Talk:Binance

Early history request

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.

−

CEO Changpeng Zhao founded Fusion Systems in 2005 in [[Shanghai]]; the company built [[high-frequency trading]] systems for [[stockbrokers]]. In 2013, he joined [[Blockchain.info]] as the third member of the [[cryptocurrency wallet]]'s team. He also worked at OKCoin as CTO for less than a year, a platform for [[Spot contract|spot]] trading between [[Fiat money|fiat]] and [[digital asset]]s. He was hired at this position in 2014 by [[Yi He]], with whom he co-founded Binance several years later. The company was founded in 2017 in [[China]] but moved its servers and headquarters out of the country in advance of the Chinese government's ban on cryptocurrency trading in September 2017. Zhao asked He to join Binance, and she helped rewrite parts of the white paper for Binance's $15 million initial coin offering.

+

([[Changpeng Zhao | Changpeng "CZ" Zhao]] and [[Yi He]] cofounded Binance in 2017 after the two worked together at previous [[cryptocurrency]] companies. He wrote parts of the [[white paper]] for Binance's $15 million [[initial coin offering]] (ICO). 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). The company began operations in [[Shanghai]] and moved its servers out before the country banned ICOs in 2017. Binance set up in [[Japan]] and sought licensing to operate, but once again had to relocate due to regulations. In March 2018, Binance announced its intentions to open an office in [[Malta]]. Binance announced more expansions in 2018, including plans to secure a license for operations in [[Jersey]].

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.

References

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)

Revised request

Here is the diff with inline citations:

Inline citation diff

−

CEO Changpeng Zhao founded Fusion Systems in 2005 in [[Shanghai]]; the company built [[high-frequency trading]] systems for [[stockbrokers]]. In 2013, he joined [[Blockchain.info]] as the third member of the [[cryptocurrency wallet]]'s team. He also worked at OKCoin as CTO for less than a year, a platform for [[Spot contract|spot]] trading between [[Fiat money|fiat]] and [[digital asset]]s.<ref name="Forbes2018">{{Cite news |last=Ambler |first=Pamela |date=7 February 2018 |title=From Zero To Crypto Billionaire In Under A Year: Meet The Founder Of Binance |work=Forbes |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamelaambler/2018/02/07/changpeng-zhao-binance-exchange-crypto-cryptocurrency/#390a79b81eee}}</ref> He was hired at this position in 2014 by [[Yi He]], with whom he co-founded Binance several years later.<ref name="Bloomberg - Crypto's Most Powerful Woman Speaks Out as Crisis Rocks Binance">{{Cite Q|Q120053402|access-date=2023-06-28}}</ref>The company was founded in 2017 in [[China]] but moved its servers and headquarters out of the country in advance of the Chinese government's ban on cryptocurrency trading in September 2017.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Xiao |first=Eva |date=30 November 2017 |title=Three months after launch, this unbanked crypto exchange made $7.5m in profit |work=[[Tech in Asia]] |url=https://www.techinasia.com/cryptocurrency-exchange-binance}}</ref> Zhao asked He to join Binance, and she helped rewrite parts of the white paper for Binance's $15 million initial coin offering.<ref name="Bloomberg - Crypto's Most Powerful Woman Speaks Out as Crisis Rocks Binance" /> |([[Changpeng Zhao

