>This article represents the personal views of OKX Star, based on public information, media reports, regulatory filings, court documents, and my long-term observation of the cryptocurrency industry. I do not possess any non-public information regarding Binance or any ongoing regulatory reviews.

Recently, Reuters reported that the Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) may reject Binance's MiCA license application. I have no inside information on this application, nor can I judge how the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) or other European regulators will ultimately view Binance's prospects in the EU.

However, this report raises a question more worthy of discussion.

Many people take it for granted that Binance obtaining licenses and being brought under regulation in more jurisdictions is a threat to competitors. My view is the exact opposite—Binance being brought under regulation globally is one of the best things that could happen to the crypto industry.

For over a decade, competition in the crypto industry has been largely shaped by regulatory arbitrage. Companies subject to fewer regulatory constraints often had an advantage over those investing heavily in licensing, compliance, governance, and regulatory communication. As regulators enforce increasingly consistent standards globally, this advantage is gradually disappearing. The focus of competition will shift from "who can exploit regulatory gaps" to product, technology, execution, customer service, governance, and trust.

This is good for users, good for competitors like OKX, and ultimately better for the long-term credibility of the entire crypto industry.

How Binance Built Its Advantage

In my view, Binance's success is not built solely on technology, liquidity, or product innovation.

Binance is extremely adept at creating and promoting crypto asset narratives. It has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to create assets, manufacture liquidity, influence market sentiment, and aggressively market various "opportunities" leveraging CZ himself and its vast social media ecosystem. The subtext conveyed by this narrative machine is simple—there is always the next get-rich-quick opportunity waiting for you.

Critics have long argued that Binance's business model is essentially one round of speculative asset hype after another.

When one asset narrative loses steam, the next one quickly fills the void; when users lose money in one cycle, attention is rapidly directed to the next token, the next trend, the next "opportunity."

Over the years, Binance has built a vast ecosystem around itself: the founder, former employees, venture capital funds, incubation projects, investment partners, and various affiliated market participants. Many of these projects ultimately received listings, exposure, or ecosystem support, thereby gaining access to Binance's massive retail user base.

A few of these projects have indeed succeeded, but many more saw their prices plummet significantly after listing—with many tokens drawing down over 95% from their highs.

Critics argue this creates a cycle: new narratives are continuously churned out, insiders and early participants reap disproportionate benefits, and when the hype fades, the majority of losses are borne by retail investors. Meanwhile, the platform constantly steers users to look toward future gains rather than tallying the losses already incurred.

The result is a self-reinforcing system: there is always the next asset, the next narrative, the next "opportunity" in the market.

Questions surrounding market integrity have also dogged Binance for years.

Many token teams have complained that during the listing process, Binance requires a significant percentage of tokens to be allocated for market-making arrangements, yet subsequently discloses almost nothing about how these tokens are managed.

Whether these claims are true or not, they deepen external concerns about potential conflicts of interest in assets listed on Binance's own platform, and its ability to influence trading in these assets. The CFTC's allegations amplified these concerns—it identified that CZ controlled or had the authority to direct multiple accounts trading on Binance. Taken together, these allegations raise broader questions: market manipulation, exchange neutrality, conflicts of interest, and whether Binance's past operations met the market integrity standards expected of a regulated financial institution.

Binance's Influence on Crypto Social Media

Another often overlooked factor is Binance's influence over crypto social media.

For years, Binance has invested enormous sums cultivating relationships with crypto influencers, KOLs, media outlets, affiliate networks, and communities. This has allowed it to build one of the industry's most powerful narrative and distribution networks.

Whenever negative news about Binance surfaces, one often sees a group of major influencers posting positive content about Binance, CZ, or the company's achievements almost simultaneously; meanwhile, critical voices are rebutted, dismissed, or even mobbed by Binance supporters across various social platforms.

CZ himself plays a significant role in this process. Over the years, he has frequently retweeted and amplified praise for Binance, regardless of whether the related criticisms were genuinely addressed.

The result is that Binance has become exceptionally effective at shaping public perception. Supporters see this as excellent community operations and marketing; critics view it as narrative manipulation. Whichever judgment is closer to the truth, few would deny that Binance has built one of the most formidable social media machines in crypto history.

Does Binance Truly Protect Users?

For years, one of Binance's most consistent messages has been that its success stems from "putting users first."

Binance often claims its success is because it takes care of users, protects users, and creates opportunities for users. But in the eyes of critics, the reality is far more complex.

In their view, Binance's business model does not benefit all users equally. It creates an ecosystem where a small group of sophisticated traders, insiders, influencers, market makers, affiliates, and early participants can reap enormous profits, while a much larger retail base absorbs the majority of losses generated by speculative cycles.

Every speculative asset cycle creates winners and losers. Binance heavily promotes the winners—users who made large profits are showcased on social media, marketing campaigns, community channels, and influencer networks as success stories. The message is simple: if they can make it, so can you.

The far more numerous users who lost money in the same cycle receive far less attention.

When users become disgruntled due to losses, Binance's ecosystem typically responds in two ways. First, leveraging a web of supporters, influencers, and social media volume to rebut or even attack the criticism, placing the blame entirely on the user. Second, diverting attention to the next opportunity, the next narrative, the next token, the next trend—encouraging users not to dwell on losses already incurred, but to think about the potential to make a fortune in the next cycle.

