawals and deposits but allowed trading to continue. The site pledged to reimburse customers.^[4][5]

This should be enough to update the article and remove that "better source needed" tag. Let me know if you have any other thoughts. Thanks! KB at Binance (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, or we could even summarize literally to say "deposits were paused for a week" Let's see what Grayfell says. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I've made an edit to include a TechCrunch source. Perhaps I missed it, but I do not see where any of these sources support the line that Binance "...allowed trading to continue." so I have removed that part. Per cited sources, all transactions were temporarily halted. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf and Grayfell: This makes sense to me! Thank you KB at Binance (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jtbobwaysf and Grayfell: I wanted to thank you for your time spent making this article improved and more encyclopedic. I think much work remains to be done on this front. I know previously I made suggestions that other editors found too promotional. Because of this, I would like to suggest we all work together to improve this article past C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I can make a User space copy of this article and include some of my suggestions in it. You both, along with all other interested editors, can then directly edit in that space. This way, you can just remove any suggestions I made that you find promotional or ill sourced and add things that you think would improve the article.

I understand editors' concerns about promotional content, and appreciate the interest volunteer editors are taking in this. I really value Wikipedia as a resource and know there are lots of articles to keep up on, so I hope to find ways I can lighten the load and constructively support the article being accurate and encyclopedic. I hope to work with you both to make this happen. Are you interested in collaborating? KB at Binance (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Some articles will never have their assessment class raised. It really depends on the quantity of material out there with good sources. Given the controversial nature of the subject and the mainstream media's slant towards negativity in relating to cryptocurrency in general and even more so focused on centralized exchanges, I doubt we will have the NPOV necessary to get good balance on the article. That said, we will continue to help you to improve it. I suggest you continue to propose changes. Proposing a change in your sandbox can be a good approach. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I strongly recommend against creating a user-space copy of the entire article. This would make evaluating individual changes much, much harder, and therefor much less likely to gain consensus. Incremental proposals are a much better approach here.

Regarding the "mainstream media's" negative slant, I see two issues: The first is that Wikipedia fundamentally has a mainstream bias as an encyclopedia. We need reliable sources, and like it or not, mainstream sources meet Wikipedia's needs better than most niche, fringe, or "alternative" outlets. The cryptocurrency industry's standards for both news and academic publishing are absolute garbage. I'm not inclined to sugar coat that. Financial journalism and business academia already had pretty bad problems with credulity before crypto entered the scene, but it's gotten even worse since then. This makes it much harder to find reliable source for this set of topics.

The second issue is that a glut of promotional editing has made Wikipedia a lot less patient with cryptocurrency specifically. You cannot do anything about the first issue, but you can do something about the second. Please do what you can to avoid taking up more time from volunteer editors than necessary, as this will only make the second issue even worse. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf and Grayfell: Thanks for the response! I see what you both mean. In the interest of not taking up unneeded time from volunteer editors, would it work better for the two of you if I identified issues before proposing content? That way, neither of you would have to review a request for something you do not believe is even an issue. Just trying to think of ways to make this process more efficient. If we did this, I could ping you both before adding to the queue, and then if we agree to move forward, I will make a formal request in the COI edit queue. What do you think? KB at Binance (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, its ok with me to just identify proposed changes rather than user-space since Grayfell is opposed to that. Wikipedia for sure has a bias which causes us to tend towards whatever the NYT and Bloomberg think. Far larger issue that I know how to deal with, and the problem is even worse on other medical pages, etc. For example the covid history. I dont think there is a resolution to that, nor would I even know how to start. I dont think this bias will be corrected on this page either, we just have to wait for the mainstream press to think Binance is ok before it will be reflected as 'ok' at wikipedia. It is not a solution to use low quality sources as Grayfell points out. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The redirect WazirX has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 12 § WazirX until a consensus is reached. Koshuri ^(あ!) 07:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf and Grayfell: based on our previous discussion, I have taken a brief pause to re-read this article, the general Manual of Style plus MOS guideline for companies, and then crypto company articles to get the general idea of how these should look.