+

[[Changpeng Zhao | Changpeng "CZ" Zhao]] and [[Yi He]] cofounded Binance in 2017 after the two worked together at previous [[cryptocurrency]] companies. He wrote parts of the [[white paper]] for Binance's $15 million [[initial coin offering]] (ICO).<ref name="Shen 2023">{{cite news |last1=Shen |first1=Muyao |last2=Lee |first2=Justina |title=Crypto's Most Powerful Woman Speaks Out as Crisis Rocks Binance |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-06-28/binance-co-founder-yi-he-on-crypto-regulation-and-changpeng-cz-zhao |access-date=23 October 2025 |work=Bloomberg |date=June 28, 2023 |language=en}}</ref> 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).<ref name="Kharif 2022">{{cite news |last1=Kharif |first1=Olga |last2=Shukla |first2=Sidhartha |title=A $568 Million Hack of Binance Coin Roils Crypto Sector Anew |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-06/bnb-chain-says-bsc-temporarily-paused-on-irregular-activity |access-date=8 August 2025 |work=Bloomberg News |date=6 Oct 2022 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/pKDxo |archive-date=7 Oct 2022}}</ref><ref name="Kharif 2019">{{cite news |last1=Kharif |first1=Olga |title=Hottest Crypto Coin's Massive Rally Echoes Bitcoin's Glory Days |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-15/hottest-crypto-coin-s-massive-rally-echoes-bitcoin-s-glory-days |access-date=8 August 2025 |work=Bloomberg News |date=15 March 2019 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/b0Nae |archive-date=8 August 2025 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Bambysheva 2023">{{cite news |last1=Bambysheva |first1=Nina |title=Binance Looks Beyond The Dollar For Stablecoin Replacement |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/02/18/binance-looks-beyond-the-dollar-for-stablecoin-replacement/ |access-date=1 August 2025 |work=Forbes |date=14 Feb 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/vgvHT#selection-519.0-536.0 |archive-date=6 Sep 2023 |language=en}}</ref>The company began operations in [[Shanghai]] and moved its servers out before the country banned ICOs in 2017.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Xiao |first=Eva |date=30 November 2017 |title=Three months after launch, this unbanked crypto exchange made $7.5m in profit |work=Tech in Asia |url=https://www.techinasia.com/cryptocurrency-exchange-binance}}</ref> Binance set up in [[Japan]] and sought licensing to operate, but once again had to relocate due to regulations.<ref name="Bloomberg201803">{{Cite news |last=Nakamura |first=Yuji |date=2018-03-23 |title=World's Biggest Cryptocurrency Exchange Is Heading to Malta |language=en |work=Bloomberg |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-23/the-world-s-biggest-cryptocurrency-exchange-is-moving-to-malta |access-date=2018-03-24}}</ref> In March 2018, Binance announced its intentions to open an office in [[Malta]].<ref name="Bloomberg201803">{{Cite news |last=Nakamura |first=Yuji |date=2018-03-23 |title=World's Biggest Cryptocurrency Exchange Is Heading to Malta |language=en |work=Bloomberg |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-23/the-world-s-biggest-cryptocurrency-exchange-is-moving-to-malta |access-date=2018-03-24}}</ref> Binance announced more expansions in 2018, including plans to secure a license for operations in [[Jersey]].<ref>{{Cite news |date=2018-06-11 |title=Crypto Giant Binance to Offer Euro Trading Pairs This Year |language=en |work=Bloomberg |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-11/crypto-giant-binance-to-offer-euro-trading-pairs-this-year |access-date=2018-06-14}}</ref>

And here is what proposed text would look like, with references

Extended content

Changpeng "CZ" Zhao and Yi He cofounded Binance in 2017 after the two worked together at previous cryptocurrency companies. He wrote parts of the white paper for Binance's $15 million initial coin offering (ICO). 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).

The company began operations in Shanghai and moved its servers out before the country banned ICOs in 2017. Binance set up in Japan and sought licensing to operate, but once again had to relocate due to regulations. In March 2018, Binance announced its intentions to open an office in Malta. Binance announced more expansions in 2018, including plans to secure a license for operations in Jersey.

References

Here is the more robust breakdown that was requested:

• CEO Changpeng Zhao"

• Status: Rewritten to to "Changpeng "CZ" Zhao"
• Why: to provide his commonly known name and add a wikilink.

• founded Fusion Systems in 2005 in Shanghai; the company built high-frequency trading systems for stockbrokers. In 2013, he joined Blockchain.info as the third member of the cryptocurrency wallet's team. He also worked at OKCoin as CTO for less than a year, a platform for spot trading between fiat and digital assets.

• Status: Removed
• Why: This information is not about Binance.

• He was hired at this position in 2014 by Yi He, with whom he co-founded Binance several years later.

