An attempt to present Binance as unreliable exchange through the citation of controversial media content looks very unconvincing. The shift of emphasis from the fact that a respectable exchange, on the example of Binance, in a case of blocking users' funds follow a transparent legal and reasonable procedure, to an irrelevant controversial statement about the danger of this exchange for the market, is not only unconvincing, but also intellectually dishonest.
Lets just
archive this and revisit my comments in 2 years time and see what has developed and see if Binance is still the poster child you claim it to be.
Looks like my warnings about Binance were right....
Any exchange can get hacked but the volume and legal structure of Binance make it risky.
Deposits and withdrawals are currently frozen.
According to Binance they control 350000 BTC and 20% of the BTC trading volume.
I'm not saying Binance is deliberately malicious. I admire what Changpeng Zhao has accomplished and I believe his intentions are good. He is super clever and has
done some incredible things.
It is just that centralized trading and lack of independent oversight carries huge risks. Sometimes good intentions can still result in disaster. Crypto works best when it is decentralized. Too much in on location becomes a risk from both hackers and government action.
Even companies with complete legislative oversight can go bust so legislation or licensing is not a guarantee of safeguarding. (e.g Barings Bank)
It comes back to: Keeping funds on any exchange is risky.