At the same time, as I said, I don't think that creating FUD about anything CEX related is somehow helpful for the community and for the people who are approaching this world for the first time.
I get what you are saying Ale88 Bruh, but i don't think it is fud, especially because of some of the recent events that have happened with centralized exchanges and services. And i noticed that if people
approaching this BTC world for the first time start off with centralized exchanges, they tend to continue with it, forget that BTC is actually a decentralized network and even believe that without Binance BTC won't survive, so i think strongly debunking all these and trying to make them see decentralization as the way to use BTC is the right thing to do, and should not be called fud.
At the end it depends on what you want to do. If I just need to buy some crypto I can go for the easy way (CEXs) or for a more tech savvy way (DEXs), as long as the crypto world keeps growing I don't see the problem, it's benefits all of us at the end. Not everyone wants to learn all the necessary steps that are required to buy on DEXs and usually CEXs are almost idiot proof, almost. I think it's important to know what we're doing and what kind of options we have, then we make our choice. Luckily DEXs are getting better and more user-friendly, I remember years ago the first I used EtherDelta, I felt like I was in the 90s
So, as I see it, it's just a lot of unnecessary FUD, business as usual.
I wouldn't say it is fud. There was a legitimate vulnerability, which thankfully (this time) was picked up when only minimal damage was done.
As I said it all depends on how you formulate the phrase because, to me, the way it was described looked kind of deceptive. Was there a vulnerability? Yes, absolutely. Did it create serious problems? No. But I understand that everyone has its own view of the facts. Just like CEXs, some people prefer those that (in theory) never had a single asset stole and others prefer those that actually had stolen assets but refunded the users. Is it better the exchange that looks unbreachable or the one that has shown how solves that situation? There is no wrong answer.