• Status: Rewritten to "and Yi He cofounded Binance in 2017 after the two worked together at previous cryptocurrency companies."
• Why: 1) retains information of how two cofounders met while streamlining it to remove tangential background information better suited to the respective BLPs articles about each founder 2)introduces the founding year of Binance earlier in the section.

• The company was founded in 2017 in China but moved its servers and headquarters out of the country in advance of the Chinese government's ban on cryptocurrency trading in September 2017.

• Status: Rewritten to "The company began operations in Shanghai and moved its servers out before the country banned ICOs in 2017. Binance set up in Japan and sought licensing to operate, but once again had to relocate due to regulations. In March 2018, Binance announced its intentions to open an office in Malta. Binance announced more expansions in 2018, including plans to secure a license for operations in Jersey."
• Why: Gives further information on the moving headquarters locations beyond the 2017 move out of China. Provides more specific details on the 2017 ban.

• Zhao asked He to join Binance, and she helped rewrite parts of the white paper for Binance's $15 million initial coin offering.

• Status: Moved and Rewritten to "He wrote parts of the white paper for Binance's $15 million initial coin offering (ICO)."
• Why: 1) moves this above the headquarter information so that the information is in order chronologically 2) adds wikilinks 3) general language rewrite to fit with the flow of new placement

• 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).

• Status: Added
• Why: 1) "200 million coins" is an encyclopedic fact missing from the article as a whole 2) the launch itself is a missing milestone from the History section. 3) Binance changed the coin's names and networks throughout the years, so this establishes the point-in-time fact and changes noted later in the History section, to fit with chronology.

Jtbobwaysf Please let me know if this satisfies your request for more explanation! KB at Binance (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

These changes do not appear to be an improvement, and this wording is less neutral. You can continue to discuss this change, but do not re-add this template until consensus has changed. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hm... I a agree with Grayfell here.

I have WP:NPOV concerns with both the removal of material and the change in phrasing. In particular, some of the rewrites change the implied meaning rather than just reorganizing information.

For example this:

The company was founded in 2017 in China but moved its servers and headquarters out of the country in advance of the Chinese government's ban on cryptocurrency trading in September 2017.

is rewritten as:

The company began operations in Shanghai and moved its servers out before the country banned ICOs in 2017.

The original text explicitly links the relocation to the impending Chinese ban, while the revised version removes the cause and effect and presents it as coincidental or preemptive with an explanation. That's a substantive change in meaning, not just a stylistic one.

As a way forward, it may be better to focus on adding well-sourced material rather than replacing or re-framing existing text. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

To add, I don't think the circumstances leading up to the company founding should be removed outright. Pre-founding context about founders is commonly included in wikipedia articles because it explains how a company came together, even if it technically predates the company itself.

It's consistent with how early history is handled in many technology articles, for example History of Apple Inc. or Google, where founder background and pre-incorporation are included for context. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes we have some background on a founder in the company lead. But if the same identical content is also in his personal article, there isnt really a reason to duplicate it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sibshops: I looked at the source for the move out of China and it actually attributes the move to luck. "The company was also lucky – a week before the ban was announced, Zhao’s team moved all their servers out of China." Do we have other sources for this? If we don't, actually we are not being neutral on this text. Maybe they are other sources that attribute this timeframe in the more POV based view we use now, so we would need a source for that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah fair, if the page doesn't reflect the sources, then I have no issue with rewording that part. I also have no issue trimming the background too. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I found a stronger source, WP:REUTERS, which documents the timeline more clearly. I also updated the text in question as well. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I didn't add the rest of the paragraph as proposed in the edit request. Those appear to be 2018 events and wouldn't fit in the 2017 section.

Binance set up in Japan and sought licensing to operate, but once again had to relocate due to regulations. In March 2018, Binance announced its intentions to open an office in Malta. Binance announced more expansions in 2018, including plans to secure a license for operations in Jersey.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I just felt the older content was not NPOV as it implied they were running away. I think the other COI editor objects (or at least has in the past objected) to more information relating to the location, but I do not share that objection. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the initially proposed wording was a bit confusing.

