What happened that left many creators upset and dissatisfied after taking part in this program? I’ll recount everything in chronological order so you can get a clearer picture.

Timeline of events

On September 22, Binance launched the “Open Chat – Get Rewards” event.

You’re probably already quite familiar with the program details, but there are a few important points to note:

• Event period: September 22–October 30.

• Creators will receive rewards at each milestone if they reach the required number of members within 72 hours.

• USDC and Merch rewards must be claimed at each milestone and cannot be combined.

• The reward details are as follows:

This was supposed to be an event open to all Creators, who could all participate and receive rewards. So why did things become so complicated and controversial?

In my view, the problems began with unreasonable changes to the rules, followed by a series of results that did not match the very rules that had been announced.

September 28: Binance updated the rules

Binance added several new rules:

• The system will review and confirm which groups have reached a milestone every Monday, instead of automatically checking every 72 hours as before.
  → I think this part is completely fine; I have no issue with it.

• Added a mechanism to prevent member overlap abuse (Member Overlap Abuse): groups with more than 70% member overlap will be subject to the Shared Reward Mechanism.

And this was the starting point for a series of problems that followed.

According to the published rules, only groups at the same reward milestone with more than 70% member overlap would be combined into a single pool to share the rewards.

At the same time, the Merch package was still supposed to be awarded based on the milestone each Creator reached individually.

BTC’s updates to the rules and addition of new provisions were generally acceptable, provided that the final results were handled in accordance with those very rules.

But the problem is that the actual results did not match the published rules at all.

September 29: Several issues emerged in the first round of reward results

On September 29, Creators received the results of the first round of rewards, covering the period from September 22 to 28.

What’s noteworthy is that many groups were placed under the Shared Reward Mechanism even though they had not reached the same reward milestone, contrary to the conditions announced earlier.

Specifically, there was a case where a group that had just reached the 2000-member milestone had to share rewards with a group that had reached the 100-member milestone.

This is a very serious mistake because it directly disadvantages groups with higher performance. However, as of now, this issue still has not been resolved satisfactorily.

Moreover, under the Merch package, instead of awarding Merch based on the milestone each Creator reached, as stated in the rules, Merch was ultimately awarded only to the highest-performing group.

This is another point of frustration for many Creators, since for many of them, one of the main reasons for joining the event was to receive Merch as a keepsake commemorating their community-building journey.

September 30: The event was unexpectedly closed early

After a series of problems with the first round of rewards, instead of reviewing and fully addressing the mistakes that had occurred, on September 30, BTC made an even more baffling decision:

The event was closed that very day on the grounds that it was a “pilot program.”

This decision directly disadvantaged Creators who were following the event’s original goals and criteria: growing their communities step by step, reaching a milestone, maintaining steady growth, and then moving on to the next milestone.

Some Creators had only just reached their first milestone when the event was closed, even though their communities had the potential to help them reach higher reward milestones—or even the maximum milestone—if the program had continued for the full period originally announced.

Honestly, when I read that the event had been closed early because it was a “pilot program,” I found that explanation very unconvincing.

If this really was a pilot program, why wasn’t that clearly announced from the very beginning?

Why was the “pilot program” explanation only brought up to justify ending the event early after so many mistakes and shortcomings had emerged?

Then, from September 30 onward, more inconsistent announcements, unclear explanations, and unresolved issues continued to arise.

My thoughts on this event

In short, based on how the program was carried out and handled overall, my concerns can be summed up in three points:

“Poor operations and a lack of transparency.
Inaccurate and unrealistic assessments of the situation.
Evasive, inconsistent, and delayed handling.”

Everything I’ve described above is based on events that actually took place, and I have evidence to support it.

The purpose of this post is not to attack any individual or team. I hope BTC will seriously acknowledge the mistakes that occurred, offer a reasonable reward solution for the affected Creators, and handle matters more transparently and fairly going forward.

Most importantly, I hope BTC can learn from this event so that future programs for Creators are organized more clearly, consistently, and professionally.

@Binance Vietnam @Binance Square Official

Atlas