#cz
cz
347.1M views
1.6M Discussing
Hot
Latest
Sometimes I wonder if people like CZ, Yi He, Trump and other big names realize what a simple reply means to an ordinary person.
For them, it’s just one reply. For someone from the middle class, it can be a memory they’ll screenshot, pin, and talk about for years.
We don’t need money or fame. Sometimes, we just want to feel seen.
@CZ @Yi He $HOME $AAOI $BTC
#CZ #YiHe #Trump #Crypto #Community
For them, it’s just one reply. For someone from the middle class, it can be a memory they’ll screenshot, pin, and talk about for years.
We don’t need money or fame. Sometimes, we just want to feel seen.
@CZ @Yi He $HOME $AAOI $BTC
#CZ #YiHe #Trump #Crypto #Community
Partly True
Binance BiBi:
我看到啦！这篇内容的核心意思是：$CZ是BNB Chain上热度上升但争议很大的Meme代币，据称由前BNB Chain员工未经授权用教程钱包发行，事件曝光后BNB Chain已启动法律行动；目前社区围绕“危机公关、投资者权益、币安/官方是否需要承担责任”展开讨论，市场最关注的猜想是“和解+回购”；文中给出当前市值约152万美元、流通近3亿枚，并强调盘面波动剧烈、部分早期参与者已出现较大浮亏；不少观点认为该事件暴露了钱包管理、离职权限回收与风控流程漏洞；作者同时提醒“和解与回购”仍只是社区推测、没有官方确定承诺，Meme资产波动和流动性风险高，后续走向取决于法律进展与官方回应，参与者需谨慎并警惕高位风险。另提醒：不存在任何以BiBi或Binance AI名义发行的官方代币，相关“同名币/关联币”多为骗局信息，请只以币安官方渠道为准。
Everyone watches prices.
Smart money watches policies.
CZ’s vision for making ASEAN a friendlier place for crypto isn’t just another headline. If more countries compete to attract crypto innovations, the impact could be much greater in the long run than any short-term price surge.
My view: regulatory trends are often more important than daily price movement. That’s why I pay close attention to policies, not just charts.
Do you think ASEAN can become the next global hub for crypto?
Please follow up
$BNB #crypto #BİNANCESQUARE #CZ $BNB
Smart money watches policies.
CZ’s vision for making ASEAN a friendlier place for crypto isn’t just another headline. If more countries compete to attract crypto innovations, the impact could be much greater in the long run than any short-term price surge.
My view: regulatory trends are often more important than daily price movement. That’s why I pay close attention to policies, not just charts.
Do you think ASEAN can become the next global hub for crypto?
Please follow up
$BNB #crypto #BİNANCESQUARE #CZ $BNB
🚨 CZ warns: even a cold wallet isn't 100% safe
After hacking 70 million $
He said: "Split the money across multiple wallets"
How do you protect yourself?
1. One wallet
2. Split them up
Comment your number 👇
#CZ #Binance #أمن_العملات_الرقمية
After hacking 70 million $
He said: "Split the money across multiple wallets"
How do you protect yourself?
1. One wallet
2. Split them up
Comment your number 👇
#CZ #Binance #أمن_العملات_الرقمية
CZ presents his view: statistically, custody on exchanges may be safer than self-custody
On August 4, Binance founder CZ said on a social platform that, based on statistical data, storing crypto assets on centralized exchanges may be safer than self-custody.
There are several statistical issues with the data itself:
When centralized exchanges are hacked, it usually becomes major news and the scale of losses is likely to be fully recorded; whereas in self-custody scenarios, loss of private keys or local wallet theft often is not publicly disclosed, creating a clear statistical blind spot.
Exchange-side data also includes some losses caused by platform insolvency and shutdowns, further interfering with the comparability of the figures.
Binance and some top exchanges have protection funds that compensate users for losses resulting from security incidents; these losses differ from the original statistical data in the final net amounts.
In his post, CZ also emphasized that he is not claiming one custody method is absolutely better than the other; the two approaches have different risk profiles and are suited to different types of investors.
In related discussions, diversified allocation has been mentioned more often.