The company began operations in Shanghai and moved its servers out before the country banned ICOs in 2017.

• The statement is geographically confusing. Shanghai is a city and readers have to infer either China or Mainland China here. It isn't clear where "moved out" went from and to.
• Banned ICOs is unnecessarily too specific, banning ICOs was part of a broader cryptocurrency crackdown.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Sib, I think we should go with your proposed wording. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

POV issues

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)

ICO

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). 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).

References

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). 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).

References

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:

Extended content

• He wrote parts of the white paper for Binance's $15 million initial coin offering (ICO).
  • "By the time Zhao asked her to be a consultant for Binance in 2017, Yi He had left the virtual-currency industry to become an executive at a live-streaming company. She helped rewrite parts of the white paper for Binance’s $15 million initial coin offering that summer and later agreed to join Binance."

• In July 2017, 200 million coins
  • "an ICO issued 200 million of the coins in July 2017"

• the utility token Binance Coin
  • "Binance coin, the exchange’s utility token"

• Binance Coin, designed to pay the exchange's trading fees
  • "Binance Coin, also known as BNB, is used by holders to pay the fees levied by the exchange for trading."

• The token was originally based on the Ethereum network.
  • "Binance Coin is the native token of BNB Chain and was launched through an initial coin offering in 2017. It was originally based on the Ethereum network."

• later renamed to Build'N'Build (BNB)
  • This one was referenced in a different source, not the one I linked here. See below
  • "Binance switched BNB’s full name to Build and Build from Binance Coin."

References

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)

Revised request

Sibshops Grayfell and Jtbobwaysf, perhaps it might be useful to look at sources already used in the article about the ICO. I have included the sources' exact language for reference, these are not proposals on what to include as I would not suggest violating copyright.

Bloomberg writes the following:

• "Investigators are examining if the 2017 initial coin offering amounted to the sale of a security that should have been registered with the agency," (this examination was as of 2022)
• "Ahead of BNB’s launch in 2017, Binance laid out its plans in a white paper. The document said its circulation would be limited to 200 million with half of the tokens being sold through the ICO, which took place on multiple platforms throughout the world. Another 80 million would be reserved for Binance’s founding team, which includes its billionaire chief executive officer, Changpeng Zhao."
• "Binance switched BNB’s full name to Build and Build from Binance Coin."

Reuters writes the following:

• "Zhao launched Binance in July 2017."
• "Flush with $15 million raised in an initial coin offering (ICO), in which crypto start-ups issue and sell virtual tokens to investors, Zhao planned his global expansion from a small Shanghai office with a close-knit team."

References

These are the facts I think should be included in the History section:

• The ICO was: $15 million; launched in July 2017; and 200 million coins
• Binance created Binance Coin
• Binance Coin was renamed to BNB token
  • The reason I am suggesting mentioning the rename earlier is to avoid confusion later, as there are several name changes and I believe it aids comprehension to outline this at the start.

While the ICO is mentioned in the Tokens section, it is missing key information and is not in the History section. The ICO is the start of the company; without introducing that information at the start, the article instead relies on readers filling in the gaps themselves. The ICO size is not a trivial fact because it shows the scale of the coin at launch.

Let me know if there are any other questions, thanks KB at Binance (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the facts are properly individually sourced. The issue is that the proposed text combines details from multiple sources to create a narrative about Binance's founding that none of the sources themselves present. That falls under WP:SYNTH.

Instead, to include, there has to be a source which presents the narrative. Wikipedia editors can't build a narrative ourselves out of fragments. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, maybe I misread the request. If the goal was to simply add the ICO information, I added a brief mention of the ICO launch to the section.

The bloomberg source may be a little bit more difficult to include because it discusses the background in the context of an SEC investigation, rather than part of a straightforward company history. It talks about the launch in more detail, but as a context for how much CZ made.