Based on this, I have come up with a few things this article could improve on. As to not waste yours and other editors' time, I ask if we agree that these are all things we should focus in on:

• My understanding is that the introduction is supposed to be a general overview of the most important points in a nutshell. Meanwhile, this one gets into a lot of granular detail.
  • Idea: refine the intro

• The History section subheadings aren't logical. The third is 2020–2023: acquisitions and investments but acquisitions and investments happen outside of this time period too.
  • Idea: restructure subheadings into clearer time periods. For example: Early history (2017-2023), where the CEO change is a natural break in the company's history.

• The History section is also acting as a sort of catch-all section and introducing information based on the date it happened. An example of this is, "In July 2018, Binance acquired Trust Wallet, a decentralized cryptocurrency wallet for an undisclosed sum composed of a mixture of cash, Binance stock, and BNB tokens." (This is also one of those examples of an acquisition outside of the 2020–2023: acquisitions and investments subsection). As a result, this History section is also very long.
  • Idea: Find the information not best suited for a History section and move it elsewhere. From what I have seen, commonly used examples of other sections include "Company overview", "Partnerships and acquisitions", "Global operations", and "Products/Services". Maybe all four of these are not needed, but some of these could be used.

• The Tokens section seems to be serving almost as a proxy for a "Products" or "Services" section when really it should be a subsection within a "Products" or "Services". There is a sort of funny oversight where the article doesn't actually really establish what Binance even is. The article is almost so distracted by outlining History that it forgets to even define the basics of the company. The intro says "cryptocurrency exchange" and the Infobox says Binance serves users worldwide. But beyond that, there are no explanations for generally what Binance does, what its platform is, and the overall services it offers.
  • Idea: A Products or Services section that includes clear information on Binance does with a subsection on Tokens

• The Legal status section is long, split up into 14 different subsections. Surely there is a better way to organize this information?
  • Idea: One possible solution is that this may need to be its own article. There is just so much here. It isn't quite long enough to move under WP:SIZERULE, but I was thinking more due to WP:SPINOFF.

That goes through each section. If we can agree on tackling this with the same goals, then our experience will be more collaborative and I won't waste anyone's time suggesting content for things that you disagree with on the basis that it doesn't even need improvement. Let me know your general thoughts on this and if you have any other ideas! My suggestions are merely spitballing but I recognize that you may have suggestions based on rules or guidelines I don't even know about. Thanks for reading this though! KB at Binance (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

For the most part I agree. Since you have essentially suggested a full re-write, which is difficult to do, it might be easier to do one section at a time. The LEAD section would be the last one to fix, as that is a summary of the other sections. Legal status is a violation of WP:NOTDIR as well as general no-nos relating to lists. As for history, yes we can organize out to corporate info, products and services, etc. All makes logical sense to me from a high level. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I have a good idea of where to take this draft then. I agree with you that one section at a time might be easier.

I will go ahead and draft up a sort of Products or Services section. This will include both currently existing information in the article plus new information from what we agree are reliable sources. Once that is done, I will ping you so you can review it.

I see that CoinDesk, CoinTelegraph have already been discussed on Wikipedia in general. Do you have any general thoughts on The Block, Decrypt, or Coin Central? If not, I may seek some outside opinions on WP:Cryptocurrency.

Thanks for all your thoughts! KB at Binance (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf As promised, here is the Products and services section proposal for you! I took some things already in the article that were well sourced (A bulk is the Tokens section) and used that as the foundation for the section. I have added more information only using publications on the WP:RSP list.

Let me know your initial thoughts and if you have any adjustments. Once we tinker around with this, I think then we can take a look at the current article and see what needs to be removed for redundancy.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback! KB at Binance (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• We dont do products and services generally. Youa are thinking about it with your PR hat on. Put on an encyclopedia hat. First there is no real differnece for us between BNB and BSC, I think this is the same thing that was just renamed. A description of the notable parts of its exchange business is certainly due as well, and might be more encyclopedic. Probably should merge in with all the legal issues, as the legal issues mostly come from the exchange biz. Let me know if this helps. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf I’m not committed to that section title and am open to any ideas you have. Wanted to throw out "Offerings" or only "Products" as I have seen those around on similar pages and they seem to be standard. As for the subsections within it, maybe those individual tokens don't need sub-subsections and those headings can be removed.

