This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cryptocurrency Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 15 March 2018 by reviewer Legacypac ( talk · contribs). Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{ portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{ WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. RBinance ( talk · contribs) has been paid by Binance. KB at Binance ( talk · contribs) has been paid by Binance.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Binance, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned. With respect to any reverting restrictions: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello Wikipedia editors. I'm here as an employee and representative to Binance to request changes to the article. As required, I've disclosed my conflict of interest above and on my user page.

First, I have a couple of changes to suggest for the infobox.

1. Add 120 million users globally, per this Forbes article.
2. Add 2022 to the revenue figure to timestamp it, per the citation already used in the article.

If you have questions, I'd like to hear them. I'm learning the ropes here and will have more edits to suggest in the future. Thank you, RBinance ( talk) 11:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, we cannot use the Binance source, as that is WP:PRIMARY and we are not using primary sources on cryptocurrency articles. Are you an employee or related to binance? If yes, please disclose that you are a WP:COI editor. You are still free to make suggestions here on talk, but probably shouldn't edit the article if you have a COI. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 00:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for your response! Yes, I am an employee of Binance. I added the paid contributor banner at the top of this talk page, and declared my COI on my User page. If there's anywhere else I should declare, let me know. I will not make any direct article edits, only suggestions here.

I saw your edit about the company's location and operations. I had planned to make a request about that, as well. Since Binance has never had a headquarters in the traditional sense, I'd suggest changing "Binance was initially based in China, then moved its headquarters to Singapore shortly before the Chinese government imposed regulations on cryptocurrency trading. Binance subsequently left Singapore in late 2021 and after that, had no official company headquarters." to "Binance was launched in China, then moved its operations out of China shortly before the Chinese government imposed regulations on cryptocurrency trading." Let me know what you think. Thanks, RBinance ( talk) 08:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply

 Unable to implement. The information "120 million users globally" could not be added because the infobox parameter where this information is to reside was not delineated in the request. Please describe which parameter should be altered. Regards,  Spintendo  20:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ RBinance: my understanding was binance was in Singapore briefly no? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Binance operated an exchange in Singapore for a period, but that's true of many places. The company has not been based there, as it doesn't have a traditional headquarters. This article from Business Insider India gives a nice overview of the Singapore exchange. Let me know if I can provide further clarification. Thanks, RBinance ( talk) 10:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Seems like interesting content. Could you please provide a suggestion on text changes? Thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Hi, sorry for the delay in responding. I'm KB, I've taken over for User:RBinance as the Binance representative on Wikipedia. Here is the Singapore content you requested:

• In 2019, Binance Asia Services (BAS) began operating a local exchange in Singapore, Binance.sg, under a temporary exemption from the country's regulators while its application was under review. Binance.sg eventually withdrew its application and ceased operations by February 13, 2022. The Binance group of companies remained present in the country, focusing on innovation, incubation, and funding programs there. ^[1]

If you have any questions or changes to suggest, please let me know. I have posted a few more suggested updates and copy edits below if you are interested in reviewing. Thank you, KB at Binance ( talk) 12:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, I'm the new representative for Binance on Wikipedia, KB. I have added my COI disclosure to the banner at the top of this page, and, like our previous representative, I will follow the COI editor guidelines and avoid making direct changes to the article. I hope I can collaborate with editors to improve the article with accurate and up-to-date content. There are a few small changes I'd like to suggest:

• Infobox: remove Sakura Exchange from Subsidiaries

• Reason: The regional exchanges are not subsidiaries of the company. It would be more accurate to include Binance Labs, Binance Launchpad, Binance Academy, and Binance Research in this list.

• History: add mention that Binance remains the world's largest crypto exchange as of September 2023. Verified by Euronews.

• Reason: This fact is currently verified as of 2018 in History, and since a lot has happened since then it seems worthwhile to update that timestamp.

• Replace: instances of "stable coin" with "stablecoin" in the subheading 2018–2019: launch of stable coin and security breach and in that subsection.

• Reason: "Stablecoin" is a conventionally used spelling of the word, and is also used in the article. This copy edit will make the article more consistent and clear.