Ahead of BNB’s launch in 2017, Binance laid out its plans in a white paper. The document said its circulation would be limited to 200 million with half of the tokens being sold through the ICO, which took place on multiple platforms throughout the world. Another 80 million would be reserved for Binance’s founding team, which includes its billionaire chief executive officer, Changpeng Zhao.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think useful to include more info on the ICO, including the amount raised. Also the change in the name of the token from Binance Coin to BuildNBuild it encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to add more depth or detail since reliable sources don't appear to cover the company's history in this much detail. It may not be WP:DUE. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

SAT on Legal status section

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
ASIC (Australia) media release			(regulator action notice; RS for the fact, limited depth)	✘ No
Binance Australia (X/Twitter statement)			(self-published; not independent; usable only with caution for uncontroversial self-description; no GNG value)	✘ No
Westpac media release			(primary org statement by Westpac; RS for Westpac’s action; not a Binance profile)	✘ No
Australian Financial Review (Westpac ban)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
FSMA (Belgium) order			(regulator order; RS for the fact; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters (Belgium stop order)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters (Ontario restrictions)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
OSC (Ontario) undertaking PDF			(regulator/legal document; RS for the fact; not a narrative profile)	✘ No
Engadget (Canada exit)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Financial Post (OSC investigating)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Inc.com / Reuters (Canada fine)			(syndicated wire; limited depth)	✘ No
TechCrunch (France regulatory approval)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters (France preliminary investigation)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters (France judicial investigation, Jan 2025)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
Yahoo Finance (Germany warning; syndicated)			(aggregator/syndication; typically short; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters (Italy regulator warning)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
Bloomberg (Italy regulatory nod)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters (India freezes WazirX assets)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
TechCrunch (WazirX ownership dispute)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Fortune India (offshore crypto firms banned list)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
The Economic Times (India bans foreign platforms)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Dawn (India penalty report)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Barron's (Japan regulators warn)			(paywalled/market news; often event-driven; limited depth for CORPDEPTH)	✘ No
Yahoo Finance (Japan FSA warning; syndicated)			(aggregator/syndication; typically short; limited depth)	✘ No
The Hindu (Dutch central bank fine)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
BBC (Netherlands exit / France probe)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters (Nigeria operations illegal)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
Nigeria SEC circular			(regulator circular; RS for the fact; not an in-depth profile)	✘ No
Reuters (detained executive court update)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
Premium Times Nigeria (escape report)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Bloomberg (bribe allegation)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Nairametrics (commentary)			(local commentary/analysis outlet; RS status may be contested; no GNG value)	✘ No
Reuters (charges dropped)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
Inquirer.net (Philippines ban efforts)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Thailand SEC notice			(regulator notice; RS for the fact; limited depth)	✘ No
Nikkei Asia (Thailand license)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
FCA (UK) consumer warning (general)			(general FCA warning; not specifically about Binance as subject; fails significant coverage of Binance)	✘ No
Reuters (UK FCA order)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
Bloomberg (UK regulator bars Binance)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
FCA Register entry			(official register entry; RS for status; not narrative coverage)	✘ No
Time (Binance.US review)			(product/service review; not a corporate profile; limited CORPDEPTH)	✘ No
Bloomberg (DOJ/IRS probe)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Bloomberg (archived: SEC token probe)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
TechCrunch (Voyager deal collapse)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
CNBC (Bitzlato funds)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters ($400m moved from US partner)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
Fortune (senators letter coverage)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
US Senate PDF (letter)			(primary document; RS for what it states; not narrative profile)	✘ No
Bloomberg (CFTC lawsuit)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
The Guardian (CFTC sues)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
BBC (accused of breaking US laws)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Bloomberg			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Bloomberg (SEC sues)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
The New York Times (SEC accusations)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
AP News (Binance.US CEO departs)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Yahoo Video?			(aggregated broadcast clip; limited depth)	✘ No
MarketWatch (Hamas funding claims)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
US DOJ press release (plea)			(primary government release; RS for the fact; not narrative profile)	✘ No
The Wall Street Journal (CEO steps down / plea)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
The Guardian (settlement)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
ABC News (Hamas victims lawsuit)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Bloomberg Law (Hamas victims lawsuit)			(legal-trade reporting; still event-based; limited depth)	✘ No
Yahoo Finance (lawsuit; syndicated)			(aggregator/syndication; limited depth)	✘ No
The Wall Street Journal (sentencing)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
CNBC (sentencing)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters (sentencing)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
The Times of India (release from jail)			(single-event reporting; limited depth)	✘ No
Reuters (Hamas victims sue, Nov 2025)			(single-event wire story; limited depth)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, that is a very cool tool. First time i have seen that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It's nice to see recognition from such an experienced member of the community! Thanks! Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Hello again, @Belle Femme Emmo:

