1. Securities exchanges have a well-defined process for clearing transactions, and don't receive off-schedule payouts from ostensibly independent entities in or

1. Securities exchanges have a well-defined process for clearing transactions, and don't receive off-schedule payouts from ostensibly independent entities in order to make those transactions work out. 2. If Binance goes under, what happens to the holdings of Binance.US customers if they are depending on transactions debited from Binance? It's not about clientele, it's about where the assets are parked. 3. You have the article's causality chain backwards. They establish the hypothesis first and then note that offshore market-making (noted in the Binance.US TOS) supports the hypothesis. 4. The article puts "market maker" in quotation marks, implying that it's not a real market maker but rather a vehicle to move funds to the other entity for the purpose of effecting trades. I interpret this as a no-arbitrage condition between the Binance and Binance.US. 5. The amount of money is irrelevant. If your assets are deposited in a regulated entity and then they get transferred to an unregulated entity for any reason aside from clearing your own transactions, something strange is going on. 6. Cross-exchange arb shouldn't result in USDT deposits on Binance.US dropping to six figures and then needing a $10M lifeline from Binance. 7. This "someone" as you put it was fairly prescient with regard to Alameda and FTX, using similar methodology, and faced similar criticism for the four or five days between their publication and the collapse of the FTX empire.