Long-term, I agree with your idea but my thinking was that before tackling the larger Legal status section, get the structure of the article down first before moving things more and more around.

Maybe we should take a step back and sketch out an outline of sections (of course with final determination based on reliable sourcing!) Generally, I was thinking an outline such as the following:

• History

• This already exists

• Company overview

• This does not exist yet but seems standard and some information in the article already seems better suited for this, such as the transition in headquarters.

• Products/Services/Offerings

• Not committed to any heading name, but this is akin to what I presented above and would replace the current Tokens section. Just generally something that defines what Binance as a company is doing, in terms of the main exchange but also other auxiliary offerings.

• Partnerships and acquisitions

• This topic gets mentioned a lot, to the point that it's dragging down other sections. I think relocating all that info into a new section or subsection will help other sections have more direction and therefore will be more clear for readers.

• Global operations

• Since you mentioned that the current Legal status is a violation of WP:NOTDIR and needs to be curtailed, I was thinking part of that could be just presenting it as "Global operations" with a more high level summary of events and current status, rather than the country-by-country look that is currently presented.

Let me know your thoughts! I am most curious if you are still thinking whether what I presented above is suitable for its own section, but in a different heading name and less subsections, or if we should tinker around with the general structure goal some more.

Thanks! KB at Binance (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I am ok with this. Grayfell often disagrees with me, lets see what they think. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

This is all far, far too vague. There are some vaguely good proposals here, but this needs to be specific in order to be actionable. A COI editor is not going to be impartial enough to curtail the legal status section. The article did not have a 'Partnerships and acquisitions' section. The closest it had was a '2020–2023: acquisitions and investments' section, but that section was not primarily about that at all. Until a better name is found, I've removed that section subtitle.

To put it another way, we're not going to downplay the company's many well-documented international legal issues just because a PR person asked us nicely. Grayfell (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

We dont need a directory of legal status, we should cover the markets where we have enough to say about it that makes it due. I also think we need to WP:AGF that the COI editor is here trying to improve the article. We should not stonewall that attempt. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

AGF is a guideline. WP:NOTPR is policy. Pointing out problems is not 'stonewalling'. Grayfell (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposing structure and content without regard to what the best sources have to say never goes well, and goes much worse when driven by a coi. --Hipal (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• We could also consider to just go to a historical structure as we do at Bitfinex. That seems to work well, then we just merge the text into sections by date. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Grayfell Yes this is vague but I was hoping to reach a consensus on what is an acceptable structure before presenting it. I understand all of this is dependent on reliable and robust sourcing to back it up, but I wanted to first confirm I am not totally off base on where to aim. I think what I have learned thus far is laying a foundation is important before we start building.

  In regards to the draft that I presented above and its feedback, I changed my draft's subsection name from "Exchange" to "Marketplace". This allows the section/subsection name "Binance exchange" to be used in the future for the idea from Jtbobwaysf to move part of the "Legal status" section to a "Binance Exchange" section."

• I appreciate any feedback to improve the draft and I understand the scrutiny reviewing volunteer editors need to have.

  While this is being reviewed, I’ll take a look at the structure of Bitfinex since Jtbobwaysf suggested it as a framework to consider. KB at Binance (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The above proposal is too promotional. I could explain why, but I've already done that and you don't seem to understand or care. Also, unlike you, I am not being paid figure out how to game the system for PR purposes.

Bitfinex is not a particularly good article, so it is a poor basis for comparison. All articles should be based on sources about that specific topic, and such sources need to be evaluated in context.

To repeat myself yet again, make small, specific, actionable proposals. Incremental proposals are a much better approach here. Considering using Template:Text diff to propose changing one or two sentences at a time. No, this isn't going to fix the article's organizational issues, at least not very quickly, but to be blunt, you are not qualified or neutral enough to tackle those issues. Wikipedia is still not a platform for promotion, PR, or advocacy. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

We dont need this level of nuance here. We are an encyclopedia, and thus really we can just deal with the historical parts. The various product and service nuance proposals are just not that important, just integrate it into history. We are not going to provide a full products and services feature list here at wikipedia. Maybe if various parts of the business are later notable enough to have their own sections or articles, then maybe (like Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office). But we are no where near that today, maybe a decade from now... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The infobox should state “None” for headquarters rather than “Unknown” as the article explicitly states the company has no official headquarters.