Template:Source assess table says This template generates a source assessment table, which contains assessments of sources with respect to the general notability guideline (GNG). It is meant for use in deletion discussions. (emphasis added). That doesn't mean you cannot use it for other things. It makes sense for draft articles, because establishing notability is a big part of making a draft. It doesn't make as much sense here.

In this template, 'Significant coverage' is a link to WP:SIGCOV (which is part of Wikipedia:Notability). Per that policy, Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists

As far as I know, nobody is disputing that 'Binance' is notable enough for an article. Nobody is arguing that the article should be deleted, right?

A more relevant policy for whether or not to include specific details is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight.

If this information was removed because sources are not 'significant', than this was a mistake and the information should be restored pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, the article is clearly notable. However, this tool would be useful to use as we clearly have some poor sources on this article that have slipped through the cracks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell, I coming to this tool on Binance article and 2 other CEX (Bybit, Kucoin) only because you asked me to wait second opinion on Draft:Bitget, and then brand new reviewer coming and decline my article I spent my holidays coz Legal status section fails WP:GNG. I think WP:OTHERCONTENT isn't fit anywhere - from my POV when I entered wiki I view on similar articles and follow the style and strcture. Nothing else. Nevertheless, I agreed to remove Legal status; I don't care anymore, no one stated that Binance fails GNG. @Jtbobwaysf thanks! Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Paxos, Binance USD, and Binance-Peg BUSD

It seems the last request has reached a consensus, so I would like to present a new topic for consideration. For the History section, I would like to propose the addition of the following paragraph for consideration:

Paxos and Binance announced a partnership to launch a stablecoin, Binance USD (BUSD), in 2019. The coin, based on the Ethereum network, was Paxos-owned and operated but licensed the Binance brand. Binance had its own, separate token that was similarly named Binance-Peg BUSD, which was a wrapped coin issued on multiple blockchains.

References

The Binance USD subsection of the Tokens section does discuss this coin, but several key points are missing, including:

• When the coin was launched
• That the coin licensed the Binance brand but was Paxos-owned and operated
• Establishing the difference between this coin and the similarly named Binance-Peg BUSD.

This last point is important because the information in Binance USD goes on to conflate the two coins, so this distinction should be made.

Since the partnership with Paxos was launched in 2019, I propose the content should go in the History section after the paragraph that starts with, "In June 2018,". I did not suggest it for the Tokens section because later I plan to make suggestions that would make this section redundant, which you can see more context for in my user space draft.

Tagging Grayfell, Jtbobwaysf and Sibshops as usual. Please let me know what you think. KB at Binance (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

No consensus. You may continue to discuss, but do not reopen the template until consensus has been formed.

Based on the 'access-date' field, you copied these sources from some other article. Where did they come from?

The article already mentions that BUSD was issued by Paxos on behalf of Binance. This level of detail is unnecessary and distracting (especially for a defunct stablecoin). Mentioning the year is an improvement, but it's too vague.

This also looks like a lopsided use of sources. Look at the Gizmodo source. Do not just summarize the bits which are of interest to your employers. This source focuses on why the stablecoin was discontinued. Grayfell (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! As mentioned, the Binance USD subsection of the Tokens section does discuss some of this information; any sources replicated come from there. I was proposing moving this content into History and adding information that was currently missing.

Regarding other information reported in these articles , I was trying to keep the request short and simple, but this information I was going to propose further down in the History section.

