Gran Mahs Boy

One of Binance’s most public moves has been its series of “HODLer” and community airdrops. For example, Binance recently announced that it would launch a new airdrop under its Yield Basis (YB) protocol, with 10 million tokens—1% of the maximum supply—to be distributed to eligible users (Binance.com). Binance has also been known to compensate users during turbulent market events, such as when it pledged $45 million to traders affected by liquidations, described by OneSafe.io as a “reload airdrop” designed to rebuild confidence. While these programs naturally serve Binance’s interests in retaining users, they are also genuine acts of support, involving significant financial commitment.

Beyond direct user incentives, Binance Labs has been putting hundreds of millions into emerging blockchain projects, incubations, and Web3 startups. Reports from Edgen.tech highlight that the new LAB token, tied to Binance’s ecosystem development strategy, is projected to generate over $700 million in trading volume within months of its launch. This scale of ecosystem investment positions Binance not just as an exchange, but as one of the few institutions actively financing blockchain innovation.

In stark contrast, Coinbase and other major exchanges have rarely launched initiatives of comparable magnitude. Coinbase tends to focus on regulatory battles, new listings, and expanding its staking or custody services, but has yet to demonstrate ecosystem generosity at the level of Binance’s airdrops and grants. The silence is especially notable considering how aggressively some of these same institutions and commentators promote the idea of responsible corporate citizenship in crypto. When the loudest critics of Binance are also the quietest contributors to crypto’s growth, the moral posturing begins to look disingenuous.

The persistence of CZ’s negative image can be traced to several factors. First, regulatory pressure on Binance is immense. As the world’s largest exchange by volume, Binance is the most visible target for enforcement actions, which makes it a convenient scapegoat. Second, critics argue that Binance’s influence over listings, tokens, and ecosystem development is too centralized, contradicting the ethos of decentralization. Yet, many of these same critics celebrate smaller centralized players that engage in similar practices, suggesting a double standard. Third, the broader crypto discourse often favors simple narratives—heroes and villains—over nuanced reality. It is easier to paint CZ as the bad guy than to acknowledge that the same figure has also been one of the most generous supporters of global crypto adoption.

Real-world examples illustrate this complexity. Binance’s $45 million user compensation effort following market volatility is a concrete case of a company stepping in to protect users, not exploit them. Meanwhile, independent projects like Jupiter have distributed massive incentives, such as the 700 million JUP airdrop (WuBlockchain), but these efforts are often short-lived or heavily speculative. Binance’s initiatives, by contrast, are part of a long-term strategy to sustain the ecosystem. Within months of its new LAB token launch, trading volume reportedly hit $700 million, demonstrating real demand and confidence in the platform.

This is not to suggest that Binance or CZ are above criticism. To ignore that is to participate in selective outrage.