• 2018–2019: launch of stable coin and security breach: change "In November 2019, Binance announced it was acquiring Indian bitcoin exchange WazirX, which became disputed in August 2022 when Binance founder Zhao claimed the deal was never signed." to "...the deal was never completed."

• This is a more accurate description, and matches language used in this TechCrunch article, which I think is better than the current source.

That is all for this request. Let me know if you have questions about these changes, or feel free to implement appropriate changes on my behalf. Thank you, KB at Binance ( talk) 12:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I have addressed the 'stable coin' spelling. This term is a lot more complicated and controversial than the current wording explains, so I have added quotation marks to indicate that it is industry jargon.

Your comments about the infobox do not make sense. There is no reason a "regional exchange" cannot also be a subsidiary.

The Euronews source is not about Binance being the "world's largest". It is about "increased scrutiny and regulatory challenges faced by Binance globally".

While the source for the "In November 2019..." change is not ideal, neither is WP:TECHCRUNCH. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR, you should propose a better source.

Grayfell ( talk) 19:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Grayfell: Hi, thank you for reviewing and changing the spelling of 'stablecoin.' Regarding other requests, I have some alternative sources that I think will work better:

• For more recent verification of the "world's largest cryptocurrency exchange" claim, there's this 2021 article from The Wall Street Journal. Would that, and that the company is regularly referred to in the mainstream financial press as the largest cryptocurrency exchange, be enough to update the claim to as of 2023? Or at the very least, as of 2021?
• In regards to the WazirX request, this Bloomberg article covered it. If this is an acceptable source, I'd suggest changing:
  • "In November 2019, Binance announced it was acquiring Indian bitcoin exchange WazirX, which became disputed in August 2022 when Binance founder Zhao claimed the deal was never signed."

To

• "In November 2019, Binance announced it was acquiring Indian bitcoin exchange WazirX. The contemplated deal was only to purchase 'certain assets and intellectual property of WazirX'. The completion of the deal is under dispute."

This more closely paraphrases what Bloomberg reported.

Hope this helps. Thanks again, KB at Binance ( talk) 09:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Are you seriously asking me if a source from 2021 is usable for a claim as of 2023?

Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR, so your proposal for the WazirX wording is not helpful. If the source is about "a running dispute between the two companies over their relationship" the source should be used to explain that directly. Grayfell ( talk) 09:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

KB, let me try to help and interject here. I do like the paid editors on some articles, as they are sometimes willing to do the work we free editors are not. When you want to make a change, please suggest change from A to B. You might even put it inside your sandbox for us to see (with sources). This will help you to learn editing. Next, for sourcing, we are super strict on crypto articles, of which the binance article is included. Please have a look at WP:RSP and only suggest sources that are green on that page. If its not, we are likely to question it. If it is a major print news publication from India (for example) it might be listed on that RSP so you might want to ask us. But if it is a blog, a crypto-source (such as coindesk, theblock, etc) then we wont consider it. I recognize you are here to push PR for binance, and I dont have a problem with that, so please assist us to find quality sources of the things you want to include, this will help to avoid exasperating the editors that have come here to help you to review the proposed changes. Relating to Grayfell's comment, we cover things that have happened in the past, so we would need to see a source actually referring to the event you are discussing. Not everything makes its way into wikipedia due to this, and that is ok. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, this is very helpful. I do have quite a few ideas for improving the article, and am happy to work through them with editors to make sure that anything added or changed is neutral and appropriate. With your suggestion, I think my next step will be to mock up the changes I have in mind in my Sandbox.