• The New York Department of Financial Services issued an order to Paxos to stop minting new BUSD tokens in February 2023. At this time, Binance also announced it would also stop minting Binance-Peg BUSD. Prior to this announcement, Bloomberg reported in January 2023 that Binance-Peg BUSD had been undercollateralized at times during 2020 and 2021 and had a gap larger than $1 billion three separate times.

References

However, suggesting this information was going to bloat the request because it also would require some reshaping of Tokens, since some of this information is in the Wikipedia article but heavily relies on large quotes from the source material.

Moving forward, would you prefer small, paragraph sized requests or larger ones that focus on the topic as a whole?

Additionally, regardless of the above, the current article still does not establish that Binance BUSD coin and Binance-Peg BUSD are not the same, referring to the latter coin in a section about the former.

Pinging Grayfell, Jtbobwaysf and Sibshops. Thanks KB at Binance (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer my question about where you copied those sources from. For example, the Gizmodo source lists '1 August 20205' as the access date, but this source isn't in the article and the article was not even edited on that date. Another example is the Mengqi WSJ source, which lists 22 October 2025 as the access date, but that source was not in the article until I added it after you posted it here. Copying content from other articles, can, potentially, introduce issues per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. More generally, getting sloppy with sources is a bad idea. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity. Those sources you called out I did not use from another article, those access dates are correct. You'll see that my proposed user space draft was published in December of 2025. I was in fact slowly working on this draft in August and October 2025; references in this proposal were not borrowed from another Wikipedia article. Let me know if you have any other questions! KB at Binance (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

We routinely copy sources from one article to another, thats not the same as copying content. I think we need to WP:AGF even with this COI editor. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Do not copy sources without verifying them directly. Always check that sources you've copied support the attached claims, that the links work, that the source is reliable in the new context, etc. This has always been important, but now also because of WP:LLMs. Too often people use chatbots to find sources and those chatbots misrepresent those sources, assume they even exist. If you copy a source, and have verified it, update the 'accessed' info to show that you are the one citing it, not someone else at some other article. Grayfell (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thats true, we editors are just going to be checking LLM work more and more, until maybe we all fatigue of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Jtbobwaysf and Grayfell. Were there any thoughts on the request to clarify the difference between Binance BUSD coin and Binance-Peg BUSD?

Hoping to receive guidance to my earlier question about moving forward and presenting either small, paragraph sized requests or larger ones that focus on the topic as a whole.

Thanks! KB at Binance (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I went through above and have a request, could you please refrain from using ai to write these requests. You are trying to add a distinction between BUSD and something like peg-USD? Do we have sources that explain the difference? You are saying there are Paxos, Binance USD, and Binance-Peg BUSD, right? Do each of these have different tickers? I think you should start by telling us in plain English (without ai). What are the tickers and why is this important? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for going through this again! For clarity, I have not once used AI in any part of my work on Wikipedia. It hasn't been used in any of the drafts I proposed, was not used to find sources, and was not used to make these requests.

For your question on a source that explains the difference, the Gizmodo source above does clarify this: "According to Binance, BUSD is owned and issued by Paxos, who licenses the Binance brand. Though Binance does have another coin called Binance-Peg BUSD. The former is only issued on the Ethereum blockchain, while the latter is a wrapped coin issued on multiple other blockchains. The Binance-Peg BUSD has lost its financial backing on several occasions, though the company claimed this was due to a 'timing mismatch' between when itself and Paxos list prices."

For your question about the ticker, this adds to the confusion because they are both BUSD (though sometimes places use a different one for clarity, such as CoinDesk using BPBUSD for Binance-Peg BUSD)

For your question about why this is important: While they are similar, they are two different entities that get confused with each other often. A large difference is that Paxos minted BUSD and Binance minted Binance-Peg BUSD. NYSDFS issued an order that said BUSD could not be minted anymore. Binance stopped minting Binance-Peg BUSD as a response to this, but was not ordered to do so. Binance-Peg BUSD was also the specific coin a Bloomberg report found to be undercollateralized in 2020 and 2021.