Articles consistently describe it as having no fixed base, period, due to its global, regulatory-averse structure. If evidence of an unofficial hub emerges, the infobox could be updated, but no such evidence exists now.

Ap1012 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

In November 2024, FTX filed a lawsuit against Binance Holdings Ltd., Zhao, and other Binance executives, seeking to recover nearly $1.8 billion that FTX alleges was fraudulently transferred. The case centers on a July 2021 stock repurchase transaction in which Binance sold its stakes—approximately 20% of FTX's international unit and 18.4% of its US-based entity—to FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried.

Please rephrase it.

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.

Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, I would like to request editors add a recent update to the Binance leadership structure.

Binance's co-founder He was named co-CEO alongside Teng in December 2025.^[1]

This should be updated in the History section as well as in the infobox.

Grayfell and Jtbobwaysf due to your continuing interest in updating this page, I wanted to ping you to see if you had any input. Thanks, KB at Binance (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have implemented your changes. Thanks for the update. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello Wikipedia! I wanted to suggest an addition to this article to update it with some recent news coverage about Binance's regulatory status. I would like to suggest the following and suggest it at the end of the History section:

Abu Dhabi’s financial regulator issued three licenses in December 2025, allowing regulated global trading.^[1][2]

Pinging Grayfell and Jtbobwaysf due to their continued interest.

Please let me know if there are any questions! KB at Binance (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

This is far, far too vague and misrepresents the cited sources for promotional purposes. Per the WSJ: Last week, Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, said it had received full approval from Abu Dhabi’s financial regulator to operate its global trading platform from the capital. A state-backed Emirati investment firm bought a $2 billion stake in Binance earlier this year. There are several other mentions of Binance in that article, but those are about Trump's pardon and associated quid pro quo shenanigans with World Liberty Financial. To only use a source for vaguely promotional details while ignoring the meat of the source is inappropriate. The Bloomberg source also mentions both the pardon, and the size of UAE's investment. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! The information outlined ($2 billion investment; presidential pardon; World Liberty Financial) already existed in the article so I thought the most appropriate request was for the basic fact of this new development.

Additionally, presenting modified language could have been construed as promotional as well. In fact, I did not adjust the UAE investment language in my proposed user space draft for this reason. I am making every attempt to remove my inherent bias (due to being an employee) in all of these requests.

However, this may be moot as another editor seems to have implemented this update. KB at Binance (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello editors! I have some suggested updates for this article that I will be presenting in bite sized chunks, for transparency they will be coming from this user space draft.

I plan to just start at the top and work my way through the article.

For the first request, I wanted to start with the early history and propose replacing the following content with what is presented below.

What is removed and why:

• Zhao's personal history pre-Binance, as that is more pertinent to the article about him

What is added and why:

• Release of Binance Coin in 2017, as this is a key milestone that is missing in this section.
• Background on Binance Coin to contextualize it

What is rewritten and why:

• Zhao and He's background to streamline information.
• Headquarters relocation to provide more context and milestones.

As always, pinging Grayfell and Jtbobwaysf due to their continued interest.

Let me know if you have any thoughts. KB at Binance (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful if you added sources inline in text so we can look. Seems you also removed some text, please explain. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems there are numerous POV issues in this article. I was somewhat ignoring it due to the questions of distraction of above, but took a look at it today. We can go through them one by one as they arise, seems all to be in the same general POV that binance is bad, etc.

• Money Laundering in WP:LEAD @Thenightaway: you added this which states that Binance pled guilty to "money laundering charges". Do we have a preponderance of sources for that? DOJ said: "Binance Holdings Limited (Binance), the entity that operates the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance.com, pleaded guilty today and has agreed to pay over $4 billion to resolve the Justice Department’s investigation into violations related to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), failure to register as a money transmitting business, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)." Do we have agreement that this is going to be summarized into money laundering? I am not sure it meets the test of money laundering in WP:WIKIVOICE and certainly the WSJ stating it wouldnt be sufficient to make the claim in wikivoice. Maybe you can cite some sort of policy that states that we dont just link to the relevant act(s) that the DOJ states they violated? Thanks!