The rules about what sources can be used also make sense. I do have a question after looking at WP:RSP. I see that Bloomberg has a green checkmark, so wouldn't this article be a more appropriate source for information about the WazirX deal than the InsiderApps article, which I don't see at WP:RSP, that is currently used to support the content about WazirX? I really appreciate you taking the time to help me understand so I can improve my future requests. Also, I see your post about locations below and will respond soon. KB at Binance ( talk) 08:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, the bloomberg source is perfect. Insiderapps would not be an WP:RS on a cryptocurrency article. It appears to be some type of appstore or directory, and has a blog/news section to generate traffic (my guess). Regardless, it wouldnt be mainstream enough to anchor crypto content. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

WP:RSP is not a comprehensive list of all reliable sources, and more importantly, every source must be evaluated in context. To restate my previous comment another way, the goal is to summarize what reliable sources actually say, but the COI-proposed change was not an accurate summary of reliable sources, nor was it a neutral one. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, this proposal doesn't have consensus. Grayfell ( talk) 22:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

To clarify I wasnt agreeing with the proposed edits, I was only stating that bloomberg is a good source. I too dont agree with this proposed text "certain assets and intellectual property of WazirX" Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the added clarifications! I'll keep all this in mind. KB at Binance ( talk) 16:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ KB at Binance: was reading this today at Rolling Stone: "When China began threatening a crackdown on the entire crypto industry just a few months after Binance’s founding, Zhao just took his business to friendlier jurisdictions — first moving the company HQ to Japan and then to Malta. When even Malta’s regulatory requirements reportedly became too stringent for Binance, the company set off on the run once again." We have discussed location before, so I thought we would do that in a section here. I recall I was the one who updated the article to state CZ moved binance from China to Singapore. This seems to contradict that. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Correct, Binance was never located in Singapore. I posted some information in our earlier conversation about the company's history there. Since leaving China, the company has never had a traditional HQ, but I understand that you have to go with what sources on WP:RSP have reported. KB at Binance ( talk) 16:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I am aware that Binance currently has the position that it doesnt have a HQ and this position (according to my own WP:OR) seems to be to avoid regulatory oversight in a particular jurisdiction. As you point out we do have to go with the WP:RS, noting that we do not have to only use what is on WP:RSP. I provided RSP as a guide to a new editor like yourself who may be confused as to why we allow one source and we dont allow another. We make some judgement calls on every article. For the cryptocurrency genre we have decided to be ultra strict, as we had a lot of promotional content coming from the crypto-sites such as coindesk, and sometimes the easiest way to deal with it is to ban it. We recognize it may limit the content on many articles in this genre, but we hope that is improves the overall aggregate content. If you have any high quality sources (Rolling Stone is a great one) we can also include that. If you have some video of CZ speaking, say to CNBC, or something like that (even a corporate blog at binance), we can also look at incorporating that position as well. I dont know how we would treat CZ's or Binance's own statements over what Rolling Stone is saying, but we can certainly discuss it. That's what we do here at Wikipedia, we discuss content. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, this is KB from Binance. At Jtbobwaysf's suggestion, I made a copy of the Binance article in my sandbox to preview changes to the article. There's also a discussion on those changes going on at my sandbox Talk page. Interested editors are invited to participate. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 16:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, KB from Binance here. I thought I'd let editors here know that I've submitted Draft:Richard Teng for review at Articles for Creation, in case anyone is interested in taking a look and giving feedback. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 15:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, KB from Binance here. I'd like to make a small request for the History section.

• Update "The company is also seeking registration in more European countries, such as Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal and Austria." to say "At the time, the company was also seeking registration in more European countries, such as Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal and Austria. ^[1] Binance registered to operate in Spain in July 2022, ^[2] and in Sweden in January 2023. ^[3]

• This change will improve the article by replacing future looking language with past tense language for events that have already occurred, and add the outcome for Spain and Sweden.

Let me know if you have any questions. Because I have a conflict of interest, I will not directly make changes to the article. Thanks for taking a look. KB at Binance ( talk) 09:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 15:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ARandomName123: Thank you very much! I've posted another request below in case you'd like to have a look. Thanks again, KB at Binance ( talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, KB from Binance back with another request.

• Change the Binance coin (BNB) section to Build'N'Build, and in that same section change "Binance Coin" to "Build'N'Build".

• As noted in the article and the box with info on the coin, this was rebranded to Build'N'Build.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ KB at Binance: Do you have a date for the rebrand? I feel that this would be helpful for readers to know. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 17:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC) reply

And an WP:RS please. We dont do PR things like re-branding unless the RS actually care about it. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: Until concerns are addressed. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 21:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ARandomName123 and Jtbobwaysf: I appreciate the replies. My thoughts on each below.