I don't think all of these points need to be this fleshed out, for what it's worth. Simply rewritten to have the distinction clear so that these are two separate coins with two separate histories. The current section "Binance USD" starts with BUSD and the next sentence moves to Binance-Peg BUSD without any indication they are different, it reads like they are the same thing and "Binance-Peg" is just added details for the same coin. I think my proposal resolves this without going too in depth into the explanation.

Let me know if you have any other questions! KB at Binance (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it would be useful. Certainly the distinction between the Binance corp operated stablecoin and the paxos coin that is operated under license. @Grayfell: thoughts? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Glad to provide clarity! Let me know Grayfell and Jtbobwaysf if there are any other questions. KB at Binance (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Checking in here with Grayfell and Jtbobwaysf on next steps here: Should this move forward, or should I put a simplified proposal in the COI queue to get more input? Thanks! KB at Binance (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this one isnt going to proceed. I would prepare another request for a smaller change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Updating infobox

Hi editors, as Jtbobwaysf suggested, I have prepared a request for a smaller change.

This is for the infobox, which currently lists the number of employees at 7,000 as of 2023. I have a source which verifies 5,000 as of 2025.

References

Let me know if there are any questions. KB at Binance (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I have made the change. I have replaced the talk page COI template in this ection to accepted, hopefully I did that right. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent updates from Binance

Hello, I would like to present some new language for the History section based on reporting from this week about a large change that Binance has introduced. See the following:

The exchange started to allow trading of United States stocks and ETFs in June 2026. The trading option launched with over 7,000 stocks and ETFs. Binance allows purchases with digital currency, such as stablecoins USDC and USDT. Share purchases are facilitated through a broker dealer, Nest Trading, and firm Alpaca.

References

As always, pinging Grayfell and Jtbobwaysf. Let me know if there are any questions. KB at Binance (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Class action(s) 2020-ongoing

US and Canada Seems this is not covered in the article.~2026-36421-83 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Neither of those sources are great. I did find these, however:

For the US one:

• Mora, Michael A. (27 February 2026). "New York Judge Blocks Binance's Bid to Dodge Investor Class Action". Law.com. Retrieved 24 June 2026.
• "Binance cannot arbitrate customer claims over crypto losses, US judge rules". Reuters. 26 February 2026. Retrieved 24 June 2026.
• Waiss, Alexis (27 February 2026). "Binance Fails to Bring Bitcoin Sales Class Action to Arbitration". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved 24 June 2026.

For the Canadian one:

• Carolino, Bernise (5 February 2026). "Ontario Superior Court reminds Binance and alter ego not to pursue Hong Kong arbitration". Canadian Lawyer. Retrieved 24 June 2026.
• Singh, Karunjit (30 January 2026). "Court rebukes Binance for renewed bid to revive barred arbitration in class action - Law360 Canada". www.law360.ca. Retrieved 24 June 2026.
• Ziaie, Aryan (27 November 2024). "Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited: Not All Mandatory Arbitration Provisions Are Here To Stay". Ontario Bar Association. Retrieved 24 June 2026.
• "Crypto Disputes in Arbitration or Court? Impact of the Lochan v. Binance Judgment". Lexology. 20 February 2024. Retrieved 24 June 2026.

It looks like there are plenty more. Unfortunately for us lowly plebs, law news is often behind very expensive paywalls. Even without that, summarizing these may be a bit tricky. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft with ideas for article

Hello Belle Femme Emmo and Jklamo. I wanted to reach out because I noticed you both have made significant improvements to the content to this page. Because of this, I wanted to present my own ideas for improvements in a user space draft I have. This draft was posted as a way to be transparent as an editor with a COI because I will be posting requests slowly based on it. The idea is to try and improve the overall structure of this article and lay a groundwork for establishing some basic details that aren't explicitly included in the article, such as operational information. Would you be willing to drop some feedback on this, if you had any. Thanks! KB at Binance (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

hire-ups ?

can someone who is not illiterate edit this article and fix this? ~2026-37226-71 (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Typo fixed and replaced with something less informal. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)