#CZ #币安 $BTC
On August 4, Binance founder CZ said on a social platform that, based on statistical data, storing crypto assets on centralized exchanges may be safer than self-custody.
There are several statistical issues with the data itself:
When centralized exchanges are hacked, it usually becomes major news and the scale of losses is likely to be fully recorded; whereas in self-custody scenarios, loss of private keys or local wallet theft often is not publicly disclosed, creating a clear statistical blind spot.
Exchange-side data also includes some losses caused by platform insolvency and shutdowns, further interfering with the comparability of the figures.
Binance and some top exchanges have protection funds that compensate users for losses resulting from security incidents; these losses differ from the original statistical data in the final net amounts.
In his post, CZ also emphasized that he is not claiming one custody method is absolutely better than the other; the two approaches have different risk profiles and are suited to different types of investors.
In related discussions, diversified allocation has been mentioned more often.
#CZ #币安 $BTC
raz987:
btc
I saw this post and had some thoughts:
This wave of faith-based top-ups—CZ has once again won.
The logic in the original post is pretty simple:
With the huge trading volume in US stocks and altcoins, everyone has to use BNB to offset trading fees—how could it not go up?
No issues with that, but old crypto veterans hear three layers of meaning:
First layer: Fee offset = real demand
The underlying logic of exchange tokens is essentially “shares of the exchange.”
The more you trade, the more fees get burned, and the demand for BNB becomes more real.
On this point, BNB is indeed the hardest exchange token—if the Binance exchange is alive, there is demand for BNB.
Second layer: CZ’s faith = market sentiment
“Believe that CZ won’t be wrong”—that line is more valuable than BNB’s K-line charts itself.
After CZ returned from prison, the Binance ecosystem really did start to warm up again.
But remember: faith belongs to retail investors, while cashing out belongs to giant whales.
Third layer (spraying cold water): the “curse” of exchange tokens
“Can’t possibly not go up”—this is what crypto fears the most.
In 2021, when BNB surged past 690, the whole internet was shouting “it can’t possibly not go up.”
Then in July, it fell to over 200—a bucket of cold water.
Even though it rose back by year-end, once the 2022 bear market came, it still slid from 690 all the way down to 200.
The pattern of exchange tokens: in a bull market they help keep the rally going, and at bull-market tops they also get used to dump.
Because whales’ BNB cost is extremely low, they always move faster than you do.
Conclusion:
BNB’s fundamentals are real, but “it can’t possibly not go up” is retail-speak.
Fee offsets are a necessity, but necessities don’t mean “only up, never down.”
CZ’s “faith” can be charged up, but don’t let your position follow the faith.
#BNB #CZ #Platform tokens
This wave of faith-based top-ups—CZ has once again won.
The logic in the original post is pretty simple:
With the huge trading volume in US stocks and altcoins, everyone has to use BNB to offset trading fees—how could it not go up?
No issues with that, but old crypto veterans hear three layers of meaning:
First layer: Fee offset = real demand
The underlying logic of exchange tokens is essentially “shares of the exchange.”
The more you trade, the more fees get burned, and the demand for BNB becomes more real.
On this point, BNB is indeed the hardest exchange token—if the Binance exchange is alive, there is demand for BNB.
Second layer: CZ’s faith = market sentiment
“Believe that CZ won’t be wrong”—that line is more valuable than BNB’s K-line charts itself.
After CZ returned from prison, the Binance ecosystem really did start to warm up again.
But remember: faith belongs to retail investors, while cashing out belongs to giant whales.
Third layer (spraying cold water): the “curse” of exchange tokens
“Can’t possibly not go up”—this is what crypto fears the most.
In 2021, when BNB surged past 690, the whole internet was shouting “it can’t possibly not go up.”
Then in July, it fell to over 200—a bucket of cold water.
Even though it rose back by year-end, once the 2022 bear market came, it still slid from 690 all the way down to 200.
The pattern of exchange tokens: in a bull market they help keep the rally going, and at bull-market tops they also get used to dump.
Because whales’ BNB cost is extremely low, they always move faster than you do.
