Bylined analysis
Kyrgyzstan’s sudden unveiling of Bereket Bank—pitched domestically as a private, crypto-focused institution—collided with a denouncement from Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao… which CZ then deleted on X. The sequence set rumor mills ablaze: if he denied involvement and then erased the denial, how close is he, really, to the project? The answer sits somewhere between public signaling, policy theater, and a murky—but important—set of relationships Kyrgyzstan has cultivated with the Binance orbit over the past year.
What actually happened
On November 3, 2025, Kyrgyz media and several crypto outlets amplified remarks from President Sadyr Japarov, crediting CZ with the idea for Bereket Bank—explicitly framing it as a private initiative intended to attract foreign digital-asset capital. CZ replied on X that this was “not correct,” adding he has no interest in running a bank and didn’t recognize the names being floated. Then, notably, he deleted that post. Multiple roundups captured both the denial and its deletion.
Independent coverage since then has stayed consistent on three points:
Japarov publicly said CZ proposed or inspired the bank;
CZ publicly denied proposing or operating any bank;
The denial was subsequently removed. Those three facts are reported across mainstream finance aggregators and crypto media.
The broader context Kyrgyzstan cares about
Kyrgyzstan has spent autumn 2025 positioning itself as a regulated crypto hub. The government announced KGST, a som-pegged stablecoin that runs on BNB Chain, alongside talk of a future CBDC pilot and a national digital-asset reserve. CZ attended high-level meetings in Bishkek in late October around these initiatives. Whatever his precise role, this places him visibly near Kyrgyzstan’s digital-asset policymaking at the very moment Bereket Bank was being championed.
Well before Bereket, Binance signed cooperation agreements with Kyrgyz stakeholders on investment promotion, payments (via Binance Pay), and education (via Binance Academy). These touchpoints—soft power, not ownership—form the connective tissue that makes the president’s “inspired by CZ” narrative politically convenient and, to some audiences, credible.
Why would CZ delete a denial?
Three explanations dominate among industry observers:
Over-attribution risk: Governments often over-credit star founders for momentum projects. If Japarov’s comments overshot the mark—blending “advice” with “proposal”—CZ’s instinct would be to correct the record. But as coverage metastasized, a short, blunt denial might have seemed too combative toward a head of state he’s been publicly courting. Deleting the post avoids escalating a narrative that Kyrgyzstan is also using to market itself.
Regulatory and legal optics: CZ is navigating post-Binance legal scrutiny and knows that any perceived bank control or shadow influence can trigger questions from U.S. and international regulators. Even if Bereket is fully private and Kyrgyz-controlled, headlines that suggest “CZ proposes private bank” invite the wrong kind of attention. A terse denial cleans the slate; removing it later minimizes a public back-and-forth that would lock him into statements about an entity he insists he doesn’t run.
Media misfire control: The crypto press is fast; narratives can calcify in hours. Multiple outlets published that Japarov tied the bank to CZ’s proposal; others simultaneously highlighted CZ’s rebuttal—and the deletion—making the story about the conflict, not the facts. Deleting the post can be a pragmatic way to starve a viral framing that neither side can fully prove or disprove in the court of public opinion.
So how “involved” could CZ be?
Direct equity or managerial control? There is no evidence publicly available that CZ owns or will manage Bereket Bank. None of the credible coverage shows documentation of his equity, board role, or operational authority. His explicit statement says he has no interest in running a bank. On the record, this points to no direct control.
Idea-stage influence or advisory proximity? This is where the ambiguity lives. Kyrgyz officials have placed CZ near the center of a broader national crypto agenda—councils, working sessions, and launches (e.g., KGST on BNB Chain). In that environment, it is plausible that policy conversations touched on the value of crypto-friendly private banking rails. A president can easily translate that energy into “the proposal came from CZ,” even if, from CZ’s vantage, he only gave general strategic advice. That’s influence, not involvement.
Ecosystem adjacency via BNB Chain: The fact that KGST launched on BNB Chain matters commercially and politically. When a country anchors a national stablecoin to your chain, your ecosystem—developers, custody partners, wallet providers—naturally gets a seat at the table. A crypto-oriented private bank formed in the same window would, by design, interact with that stack. CZ doesn’t need equity to be materially adjacent to Bereket’s likely vendor and network choices. That’s technical gravity, not corporate governance.
Signal value for Kyrgyzstan: For Bishkek, name-checking CZ confers legibility to global investors and the crypto industry. It suggests Bereket Bank is aligned with best practices and internationally networked—even if he has no controlling stake. That signaling helps a small market bootstrap credibility while it pushes CBDC pilots, digital-asset registries, and university talent pipelines.
What to watch next
Corporate filings & licensing: If Bereket Bank publishes ownership disclosures or secures licenses that name its principals, that will end speculation about equity holders. To date, media references have tracked political figures and former officials—not CZ. Absence of his name in filings would reinforce the “inspired-by, not owned-by” read.
Vendor and custody stack: Partnerships around custody, on/off-ramps, and compliance tooling will reveal the bank’s technical alignment. If those partners cluster around BNB Chain infrastructure, it underscores ecosystem proximity rather than personal involvement.
Messaging discipline: If Japarov’s team tones down direct attribution to CZ while doubling down on the private-sector, non-state ownership narrative, it will look like a recalibration to keep the relationship cordial and commercially useful—without inviting scrutiny. Conversely, renewed claims tying CZ to the bank’s founding would keep the controversy alive.
Bottom line
The most defensible interpretation today is advisory adjacency without operational control. Kyrgyzstan gains brand equity by linking Bereket Bank to the world’s most recognizable crypto founder; CZ gains geopolitical access for the BNB Chain ecosystem and Binance-affiliated initiatives—while publicly rejecting any suggestion he’s starting or running a bank. The deleted denial isn’t proof of hidden equity; it’s more likely a move to avoid a public spat with a head of state and to reduce legal and reputational surface area amid an already high-stakes return to public life.
In other words: influence ≠ involvement. Until Bereket’s cap table or governance says otherwise, treat claims of CZ’s “deep” role as political marketing layered atop an ecosystem relationship that is real, growing—and strategically useful to both sides.
Sources: news coverage documenting the denial and deletion; reports quoting President Japarov’s attribution; and official/industry materials on Kyrgyzstan’s KGST stablecoin and cooperation with the Binance ecosystem.
