Talk:Binance

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)

@KB at Binance these changes look find go ahead and make the edits as you see fit if there are any issues feel free to reach out. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I have made this edit as described here. I placed the text at the end of the History section for chronology purposes. If there are any questions, please let me know. KB at Binance (talk) 15:19, 19 August 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)

August 19 content addition

Hello editors, I would like to open a discussion around the content added on Aug. 19. For easy reference, the text I am referring to is below:

In August 2026, Reuters reported that Binance had given Russian authorities the identity documents and transaction history of a user who had donated cryptocurrency to the Ukrainian military and to the Azov Brigade, which Russia designates a terrorist organisation. The disclosure came two years after the company said it had left Russia following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the Western sanctions imposed in response. Russia's Investigative Committee sent its request to an address Binance lists on its website for Russian and Belarusian law enforcement, and the data it received was used to charge the user with financing terrorism. According to The First Department, a legal aid group that obtained the case file, the request covered six users who had sent funds to the same wallet, and the material on each was split into a separate criminal case. Binance supplied the user's entire account history, including scans of his Russian passport and Bulgarian residence permit, KYC photographs, balances, deposits and withdrawals, card payments, P2P trades and device fingerprints. Binance said it cooperates with lawful law enforcement requests worldwide and does not comment on individual cases.

References

There are two points I wanted to discuss.

First is the source from The First Department, which does not seem to meet the standard of independence. Since it does not seem to be independent, I do not believe it qualifies for sourcing facts, as it is used here. For transparency, please know I posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Legal_aid_group:_The_First_Department to seek guidance there on the source before posting here, and an editor there said it would be usable for opinions of First Department but not for facts. I wanted to first make sure this request was in line with the site's guidelines.

Second is about the overall weight of this paragraph. The text seems incredibly long and granular for something that was not widely reported in Wikipedia reliable sourcing. At this time, it seems to me that Reuters was the only qualifying publication to write about it.

Because editors have previously rejected specific language I suggest due to my conflict of interest, I do not have anything specific to present to editors as a replacement. Instead, I wanted to simply point out these two deficits and see if editors agree they are not in line with best practice. If there is agreement on this point, I suggest replacement of the paragraph with something more appropriate.

Pinging Rampion since they are the one who added this. Thank you, KB at Binance (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Your undefined "standard of independence" just seems like an excuse to remove a source you don't like. Since this is clearly attributed to The First Department, which appears to be a human rights organization, this isn't inherently unreliable as cited. A few words of context about what 'The First Department' is would be helpful. I found one other source which has covered this:

• "Cryptocurrency exchange Binance gave Russian security services data on one of its users. Now he's on trial for donating to Ukraine's military". Meduza. 17 August 2026. Retrieved 2 September 2026.

I've used this source to provide a line of context about The One Department and to clarify weight. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Grayfell for the response and finding an alternative source.

To be clear, I am not trying to remove a source I do not like; I would personally agree the source is fair but I know my personal opinion doesn't mean Wikipedia's rules are the same. That is why I went to RSN first, to make sure my understanding was right.

My main concern is about weight. Not weight in terms of how much is included from the reports, but weight relative to the amount of coverage on this topic. In short: the paragraph seems bloated with minor details.

I am not necessarily suggesting you implement the following text, Grayfell, because I know how you feel about drafted content presented by COI editors and how it can never be truly neutral. I am sharing below to simply give you an idea of how I think it is possible to retain all the important details but also scale it to the amount of coverage on the topic.

In August 2026, Reuters reported that Binance gave personal information to Russia's Investigative Committee for six users who donated cryptocurrency to the Ukrainian military and Azov Brigade. This information included account history, residency documents, and financial transactions and was used to charge one user with financing terrorism. Legal experts interviewed by Reuters assert the company had no obligation to cooperate with Russian law enforcement since it no longer operates in the county. Binance said it cooperates with lawful law enforcement requests worldwide and does not comment on individual cases.

Even with three reliable news sources, the original text does not seem proportional to the scale of coverage with the context of the entire page in mind. For example, the "2013-2017" subsection has more sources used (plus more possible to pull from), covers multiple years, and the entire foundation of the company itself but is shorter than this one paragraph. This one paragraph is also longer than the entire subsection about the BNB coin or the subsection on the BUSD coin or nearly every subsection about a country's regulation.

In the bigger framework of the whole article, I simply don't see how there is not a weight issue floating around somewhere. I think a reasonable first step is reducing this paragraph to fit the scale of the article. Thanks for your consideration on this. KB at Binance (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The insultingly simplistic version of my position you've presented here only tells me that you do not understood why COI editing is a problem for Wikipedia, or you just don't care.

You cannot propose text and then claim you're not really proposing any text. It's absurd.

It is possible for a COI editor to propose a neutral summary of unflattering information. But this ain't that. This is not a good proposal. The wording you have suggested is not a neutral summary of unflattering information, it's just a nakedly obvious attempt to downplay this event for PR purposes.

Implying that this is undue for some reason "floating around somewhere" is basically asking us to help you do you job.

Figure out what you really want to say and say it, and cite actual policies or guidelines or whatever. Whatever you're trying to do here isn't working. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

"First is the source from The First Department"

Our source is Reuters. That's reliable enough.

"proportional to the scale of coverage"

Proportionality is more related to neutrality than granularity. The paragraph over which you take issue could be shortened (there are repetitions), but I'm not sure why we should elide what it contains, for instance the dating of the disclosure. Cutting words is one thing. Cutting information provided by our sources is another.

Considering the current article size, the fact that the background section is short may indicate it would deserve to be expanded more than anything else. Selbstporträt (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Very good point. If we have reliable sources for the company's background and history, we should cite them. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2026 (UTC)