Conclusion:
BNB’s fundamentals are real, but “it can’t possibly not go up” is retail-speak.
Fee offsets are a necessity, but necessities don’t mean “only up, never down.”
CZ’s “faith” can be charged up, but don’t let your position follow the faith.
#BNB #CZ #Platform tokens
竹竹YZZ:
手續費剛需不等於只漲不跌，「不可能不漲」只是迷思。信仰歸信仰，倉位控制才是保護資產的關鍵，切勿盲目跟隨。
Binance’s official just mentioned the bold goal of 3 billion users. When CZ was asked about integrating BNB, he replied: “I’m a minority shareholder—wait and see.”
The on-chain reaction was faster than anyone’s: a meme called “minority shareholder” surged +139%, with $1.65 million in 24-hour trading volume. WFI +1173%, DRESS +1286%, “霸道总裁” (+834%)—all were newly launched coins that were basically riding the heat. Most of their liquidity is around only about $20,000.
Honestly, I’ve seen this kind of “one-sentence market” in crypto circles too many times: what CZ says doesn’t really matter—on-chain immediately creates a whole lineup of coins with the same name for you. The more similar the name is, the more you should be careful. CZ’s “wait and see” made no promises—don’t treat meme hype as a positive catalyst.
If you really want to follow this thread, it’s better to watch whether the $BNB ecosystem itself has any follow-up moves, rather than chasing these hot coins with liquidity that can’t hold up.
#币安生态 #CZ #Meme
The on-chain reaction was faster than anyone’s: a meme called “minority shareholder” surged +139%, with $1.65 million in 24-hour trading volume. WFI +1173%, DRESS +1286%, “霸道总裁” (+834%)—all were newly launched coins that were basically riding the heat. Most of their liquidity is around only about $20,000.
Honestly, I’ve seen this kind of “one-sentence market” in crypto circles too many times: what CZ says doesn’t really matter—on-chain immediately creates a whole lineup of coins with the same name for you. The more similar the name is, the more you should be careful. CZ’s “wait and see” made no promises—don’t treat meme hype as a positive catalyst.
If you really want to follow this thread, it’s better to watch whether the $BNB ecosystem itself has any follow-up moves, rather than chasing these hot coins with liquidity that can’t hold up.
#币安生态 #CZ #Meme
CZ has responded to the recent Coldcard security incident by warning that no single storage method is completely safe. He advised users to diversify their holdings across multiple wallets rather than relying on one device or method.
His comments, shared alongside an updated seed phrase backup guide, reinforce a key self-custody principle: spreading risk remains one of the most effective ways to protect assets, especially after major hardware wallet exploits. DYOR.
#Write2Earn
#CryptoSecurity #Coldcard #CZ
#USToCancelIranAttackSubjectToDeal
$BTC $ETH $BNB
His comments, shared alongside an updated seed phrase backup guide, reinforce a key self-custody principle: spreading risk remains one of the most effective ways to protect assets, especially after major hardware wallet exploits. DYOR.
#Write2Earn
#CryptoSecurity #Coldcard #CZ
#USToCancelIranAttackSubjectToDeal
$BTC $ETH $BNB
Binance founder Changpeng Zhao shared a balanced view on the current market, acknowledging that crypto may still be in a bear phase while emphasizing that significant capital remains on the sidelines.
In his words: "We might be in a bear market, but there is a lot of money looking for things to invest in."
CZ believes that although market sentiment remains cautious, investors are actively waiting for the right opportunities. The capital is there—the challenge is finding projects worth backing.
#Crypto #Bitcoin #CZ
$NVDAB $BTC $AAPLB
In his words: "We might be in a bear market, but there is a lot of money looking for things to invest in."
CZ believes that although market sentiment remains cautious, investors are actively waiting for the right opportunities. The capital is there—the challenge is finding projects worth backing.
#Crypto #Bitcoin #CZ
$NVDAB $BTC $AAPLB
🔥CZ Raises Controversial Claim: Statistically, Are Custody on Exchanges Safer Than Self-Custody? 1.57M vs 1.51M BTC Fuels the Debate
On August 4, Binance founder CZ brought up a highly controversial view: based on statistical data, storing crypto assets on centralized exchanges may be safer than self-custody.
