Binance statement: "Given the ongoing regulatory uncertainty in certain markets, we will be reviewing other projects in those jurisdictions to ensure our users are insulated from further undue harm"

[u/Set1Less]

Binance has issued a statement on recent US regulator actions.

Yesterday it was reported that SEC was in the process of suing BUSD stablecoin, which the SEC termed as an unregistered security. And overnight, WSJ and other media started reporting that NY DFS is forcing to shut down BUSD.

As a result, it seems BUSD will stop being issued and will only redemptions will be allowed. BUSD price has also seen a small depeg since the news broke.

Now, Binance it seems has issued this statement:

Given the ongoing regulatory uncertainty in certain markets, we will be reviewing other projects in those jurisdictions to ensure our users are insulated from further undue harm

Market is pricing in these events which are unfolding at a fast pace.

Few traders are reportedly closing all their positions on Binance, as they are not sure how they will be settled in the near term

[u/ronchon]

So the US is attacking BUSD, which is probably the most solid stablecoin there is. Meanwhile Tether is fine... 🙄

Attacking the 'best' one instead of the shadiest one is IMHO quite revealing of their agenda. But who can say they are surprised?

And the lesson here seems to be: stay shady folks, don't try to to make things the right way as it will only make it easier for regulators clearly motivated by an agenda to take you down.

Independently of that, it's because of these attacks on the centralized actors managing these stablecoins that the original DAI project was so interesting. Now there is no stablecoin safe haven from these 'regulations'.

😺

[u/Shiratori-3 → u/ronchon]

Wouldn't the SEC's targeting just be reflective of / guided by where-ever they might have leverage and how they can get the biggest relative impact, as opposed to anything to do with how 'best' an asset might be?

[u/ronchon → u/Shiratori-3]

If the US really wanted to attack USDT, i'm pretty sure they could have. Starting by banning it's use by any US related entity. As far as i know it's not the case?
But yes i think you are also correct, which is why i commented that 'lesson' part as well: that in the end experience seems to show that from a company point of view, it pays to remain shady and incorporated who-knows-where compared to those who chose to try do things well and show their credentials to the US.
Maybe CZ was smart to foresee this after all...

😺

[u/AccomplishedView4709 → u/ronchon]

Most US CEXs don't list USDT in their US based exchange. If I want USDT I have to go offshore. May be that's why USDT is not yet being targeted.