5 ms·

Binance doesn't have to come up with anything, it is a white label solution managed by Paxos.

qeternity 4y ago
Sort of - there are two versions of BUSD that people use interchangeably. Paxos issues one, and Binance issues the other.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lxgr 4y ago
  Are you sure about that, and if so, do you have any sources? I'm almost certain that there's only BUSD [1], issued by Paxos. What would be the other version? [1] https://etherscan.io/token/0x4Fabb145d64652a948d72533023f6E7A623C7C53 https://etherscan.io/token/0x4Fabb145d64652a948d72533023f6E7...
  - Jommi 4y ago
    Your misconception is the exact reason SEC took this action: There are two different BUSDs, one by Paxos on the Ethereum netowrk and one is a BUSD based derivative on other chains such as BSC. https://www.binance.com/en/blog/ecosystem/understanding-busd-and-binancepeg-busd-5526464425033159282 https://www.binance.com/en/blog/ecosystem/understanding-busd...
    - lxgr 4y ago
      Very interesting, do you have any sources on this being the reason for SEC's actions? As far as I understand this, this is "just" wrapping/bridging – "just" in quotation marks because that often does carry counterparty risk if not done in a trustless way. Is the issue that Binance is acting as a secondary custodian (holding Ethereum BUSD, issuing BSC BUSD) for a Paxos-issued (holding USD, issuing Ethereum BUSD) asset, and that that activity is not regulated by the NYDFS?
      - Jommi 4y ago
        I beleive the latest reports now include specification that the issue is with the Binance pegged BUSD. >Is the issue that Binance is acting as a secondary custodian (holding Ethereum BUSD, issuing BSC BUSD) for a Paxos-issued (holding USD, issuing Ethereum BUSD) asset, and that that activity is not regulated by the NYDFS? yes to make matters worse, AFAIK there is also revenue share beteween the two
ElfinTrousers 4y ago
Does that make the $16 billion hole go away?

Sort of - there are two versions of BUSD that people use interchangeably. Paxos issues one, and Binance issues the other.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lxgr 4y ago
Are you sure about that, and if so, do you have any sources? I'm almost certain that there's only BUSD [1], issued by Paxos. What would be the other version? [1] https://etherscan.io/token/0x4Fabb145d64652a948d72533023f6E7A623C7C53 https://etherscan.io/token/0x4Fabb145d64652a948d72533023f6E7...
- Jommi 4y ago
  Your misconception is the exact reason SEC took this action: There are two different BUSDs, one by Paxos on the Ethereum netowrk and one is a BUSD based derivative on other chains such as BSC. https://www.binance.com/en/blog/ecosystem/understanding-busd-and-binancepeg-busd-5526464425033159282 https://www.binance.com/en/blog/ecosystem/understanding-busd...
  - lxgr 4y ago
    Very interesting, do you have any sources on this being the reason for SEC's actions? As far as I understand this, this is "just" wrapping/bridging – "just" in quotation marks because that often does carry counterparty risk if not done in a trustless way. Is the issue that Binance is acting as a secondary custodian (holding Ethereum BUSD, issuing BSC BUSD) for a Paxos-issued (holding USD, issuing Ethereum BUSD) asset, and that that activity is not regulated by the NYDFS?
    - Jommi 4y ago
      I beleive the latest reports now include specification that the issue is with the Binance pegged BUSD. >Is the issue that Binance is acting as a secondary custodian (holding Ethereum BUSD, issuing BSC BUSD) for a Paxos-issued (holding USD, issuing Ethereum BUSD) asset, and that that activity is not regulated by the NYDFS? yes to make matters worse, AFAIK there is also revenue share beteween the two

ElfinTrousers 4y ago

Does that make the $16 billion hole go away?