With the recent turn of events, Exchanges have their own dilemma for what and what not to do. But users like me are also in a dilemma.
Binance was my go to Exchange for almost all my crypto trades, price monitoring etc., since the listing of STEEM on it. But today, my loyalty and trust for Binance has shaken.
3 months back, when Exchanges powered up their customers' STEEM to interfere Steem community governance, I had forgiven them as some mistake; esp. when Binance extended an official apology.
And now in the 26M STEEM Heist episode viz. HF 0.23, Binance clearly stated in an announcement today:
Binance would like to confirm that we do not condone this type of behavior and believe that blockchains should not be used as a tool for censorship or editing user balances.
But after stating this, it went on to say:
in the interest of our users currently holding STEEM, Binance has decided to support this upgrade
As a further response to the above, Binance plans to reduce STEEM trading pairs from the current 3 pairs down to 1 pair over the next two months.
This whole announcement is quite confusing and fail to make sense to me. On the one hand it says we do not condone, yet on the other hand they don't know how not to condone! It looks like an empty statement to sound ethical in theory but nothing is applied in practice.
Binance says their current STEEM users' interest will be affected if it's de-listed. Then why reduce the no. of trading pairs? Won't user interest be affected by that too?
Why did it de-list BSV last year? Didn't users' interest affect then? If that was a mistake, then apologize and re-list BSV too!
However, in his blog, CZ has tried to justify his actions. The most ridiculous suggestion of all is that affected users should come up with another fork (from the pre-freeze block height) and he will support that fork too.
I would almost encourage the community to create a new fork, especially given that the few victims involved seem to have the capability to create forks.
But is it even practical? Almost all of these stolen wallets want to get rid of their assets. Let's say if a new fork is created to get back the stolen assets, but who will run it afterwards?
I don't see any strength in this suggestion from CZ. He is just trying to give some flimsy excuse to justify his decision to upgrade Steem to HF 0.23.
I know, Exchanges are in a fix for what to do. But that doesn't mean they should give a go ahead to any malacious code fork too.
And if they do that, they shouldn't preach ethics like "blockchains should not be used as a tool for censorship or editing user balance".
In gist, I don't feel comfortable in using Binance any more.
Fortunately, we ain't living in Mt. Gox era and have enough alternatives. But do centralized Exchanges should be in a position to exert so much power on a decentralized asset?
Could a good p2p network or DEX solve this problem?
Unfortunately, it's only CEX that provide volume, liquidity and speed to decentralized assets. In today's time, the whole market cap and economic value of a blockchain asset is dependent on centralized Exchanges. Still, can we say Hive is truly decentralized?
Any suggestions which Exchange would be a good alternative to Binance. Where should I move to?