🔶️ Exchange custody ≠ ownership Binance holding a large % of a stablecoin supply means users are custodying it on the exchange, not that Binance or CZ “controls” the asset.
🔶️ Liquidity naturally concentrates on the biggest exchange Binance is the largest CEX by volume. New or less-distributed stablecoins always concentrate where liquidity, pairs, and users are.
🔶️ On-chain addresses ≠ Binance balance sheet Blockchain data shows where tokens sit, not who owns them. Customer funds, market makers, issuers, and liquidity providers all use exchange wallets.
🔶️ No minting power, no control Binance does not mint the stablecoin, set its policy, or manage its reserves. Custody ≠ governance.
🔶️ Same pattern seen with USDT, USDC, BUSD (historically) This is standard market structure, not a red flag. Large exchanges always hold a big share during early adoption.
🔶️ Narrative framing matters Highlighting concentration without explaining how exchanges work creates fear, even when the mechanics are normal.
It purchases 3,600 BTC for $250 million for the #SAFU and raises its reserves to 6,230 BTC in the midst of the crypto storm
@binance completed the acquisition of 3,600 #BTC for the SAFU Fund, using stablecoins worth approximately $250 million (mainly $USDT/ $USDC), at an effective average price of around $69,444 per BTC.
The public wallet now contains 6,230 $BTC in total, with a current value of the BTC holding in SAFU of $412.89 million.
This is the third large purchase in a week (following 1,315 BTC for $100 million each in previous batches), as part of the plan announced in late January 2026 to convert $1 billion of SAFU reserves (previously mostly in stablecoins) to Bitcoin within 30 days.
Binance seeks to diversify and strengthen the user protection fund with BTC as a long-term reserve asset, with an additional commitment that if the value of the fund falls below $800M due to volatility, Binance will replenish it up to $1 billion.
Been fighting a cold, 38.9C a couple of hours ago. First time getting sick after prison. This issue kept its airspace in my head for the last few days, even through the fever. Our industry should be able to completely eradicate this type of poison attacks, and protect our users.
All wallets should simply check if a receiving address is a “poison address”, and block the user. This is a blockchain query. Further, security alliances in the industry should maintain a real-time blacklist of these addresses, so that wallets can check before sending a transaction. Binance Wallet already does this. A user would get a warning like below if they try to send to a poison address.
Lastly, wallets should not even display these spam transactions anywhere. If the value of the tx is small, just filter it out. Protect users.