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Those are laws that specifically prohibit moneylaundering. All reliable sources describe Binance as having pleaded guilty to anti-moneylaundering violations: Reuters, BBC News, NY Times, FT, Washington Post. Wikipedia should follow the RS. Thenightaway (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

These are laws in the US that prohibit money laundering among other things. For the company Binance we don't need be particularly careful, but when it relates to Zhao then we have to defer to WP:BLP as we regularly see issues today where the media promotes one interpretation that is separate and distinct from the fact and we dont promote those POVs to the lead, for example Bank_Secrecy_Act#Sanctions, and Wachovia, and HSBC. Even if the media intrepreation is in fact correct, it is still WP:UNDUE for summary in the WP:LEAD. Probably every major financial institution has BSA violations at this point in time and we are not summarizing those in the lead, Binance is really no different from a global financial institution at this point and should be treated neutrally as we treat other large corps. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

Now that the early location information has been updated, I wanted to break out the ICO information into a separate thread for discussion.

Request: Add to the end of the first subsection in History: He wrote parts of the white paper for Binance's $15 million initial coin offering (ICO).^[1] In July 2017, 200 million coins of the utility token Binance Coin, designed to pay the exchange's trading fees, were released. The token was originally based on the Ethereum network and later renamed to Build'N'Build (BNB).^[2][3][4]

The company's founding in 2017 is mentioned, but the section does not establish what this means exactly. The ICO and basic historical points for the coin are key facts in the company's history and founding.

Tagging Grayfell and Jtbobwaysf as always and also tagging Sibshops due to their heavy investment in the last discussion. Please let me know what you think. KB at Binance (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

This is, at best, only a superficially neutral summary of these sources. The existence of a white paper and the quantity of 'utility tokens' would need context to be anything other than promotional trivia. To put it another way, the article would need to explain, via reliable independent sources and without PR-like vagueness, why this is a "key fact" in the company's history. Grayfell (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@KB at Binance: please see if you can find some additional sources for this content. I think that is the pushback at this point. I dont think we are going to cover your musings on utility tokens. But the general history of ICO white paper date, release of tokens, move from Ethereum to Binance Chain there should be sources for that (note I personally think the sourcing for these claims is already sufficient for inclusion). More sources is always good, please dig around for them since its your job apparently to do it. Generally only stuff that is green on WP:RSP. You could also see if it is covered by some of books over at google books, but should be books published by a real publisher. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this (deleted some promotional POV stuff):

• He wrote parts of the white paper for Binance's $15 million initial coin offering (ICO).^[1] In July 2017, 200 million coins of the token Binance Coin, were released. The token was originally based on the Ethereum network and later renamed to Build'N'Build (BNB).^[2][3][4]

Comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of Greyfell's comments. I think it needs some connection to the section.

2013–2017: company beginnings and move out of China

• He wrote parts of the white paper for Binance's $15 million initial coin offering (ICO). - Confusing because He is being overloaded as both Yi He and a pronoun he (who is a she).
• In July 2017, 200 million coins of the token Binance Coin, were released. - Vague and kind of confusing as well. ICOs are offered, not released. Also, it could be connected with the previous sentence for the ICO.
• The token was originally based on the Ethereum network and later renamed to Build'N'Build (BNB). - Possibly remove. Unnecessary implementation detail and chronologically confusing putting in 2023 events in this section.

Also, I think there is still missing a connection for why Yi He's help rewriting the whitepaper is instrumental to the founding of the company. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Any expansion of the article should start from sources. In order, these sources are about "an existential crisis for crypto’s largest exchange", "An already bad year for cryptocurrencies took another turn for the worse after a $568 million hack affecting Binance Coin...", a source from 2019 which predates the launch of the Binance Chain and is mostly about securities, and the Forbes source which is mainly about the dispute over BUSD's status as a security, and not about the history of Binance Coin/BNB etc. As I said, this proposal is not a good summary of these sources at all. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

That's true, and I didn't pick that up initially. We have to be careful that we are just summarizing the sources and not doing original research. If the section to include isn't stated in a reliable source it probably isn't due to include here. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Sibshops and Grayfell I wanted to step in here and potentially provide some clarity.