The data was cited from crypto analyst Willy Woo. It shows that BTC with permanent loss caused by self-custody amounts to 1.57 million coins, while BTC lost by exchange platforms is 1.51 million.
A few points are worth considering:
Willy Woo himself has long been a strong advocate for self-custody, yet the comparison between the two sets of figures has sparked a huge discussion.
When a centralized exchange is hit by a hack, it often becomes major news, and the associated loss data can be more completely counted. By contrast, with self-custody, many cases—such as lost private keys or large amounts of BTC stolen by hackers from local wallets—are often not publicly reported, leaving a significant statistical blind spot in the loss data.
In addition, exchange-side figures may include asset losses resulting from some platforms’ bankruptcy and shutdowns, further distorting the results.
Binance and some leading exchanges also set up insurance or protection funds to compensate users for losses stemming from platform hacking incidents.
CZ also emphasized that he is not claiming one custody method is absolutely better than the other.
The two approaches have distinctly different risk profiles and suit different types of investors—there is no one-size-fits-all option. Perhaps a balanced strategy with diversified allocations is the more reliable way forward.
I choose to store it on Binance
#CZ #币安
On August 4, Binance founder CZ brought up a highly controversial view: based on statistical data, storing crypto assets on centralized exchanges may be safer than self-custody.
The data was cited from crypto analyst Willy Woo. It shows that BTC with permanent loss caused by self-custody amounts to 1.57 million coins, while BTC lost by exchange platforms is 1.51 million.
A few points are worth considering:
Willy Woo himself has long been a strong advocate for self-custody, yet the comparison between the two sets of figures has sparked a huge discussion.
When a centralized exchange is hit by a hack, it often becomes major news, and the associated loss data can be more completely counted. By contrast, with self-custody, many cases—such as lost private keys or large amounts of BTC stolen by hackers from local wallets—are often not publicly reported, leaving a significant statistical blind spot in the loss data.
In addition, exchange-side figures may include asset losses resulting from some platforms’ bankruptcy and shutdowns, further distorting the results.
Binance and some leading exchanges also set up insurance or protection funds to compensate users for losses stemming from platform hacking incidents.
CZ also emphasized that he is not claiming one custody method is absolutely better than the other.
The two approaches have distinctly different risk profiles and suit different types of investors—there is no one-size-fits-all option. Perhaps a balanced strategy with diversified allocations is the more reliable way forward.
I choose to store it on Binance
#CZ #币安
Moinulking786:
yes
Zhao Changpeng (CZ) has just cited data from Willy Woo and put forward a counterintuitive viewpoint: based on statistical data, putting coins on centralized exchanges may be safer than self-custody.
Why does he say that? His logic is as follows:
1️⃣ Survivorship bias
The reason we see CEX theft cases as “big news” is that they’re easier to track and record. But the stories of lost coins in self-custody—forgetting a seed phrase, losing a private key, getting phished—are largely not reported and not documented. Real data is therefore severely underestimated.
2️⃣ Insolvent exchanges drag down the average
In the past, exchanges that blew up (you know which ones) seriously weighed down the industry’s overall safety statistics. Meanwhile, platforms that have operated for the long term, such as Binance, have been actively covering users for CEX-side hacker losses. These backstop costs are often ignored by the outside world.
3️⃣ Different people need different solutions
CZ isn’t saying that exchanges are always better than self-custody. What he emphasizes is that the “risk profile is different.” For people with strong technical ability who can manage private keys well, self-custody is still the preferred option. But for most ordinary users, the mainstream CEXs’ security investments and compensation mechanisms may be the more practical choice.
💡 Core takeaway: there’s no absolutely secure solution—only balanced methods that fit different groups.
Do you keep your coins on exchanges, or do you insist on self-custody? Feel free to share your reasons 👇
#CZ#ExchangeSecurity#CryptocurrencyStorage
Why does he say that? His logic is as follows:
1️⃣ Survivorship bias
The reason we see CEX theft cases as “big news” is that they’re easier to track and record. But the stories of lost coins in self-custody—forgetting a seed phrase, losing a private key, getting phished—are largely not reported and not documented. Real data is therefore severely underestimated.