Thus, the focus of discussion subtly shifts from "did users lose money" to "will users make money in the future."

The focus is never on the users who lost money in the last cycle, but always on the users who might make money in the next one.

This is precisely why many question Binance's claim of "putting user interests first."

Measuring a company that truly puts users first should not only look at how many success stories it promotes, but also at how it treats users who lose money, how it manages conflicts of interest, how it controls market risks, and whether it fosters an environment where the majority of users have a fair chance at positive outcomes.

The ultimate test of user protection lies not in how many winners a platform can create, but in how many users it can prevent from becoming losers.

Why Regulators, Media, and the Industry Still Question Binance's Compliance Culture?

Binance often states that it employs over 1,500 compliance professionals and is one of the most compliant crypto companies globally.

But for any financial institution, compliance is never determined by how many people you hire. Compliance depends on whether the institution genuinely believes in compliance and has established control mechanisms capable of managing real risk exposures.

The purpose of compliance is not to prove to regulators that every box has been ticked. The purpose of compliance is to reduce risk, prevent misconduct, and uphold the integrity of the financial system.

This is one reason why regulators, media, and industry participants continue to question Binance's compliance culture. Media outlets like the Wall Street Journal have repeatedly reported on Binance's historical issues involving sanctioned jurisdictions, including Iran. Binance's position has broadly been that it complied with applicable KYC requirements, that customers did not identify themselves as Iranian based on submitted documents, and that once authorities subsequently determined a sanctions risk existed, the relevant accounts were frozen.

From Binance's perspective, this may satisfy procedural compliance requirements. But what many regulators are probing is a different question. The goal of compliance is not just to do KYC, fill out forms, and freeze accounts after receiving government notification; the goal of compliance is to establish effective controls that proactively identify and mitigate risks before they become problems.

For any responsible financial institution, the ultimate measure of success is the effectiveness of compliance, not merely the existence of procedures. This is why, despite its massive compliance team, Binance still faces skepticism from regulators, media, and many participants in the financial industry.

Binance's Compliance Transformation: From Resisting Compliance to Paper Compliance

Following multiple enforcement actions globally and CZ's four-month prison sentence, Binance has significantly adjusted its public stance on compliance—shifting from openly resisting regulation to positioning itself as one of the most compliant crypto companies in the world.

The question is: are these compliance programs designed to manage real risks, or merely to present a compliant posture to regulators?

Several media reports have raised concerns about how Binance handles compliance internally.

According to reports from the Wall Street Journal and others, Binance's market surveillance team once identified suspicious behavior by a large institutional participant suspected of market manipulation. But reportedly, instead of strengthening the surveillance function, Binance dismantled or reduced parts of the relevant team's functions.

Similarly, media reports also indicated that Binance's Anti-Money Laundering (AML) team had identified significant sanctions-related risk exposures for certain high-net-worth clients. According to these reports, some accounts were internally flagged in a way that limited compliance visibility and escalation; and employees who raised concerns allegedly faced resistance from senior management.

Whether each allegation is true will ultimately be determined by regulators and courts. But the overall pattern outlined by media reports raises an important question: is compliance aimed at identifying and mitigating risks, or at creating the appearance of compliance?

There is a larger question about how Binance treats regulatory risk. When Binance exited the Russian market, it sold its Russian business to a newly formed company, CommEX. Both Binance and CommEX stated that Binance held no equity in the company. But given the timing of CommEX's establishment, the similarities between the two platforms, and the near-seamless migration of Binance's Russian users, many in the industry questioned whether CommEX was truly independent.

A more recent example is CZ publicly criticizing Hyperliquid and stating that Binance would never operate a business model with similar regulatory risks. Yet, Binance is closely associated with a project called Aster—which, in the eyes of many observers, has a model quite similar to Hyperliquid. CZ has repeatedly publicly endorsed Aster; there have also been persistent rumors in the industry that Aster shares significant resources with Binance, including personnel, although the exact relationship between the two has never been clearly explained.

These examples touch on a fundamental question about Binance's compliance philosophy: if a business model is deemed too risky for Binance to operate directly, does it become acceptable to have it run by an "independent" entity that remains closely tied to the Binance ecosystem?

More broadly: where should regulators, users, and the market draw the line between "true independence" and "regulatory risk transfer"?

Ultimately, compliance is not just about legal structures, but about whether substance prevails over form.

Conclusion

Binance being brought under regulation in more jurisdictions is not a threat to the crypto industry; it is a good thing.

For years, Binance profited from its scale, regulatory arbitrage, narrative control, and a business model built on continuous speculative cycles. As regulators bring Binance under increasingly consistent regulatory standards, the entire industry is moving toward a fairer playing field.

For years, one of Binance's greatest competitive advantages was never technology, liquidity, or product, but rather regulatory arbitrage, narrative control, and the ability to shape market perception. As regulation increasingly values governance, controls, and outcomes over marketing and social media influence, these advantages will correspondingly diminish.

The future winners in the crypto industry should not be determined by "who can operate under the fewest rules," but by these factors: who can build the best products, who can serve users responsibly, who can manage risk effectively, and who can earn trust over the long term.

This is good for users, good for competition, and ultimately, good for the entire crypto industry.