To Sibshops' point, the articles do verify the information, see below:

To Grayfell's point, I am not sure where within WP:Verifiability this idea is coming from. All the presented facts can be verified in a reliable source, I do not see anything about the inverse where a Wikipedia article needs to wholly summarize every source it uses. In fact, this seems opposite to the guideline that verifiability does not equal inclusion, so not everything in the articles should be included even if in a reliable source. So just because the articles might focus on other things, I don't follow why this means that facts within it that aren't the "focus" cannot be used.

The closest I could find is guidelines about Due and Undue weight, but that pertained to fringe vs mainstream viewpoints rather than the amount of coverage in news articles themselves. But to that point, there are also other news sources which verify the facts above, showing these are things heavily weighted across sources. (see: Bloomberg; Forbes; and Fortune)

Let me know if there are any other questions, thanks KB at Binance (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't verifiability, is that the section is pulling information from several sources to make new statements not covered in any of the sources. More information can be found in WP:SYNTH. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm ok with adding more content, generally I think the more the better. Its an important article and expanding it is useful. I would be opposed to removal of the BNB thing starting on the ethereum network as that is part of history, exactly what these articles cover. Also I am fine with stating that Yi He had a role in the white paper, we shouldn't remove her role. Women in tech is important, and we shouldn't remove that from articles and can even lean a bit more towards inclusion for that for NPOV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not say anything about verifiability. Instead of Wikilawering, propose reliable, independent sources to indicate to readers why this information is encyclopedically significant. Passing mentions scattered across a handful of sources which are primarily about something else are a poor way to demonstrate this significance. Wikipedia's goal as an encyclopedia isn't to drop factoids, it's to provide context to disinterested readers. If you cannot figure out how to do this, it doesn't belong in this article. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I dont agree with what this editor Grayfell is saying. To the COI editor, we pickup factoids all the time and that is how we build articles. However, the second part is true, please avoid assembling multiple factoids and attempting to WP:SYNTH together a statement in one sentence. I suggest you just do one sentence per source. Then we can assemble those sources into a paragraph, and the reader can infer their own opinion about the assembly. If another editor disagrees with the location of the factoids maybe creating an WP:NPOV problem, it might get moved. So we continue to value your input on the article, there is nothing wrong with a COI editor participating. Since you are getting paid to do this, spend more time to put things together. If you instead spend time trying to trick us, we will lose patience (I think that has already occurred here and suggest you work hard to re-gain trust.) FYI, simply creating a third COI account also wont accomplish that, we will just treat it as the same source of edits as for now, we are treating your edits as coming from the Binance PR department. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• There really arent any major issues with the proposed text that wasn't simple to rectify. I have added it here. The above arguments to an extent appear to be an attack on the editor, however we are aware this is a COI editor and sometimes they do find stuff to improve the article. The ICO part of the article is certainly encyclopedic and WP:DUE for inclusion. As one of the top 5 tokens in terms of value and the largest exchange in terms of volume, the history of how it got there is without question encyclopedic. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell: you immediately reverted and cited WP:ONUS. Please detail here what you consider to be WP:PROMO. As part of WP:RFCBEFORE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Nothing about this was an attack on an editor. If you cannot assume good faith, do not edit. I have already explaine the problems with these changes twice. Your unsupported assertions do not make these details encyclopedic. In the article, this would be WP:SYNTH, but here on the talk page, it's merely a non-productive distraction. Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell: My comment about focus on the editors is in response to your allegation of "Wikilawering" that you made (apparently) towards the COI editor above in this section. I think that was uncalled for, I only see a COI editor suggesting content, and of course we are wary of that. The COI editor has disclosed their COI and is editing fairly to my personal opinion. At some point we should not be stonewalling simply due to the editor being a disclosed COI. As part of WP:BRD you are now required to Discuss your revert, I Boldly added, you Reverted, now we Discuss (the content not the editors). Your discussion here suggesting I should not be editing this article is also improper. Tell me what is wrong with the content that you reverted. It doesnt matter at this point what was proposed above, as I have added specific text and provided the diff here . Most of the objections above that I saw I removed (released, utility token claim, etc). So what are your objections to the content now? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