2️⃣ Insolvent exchanges drag down the average
In the past, exchanges that blew up (you know which ones) seriously weighed down the industry’s overall safety statistics. Meanwhile, platforms that have operated for the long term, such as Binance, have been actively covering users for CEX-side hacker losses. These backstop costs are often ignored by the outside world.
3️⃣ Different people need different solutions
CZ isn’t saying that exchanges are always better than self-custody. What he emphasizes is that the “risk profile is different.” For people with strong technical ability who can manage private keys well, self-custody is still the preferred option. But for most ordinary users, the mainstream CEXs’ security investments and compensation mechanisms may be the more practical choice.
💡 Core takeaway: there’s no absolutely secure solution—only balanced methods that fit different groups.
Do you keep your coins on exchanges, or do you insist on self-custody? Feel free to share your reasons 👇
#CZ#ExchangeSecurity#CryptocurrencyStorage
Zhao Changpeng (CZ) recently posted a quote on X referencing a set of data from on-chain analyst Willy Woo, and floated a rather controversial view: from a statistical perspective, keeping coins in a centralized exchange may be safer than self-custody.
At first glance, this seems to go against common sense—after all, “Not your keys, not your coins” is a well-worn mantra in crypto. But CZ’s reasoning includes several points worth paying attention to:
1️⃣ Survivor bias and data-collection bias
Hacks and stolen-coin incidents are usually major news and therefore more likely to be fully recorded and included in statistics; meanwhile, cases involving self-custody losses—such as being phished, forgetting seed phrases, or even hard-drive damage—are far less likely to be reported. The denominators simply aren’t on the same scale.
2️⃣ Industry averages are pulled down
Some early exchanges that have already failed (e.g., on the scale of Mt. Gox) drag down the industry overall. But major platforms—such as Binance—have long implemented a “SAFU fund” mechanism to cover hacker losses on the CEX side for users. Comparing the “industry average” to “self-custody” is therefore not entirely fair to top-tier platforms.
3️⃣ Different risk profiles
The core risks of exchanges are platform-level risks (bank runs, regulatory issues, theft). The core risks of self-custody are operational risks (losing private keys, getting phished, physical damage). These two types of risk can’t be directly added and compared.
4️⃣ Different target audiences
Users with large capital, weak technical capacity, and frequent trading may indeed be better off using a leading CEX. But for long-term holders, technically confident users, and those who know how to use hardware wallets, self-custody is still the first choice.
CZ also concluded by emphasizing: “A balanced approach may be best.”
So this isn’t an either-or multiple-choice question. It’s about configuring according to your asset size, technical ability, and use case. In crypto there’s no silver bullet—only risk-management plans that fit you.
#CZ#CentralizedExchanges#SelfCustody
At first glance, this seems to go against common sense—after all, “Not your keys, not your coins” is a well-worn mantra in crypto. But CZ’s reasoning includes several points worth paying attention to:
1️⃣ Survivor bias and data-collection bias
Hacks and stolen-coin incidents are usually major news and therefore more likely to be fully recorded and included in statistics; meanwhile, cases involving self-custody losses—such as being phished, forgetting seed phrases, or even hard-drive damage—are far less likely to be reported. The denominators simply aren’t on the same scale.
2️⃣ Industry averages are pulled down
Some early exchanges that have already failed (e.g., on the scale of Mt. Gox) drag down the industry overall. But major platforms—such as Binance—have long implemented a “SAFU fund” mechanism to cover hacker losses on the CEX side for users. Comparing the “industry average” to “self-custody” is therefore not entirely fair to top-tier platforms.
3️⃣ Different risk profiles
The core risks of exchanges are platform-level risks (bank runs, regulatory issues, theft). The core risks of self-custody are operational risks (losing private keys, getting phished, physical damage). These two types of risk can’t be directly added and compared.
