4 ms·
The article contains a number of serious factual errors (Binance sold their FTT, they're not still holding it and pretending it has value). It also implies dif
by LatteLazy 4y ago
The article contains a number of serious factual errors (Binance sold their FTT, they're not still holding it and pretending it has value). It also implies different things are the same (e.g. BNB != BSUD). I am not sure if that's because of honest ignorance or a dishonest attempt to deceive, but it isn't good either way...
- davidgerard 4y agoI can only say that you have misread the article if you think it said either of those things.
- gruez 4y agoWhile the article didn't explicitly make those claims, it's still trying to imply them. For instance >Why Binance may not have as much money as they want you to think >When FTX bought out Binance’s share in the company, Binance got paid $2.1 billion in funny money. CZ told Squawk Box that “it was all in FTT tokens, which are now worthless.” [Twitter] A strict reading of this would be that Binance lost some non-zero amount of money through their FTT token holdings, because they became worthless. That's factual and not in dispute. However, by omitting the fact that they sold their FTT tokens prior to them going to zero, it's pretty obvious that they're trying to imply that Binance took a total loss on their FTT holdings when that's not the case.
- davidgerard 4y agoyou're admitting it didn't say what the misreading claimed it said, while claiming it somehow still totally means something you already admitted it doesn't, in fact, say. ok lol