我真的越想越不对劲。
币安 @binancezh 这波血洗完没几天,就突然说要拿出4500万美金的BNB空投给,在BSC上亏钱的meme用户,还有人最高拿到20 BNB。
问题来了…..为什么是这群人?为什么不是被强制爆仓的合约用户?
是meme亏钱比较高贵,还是因为meme的用户多、声音大、容易被收买?
这不是补偿,这是公关安抚。币安在挑人塞糖,让最吵的那群人闭嘴,营造一种「平台有在做事」的假象。
真正爆仓、被宕机害死的那批人,没空投、没公告、没说明。
他们连一句道歉都没有。
说白了,这4500万美金根本不是「善意」,而是灭火费。
是怕舆论爆出内部问题、怕监管找上门,所以赶紧找个话题转移焦点。
你看,现在社群里满满都是「感谢币安帮忙重生」的舔帖,完全没人敢再问那天到底发生什么。
但我们都知道,那晚的清算根本不是「市场行为」。
如果一切正常,为什么不出来公开交易数据?为什么不让技术团队说明宕机细节?
币安选择发币安抚,而不是面对真相。
这才是最让人噁心的地方。
——
I’ve been thinking about this, and something just doesn’t add up.
After over a million users got liquidated, Binance suddenly decides to give $45 million worth of BNB to “meme players on BSC,” with some wallets receiving as much as 20 BNB each.
Why them?
Why meme traders, not the users who got force-liquidated during the outage?
Is losing money on memes more noble than losing it on contracts? Or just easier to buy silence from a loud community?
This isn’t compensation this is public relations damage control.
They’re picking who to sugarcoat, rewarding the noisiest ones to make it look like Binance is “helping users recover.”
Meanwhile, the real victims the ones liquidated in seconds, with no system response get nothing.
No airdrop. No apology. No explanation.
Let’s be honest that $45 million isn’t generosity. It’s hush money.
A distraction to shift the narrative away from what really happened that night.
Now the timeline is filled with “thank you Binance for supporting the community” posts, and everyone suddenly forgets the bloodbath.
If everything was fair and transparent, why not release the trading logs?
Why not explain the so-called “market volatility” that just happened to wipe out so many retail users?
Binance didn’t fix the problem.
They just paid to bury it.
币安的爆仓数据一眼假,建议币安赔付山寨币插针受害者
10月10日币圈历史最大的爆仓,很多数据被掩盖;
币安的爆仓数据很假,币安的合约量估计是Bybit的4-10倍,估算10日当天币安的爆仓额在160-400亿美元区间;
@chameleon_jeff 发的帖子也说明了这个问题,DEX不应该隐瞒数据,搞小动作,伤害自己的用户。
10月10日,爆仓的160多万用户里,大多数是近1-2年内入圈的不擅长风控的新韭菜,我的很多粉丝向我痛苦哭诉,这背后是多少个受影响的家庭。
就这么一下把行业的新用户都割完了,对Crypto的发展百害无一利。
币安赚了这么多,这次宕机+山寨离谱插针,有责任。建议参考币安美国的价格,对山寨异常插针的受害散户进行赔付。 @cz_binance@heyibinance
呼吁各大KOL能为散户和正义发声,加密行业涸泽而渔搞不得!
Binance’s liquidation data is clearly fake; @binance should compensate victims of altcoin unusual crashes.
On October 10, the largest liquidation in crypto history occurred, but much of the data was concealed.
Binance’s liquidation data is misleading. The total future volume on Binance is estimated to be 4–10 times that of Bybit, suggesting that liquidations of Binance on October 10 were in the range of $16–40 billion.
The tweet of @chameleon_jeff also highlights this issue. DEXs shouldn’t hide data or play tricks that hurt their users.
That day, among the 1.6 million liquidated users, the majority were new retail traders who entered the market in the last 1–2 years, and they were wiped out in a single event. This is extremely harmful to the development of crypto industry.
Binance profited a lot from this. With the outage and absurd altcoin flash crashes, it has the responsibility. I suggest to reference Binance US pricing and compensate retail users affected by abnormal altcoin price spikes. @cz_binance@heyibinance
Calling on top KOLs to speak up for retail investors and justice, exploiting crypto recklessly is unacceptable!
@phyrexni@BTCdayu@cishanjia@brian_armstrong@CryptoHayes@xiaomucrypto@liangxihuigui@cloakmk@kiki520_eth
Questions like this deserve to be highlighted, as it shows that there are still people who don’t know what they’re talking about (or know but are deliberately gaslighting others)
> First off, Binance shelled out $283 million to make things right for their screw-ups. That payout's aimed at confirmed losses from asset depegs (like USDe, wBETH, and bnSOL). It doesn't touch market-based hits from over-leveraging, but zeroes in on the platform's own glitches, such as wonky internal oracle pricing and API lags. So why should Hyperliquid compensate people who were liquidated on the exchange when the reason for their liquidation was not Hyperliquid?
> Second, you can't even stack up Hyperliquid's liquidation volumes against those on CEXes. Take Binance: even with thousands of liquidation orders hitting in the same second, they only log one. Since these things blow up in bursts, that could mean they're underreporting by 100x in certain scenarios. The whole industry ought to play it straight and fair, but clearly Binance has issues with that.
Hyperliquid’s fully onchain liquidations cannot be compared with underreported CEX liquidations
Hyperliquid is a blockchain where every order, trade, and liquidation happens onchain. Anyone can permissionlessly verify the chain’s execution, including all liquidations and their fair execution for all users. Furthermore, anyone can verify the solvency of the entire system in real time. Transparency and neutrality are key reasons that fully onchain defi is the ideal infrastructure for global finance.
Some CEXs publicly document that they dramatically underreport user liquidations. For example on Binance, even if there are thousands of liquidation orders in the same second, only one is reported. Because liquidations happen in bursts, this could easily be 100x under-reporting under some conditions. Source below.
Hopefully the industry will see transparency and neutrality as important features of the new financial system, and others will follow.