BRD is a guide which describes an optional strategy. It is not a policy. Further, I already discussed one issue: This is a poor and disproportionate summary of sources. The edit fails to contextualize this info or even indicate why it matters, because they sources do not treat it as significant. Your personal opinion on how significant this is is not enough, since Wikipedia is not a platform for PR. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell: What do you think isn't significant? The whitepaper, ICO, the authorship of the white paper, or the move from the Ethereum network to its own blockchain? I think that is all that this content is related to. All seems easily WP:DUE on this article, but since you reverted it specifically which parts do you disagree with? The historical background of an article isnt a super high bar to cross. Are you now alleging that I am putting forth PR or are you objecting to the suggestions of the COI editor above? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Asking questions I've already answered is not productive.

Here are two of the sentences you added: In July 2017, 200 million coins of the Binance Coin token were created. The token was originally launched on the Ethereum network and later renamed to Build'N'Build (BNB).

The Forbes source doesn't use the phrase 'Binance Coin' and is not about Binance Coin or BNB, it is about BUSD, which is different. That source doesn't say anything about July 2017, or BNB, or how many tokens were issued, or what chain they were issued on.

Citing this source for these details is a misrepresentation of that source. You have to summarize what sources actually say in context, not what they sort-of imply based on some other details from some other source about a different token. That would be WP:SYNTH (at best), which is not appropriate.

Again, this source did not support the attached claim. If you think this source is relevant, start over and try to summarize it in a way that makes sense, because this did not work at all. This citation was absolutely not appropriate. To repeat what I said a few days ago, any expansion of the article should start from sources.

I mention this as a demonstration of the problem. Do not just remove that source and restore these changes. Use reliable sources to determine what is and is not due weight. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Editors disagree all the time about what is WP:DUE. The bar for inclusion on a company article isnt that high, coverage in a reputable publication like bloomberg is pretty much enough when we have a sparse and poorly written article like this. That said, I apologize I didnt do a better job of checking the content it indeed should be separated out and not synth together. Particularly historical facts and figures are quite useful, such as ICO date, amount, etc. Maybe not what the COI editor is looking for, but useful enough for us editors. As for the Yi He interview, it is quite in depth and is here without the paywall. Probably something from this piece should be included as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell: You reverted again non-controversial text citing poor grammar. Here I have fixed the grammar. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binance&diff=1340571705&oldid=1340556435 again. Please comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Obviously the text is controversial. I am controverting about it. The date this coin was launched is already mentioned in the article in Binance#BNB. The number of tokens is arbitrary unless context is also provided. Your edit did not provide any of that context, which is why I said 'no context' in my edit summary. The cited sentence of that source is specifically about how Zhao's stated plan was to buy back some of the tokens and destroy them. This was given by the source as context for how this scheme makes the token appear to be a security (which turned out to be a very big deal). Your edit cites only half of a sentence while ignoring the surrounding context, and most of this is for redundant information that is already explained elsewhere in the article in a more appropriate location. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Now I understand, thank you. It was previously covered in the article and I wasn't adding anything new. Would have been helpful to state that in the edit summary. In my subsequent edits I also didnt add the part about buybacks, as we dont know if it is true or not. Your whole thing about the security part is your own POV. The key point is we would need a number of buybacks today and use an as of to state how much had been bought, we would not use crystal back in the day of what might be bought back today. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The source you cited is talking about buybacks. It's in the same sentence as the part you cited. The following paragraphs talk about securities. That's not my "own POV", that's what is in the source. Grayfell (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, its a POV that it is a security. Burning of tokens has nothing to do with securities nor to do with the Howey test that is often cited in these sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It's the POV of the source you cited. That's what sources are for. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)