4️⃣ Different target audiences
Users with large capital, weak technical capacity, and frequent trading may indeed be better off using a leading CEX. But for long-term holders, technically confident users, and those who know how to use hardware wallets, self-custody is still the first choice.
CZ also concluded by emphasizing: “A balanced approach may be best.”
So this isn’t an either-or multiple-choice question. It’s about configuring according to your asset size, technical ability, and use case. In crypto there’s no silver bullet—only risk-management plans that fit you.
#CZ#CentralizedExchanges#SelfCustody
A counterintuitive viewpoint from Zhao Changpeng: statistically speaking, keeping coins on a centralized exchange might be safer than self-custody.
He cites data from on-chain analyst Willy Woo. The core logic has three layers:
1. Bias problem—CEX theft incidents make headlines and are therefore easy to collect and quantify; but when it comes to self-custody coin losses (forgetting a mnemonic phrase, losing a private key, being phished), those cases often go unreported, meaning there’s a huge amount of “dark data.”
2. Sample contamination—some exchanges that have already blown up drag down the industry’s overall safety statistics. Meanwhile, platforms like Binance that have long stepped in to cover users’ losses from hackers end up being “positive cases” in the statistics.
3. Risks have different sources—CEX risk is concentrated in the platform being breached or disappearing; the probability is low, but the single-event impact can be large. Self-custody risk is more distributed, happening all the time, but it goes mostly unnoticed.
CZ’s conclusion isn’t “give up self-custody.” It’s that the two approaches have different risk profiles and fit different kinds of people. The best solution might still be a combination: long-term holdings in cold wallets, while placing hot money and trading needs with a reliable CEX.
A security philosophy worth thinking about: the “absolute control” you assume you have may not be safer than entrusting it to professional institutions.
#CZ #加密安全 #self-custody
He cites data from on-chain analyst Willy Woo. The core logic has three layers:
1. Bias problem—CEX theft incidents make headlines and are therefore easy to collect and quantify; but when it comes to self-custody coin losses (forgetting a mnemonic phrase, losing a private key, being phished), those cases often go unreported, meaning there’s a huge amount of “dark data.”
2. Sample contamination—some exchanges that have already blown up drag down the industry’s overall safety statistics. Meanwhile, platforms like Binance that have long stepped in to cover users’ losses from hackers end up being “positive cases” in the statistics.
3. Risks have different sources—CEX risk is concentrated in the platform being breached or disappearing; the probability is low, but the single-event impact can be large. Self-custody risk is more distributed, happening all the time, but it goes mostly unnoticed.
CZ’s conclusion isn’t “give up self-custody.” It’s that the two approaches have different risk profiles and fit different kinds of people. The best solution might still be a combination: long-term holdings in cold wallets, while placing hot money and trading needs with a reliable CEX.
A security philosophy worth thinking about: the “absolute control” you assume you have may not be safer than entrusting it to professional institutions.
#CZ #加密安全 #self-custody
Zhao Changpeng posted a very interesting tweet today, quoting data from Willy Woo and, from a statistical perspective, putting forward a counterintuitive viewpoint: holding coins on exchanges may be safer than self-custody.
His core logic is as follows👇
1️⃣ Survivor bias
When centralized exchanges are hacked, it’s often a major headline, and the data is easier to collect and track. But incidents of lost coins due to self-custody (forgetting the mnemonic, making an operational mistake, device damage, etc.) are mostly not reported at all. In other words, the actual losses from self-custody are severely underestimated.
2️⃣ Data gets “skewed”
Those exchanges that have already gone bankrupt pull down the industry’s safety data as a whole. Platforms like Binance, on the other hand, have been covering for users and compensating them for losses on the CEX side. If you correct for these factors, the safety data for exchange-held coins is actually being underestimated.
3️⃣ Different people, different choices
CEX and self-custody are essentially two different tools with different risk profiles—there’s no absolute “better” or “worse.” Power users may prefer self-custody, while most regular users may be better suited to keep their assets on top-tier centralized exchanges.
