A few days ago, when Binance suffered a $6.3 billion theft, Xu Mingxing was quick to post:

“Protecting users and their assets should be the shared responsibility of the entire industry, not just individual platforms.”

At the time, I praised Mr. Xu: “He showed the vision and sense of responsibility expected of an industry leader.”

Today, though, Mr. Xu changed his tune, posting to emphasize: “Binance is over-marketing, and big cousin CZ is shirking responsibility.”

First of all, what exactly counts as over-marketing?

I guess what he means here is Binance offering high-yield financial products to attract funds back.

But can Binance’s efforts to reassure customers this way really be called over-marketing?

If so, then other industry players are all doing it now too. Doesn't that mean the whole industry is engaging in excessive marketing?

Including Mr. Xu, who is using his attacks on Binance as a pretext to promote OKX. Does that count as excessive marketing by stepping over a competitor's corpse to get ahead?

“Coincidentally,” Mr. Xu's criticism of Binance's excessive marketing came just yesterday—after Binance withstood the pressure of withdrawals and even saw positive net inflows?

How can you expect me not to read more into it?

Next, about the Big Cousin's buck-passing. Specifically, Mr. Xu also listed several alleged offenses. Let me go through them one by one and refute them:

1. One of the most active people on social media.

Counterpoint: Although CZ has stepped away from day-to-day operations, he remains Binance's largest shareholder and its widely recognized public face. If he doesn't speak out to reassure people at a time like this, who do you think can?

2. Still had time to argue with Elon Musk.

Counterpoint: I don't even want to bother refuting this. Anyone who reads the original post and CZ's follow-up will know what happened. It had absolutely nothing to do with arguing, okay?

3. Repeatedly emphasized that “only 2% of funds had left Binance.”

Counterpoint: Isn't that simply a statement of fact? If it's true, why can't he say it?

4. Continued running marketing campaigns to attract user deposits.

Counterpoint: The marketing is real, sure, but it takes two to tango. If users aren't willing, can you really force them to take money out of their pockets and deposit it with Binance?

At the end of the day, users are willing to trust Binance and the reputation and deep pockets of a leading exchange.

5. Tried to imply that traditional banks are less secure.

Counterpoint: That's a matter of opinion. Some people may see it as an inappropriate analogy, but from a technical perspective, there's also some truth to it.

In fact, the security of traditional banks doesn't come entirely from technological safeguards; it relies more on a stronger framework of laws, regulations, and compliance oversight.

This was laid out long ago in the Basel III accords. As someone with at least a little understanding of the banking system, I'm quite clear on this point.

6. Almost every time he speaks out, he seems to put a pregnant woman on the front line of a crisis, while repeatedly adding the same disclaimer: “I no longer manage Binance.”

Counterpoint: On this point, I think we should let Ms. Yi speak for herself. Mr. Xu, why are you butting in?

One moment, Mr. Xu is insisting that the whole industry should unite and weather this difficult time together; the next, he's attacking competitors and fighting among his own ranks. Isn't that a case of his left brain fighting his right?

When it comes to excessive marketing, attacking competitors to promote yourself, Mr. Xu is the real master.

History shows that anyone who spends every day fixating on the leader's flaws and refusing to let go can, at best, ever become number two.#币安10·30安全事件调查报告