4️⃣ Balance might be the optimal solution
CZ also mentioned at the end that using a mix could be the best strategy—enjoying the convenience and safety mechanisms of CEX while still retaining the decentralized advantages of self-custody.
This tweet sparked a lot of discussion in the community, since the claim “exchanges are safer than self-custody” is very uncommon in the crypto space. What do you think? Which approach do you lean toward?👇
#CZ #交易所 #Self-custody
His core logic is as follows👇
1️⃣ Survivor bias
When centralized exchanges are hacked, it’s often a major headline, and the data is easier to collect and track. But incidents of lost coins due to self-custody (forgetting the mnemonic, making an operational mistake, device damage, etc.) are mostly not reported at all. In other words, the actual losses from self-custody are severely underestimated.
2️⃣ Data gets “skewed”
Those exchanges that have already gone bankrupt pull down the industry’s safety data as a whole. Platforms like Binance, on the other hand, have been covering for users and compensating them for losses on the CEX side. If you correct for these factors, the safety data for exchange-held coins is actually being underestimated.
3️⃣ Different people, different choices
CEX and self-custody are essentially two different tools with different risk profiles—there’s no absolute “better” or “worse.” Power users may prefer self-custody, while most regular users may be better suited to keep their assets on top-tier centralized exchanges.
4️⃣ Balance might be the optimal solution
CZ also mentioned at the end that using a mix could be the best strategy—enjoying the convenience and safety mechanisms of CEX while still retaining the decentralized advantages of self-custody.
This tweet sparked a lot of discussion in the community, since the claim “exchanges are safer than self-custody” is very uncommon in the crypto space. What do you think? Which approach do you lean toward?👇
#CZ #交易所 #Self-custody
CZ says that "securing the backup seed phrase is hard"
In light of the Coldcard situation, the safety and security of crypto has quickly become the main focus for everyone
CZ listed four key points as to why the security of a seed phrase is tricky:
- Can't have someone else read it and say, "oh, that's a nice seed phrase".
- Can't have it destroyed by fire, flood, etc.
- Can't have a hacker gain access to it.
- And most importantly, can't lose it yourself.
$SOL $ETH $BLESS
#CZ #USToCancelIranAttackSubjectToDeal #Binanace #bitcoin #crypto
In light of the Coldcard situation, the safety and security of crypto has quickly become the main focus for everyone
CZ listed four key points as to why the security of a seed phrase is tricky:
- Can't have someone else read it and say, "oh, that's a nice seed phrase".
- Can't have it destroyed by fire, flood, etc.
- Can't have a hacker gain access to it.
- And most importantly, can't lose it yourself.
$SOL $ETH $BLESS
#CZ #USToCancelIranAttackSubjectToDeal #Binanace #bitcoin #crypto
Changpeng Zhao (CZ) has now surpassed Bill Gates in net worth. Only a year and a half ago, he still had to step down as CEO of Binance and serve his sentence following a large-scale legal investigation. However, the latest estimate from Forbes says CZ’s wealth has reached roughly $110 billion, officially moving him into the world’s top 20 richest people. A truly remarkable comeback by the former captain of Binance.
#Crypto #CZ #Binance $BNB
$LINK $DOT
#Crypto #CZ #Binance $BNB
$LINK $DOT
Changpeng Zhao (CZ) has now surpassed Bill Gates in net worth. Only a year and a half ago, he was still forced to step down as CEO of Binance and serve his sentence following a major legal investigation. However, the latest estimates from Forbes say CZ’s fortune has reached about $110 billion, officially placing him among the world’s top 20 richest people. A truly remarkable comeback by the former Binance captain.
#Crypto #CZ #Binance $BNB
$LINK $DOT
#Crypto #CZ #Binance $BNB
$LINK $DOT
CZ (Changpeng Zhao) threw out a line today: This bear market isn’t really short on money—there’s plenty of capital looking for places to go, it’s just not flowing into crypto. Now $BTC is grinding around the 63,000 level; in a year it’s dropped by almost half. What he means is that liquidity is actually abundant—the venue is cold not because there’s no money, but because the money hasn’t been made clear on its direction yet. #CZ #BTC #crypto
Log in to explore more content