• Date of the change: The name was changed in February, 2022 (see Yahoo! Finance in the references below).
• Reliable Sources: As of now, the live article says "BSC later merged with the older Binance Chain and was rebranded into BNB chain. ^{[1] [2]}" are additional sources needed? I know that the source from Binance itself is not ideal, but what about Yahoo! Finance?

I think it would be clearer to readers if we can make the naming consistent. Let me know if you have other questions or thoughts. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 15:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 19:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ARandomName123: Thanks so much! I've posted a few more suggestions for this section below, if you're available to review. KB at Binance ( talk) 09:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• I removed the corporate blog post from the article, that is not an WP:RS for this article. We are more strict on cryptocurrency articles due to promotion. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Additional Build'N'Build requests

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Binance. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 166 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hi, I'd like to make a couple more suggestions for the Build'N'Build section of this article. As a reminder, I work for Binance, so I do not make direct changes.

• After the first sentence in this section, add "BUSD was launched in partnership with the company Paxos. ^[1]"

• This is to add clarity and bring it inline with the section on BUSD, so both confirm the same thing.

• Change "It has 21 approved validators." to "BNB had 44 validators as of October 2022. ^[2]"

• This updates the figure, adds a timestamp so readers will know when the information was accurate, and adds Reuters as a source.

• Change "As of 2021, Binance Coin was the cryptocurrency with the third highest market capitalization." to "As of 2021, Build'n'Build was the cryptocurrency with the third highest market capitalization."

• To keep naming consistent per previous discussion.

• In the final sentence, change "Binance Smart Chain" to "BNB Smart Chain"

• To keep naming consistent per previous discussion.

Please let me know if you have questions, I am happy to discuss these suggestions. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 09:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• I dont think the term Build'n'Build is broadly used in the sources and we should continue to use BNB as it is much more prevent. Seems like a PR attempt to widely use this new and relatively unheard of term. In fact who cares what BNB means, it might be changed again to mean something in the future. It might be due in some sort of history section, eg 'from these years BNB meant x and since another year it means Build'n'Build.' I changed the section to the name BNB. We can see that this BNB chain has undergone multiple re-brands, this fxempire source says it was earlier called Binance coin and now there is a PR push to assert that BNB is not binance, it is BuildNBuild. For me big whatever, we normally dont support this type of PR posturing. Its due to include in the article the posturing, but lets not give excessive weight to it. BNB is in itself a notable term. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: I appreciate the response, and understand your concern. My thinking was that it might confuse readers to use "Binance coin" in the article after it says its name was changed. Here's another idea that I think would address your concerns, the potential confusion, and make sense for the section's flow:

• Move "In February 2022, BSC merged with the older Binance Chain and was rebranded into Build'N'Build (BNB)." to the bottom of the paragraph, which would put it in chronological order.

Also curious to hear if you have thoughts on the other parts of this request? On second glance, I wonder if it would make sense to remove mention of BUSD from this section, since it's redundant to the BUSD section?

Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 07:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Is there are difference between BSC and BNB? BSC was Binance Smart Chain before right? And BNB was what? Binance coin or was it Binance Bi (币)? Lot of jargon here, indeed might be good to clean it up. Did these two coins merge BSC and BNB? Was there ever a separately traded BSC token? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Good questions, and I agree that there's a lot of jargon and technical detail here. I'll try my hand at a broader rewrite and cleanup and flag you when I have something to share. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 09:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Hi, I've come up with the following suggestion for rewriting the BNB section. I've tried to cut back on jargon and reduce how many acronyms are flying around. You asked about the difference between BNB and BSC, the short answer is that BNB has always been the acronym for the token (Binance Coin, not Build'N'Build) and BSC was the acronym for Binance Smart Chain, which merged with Binance Chain when everything was renamed in 2022. I couldn't find anything that looked like a reliable source that went into that much depth, so I kept it simple and didn't mention the two chains merging, and removed protocols and the Ethereum virtual machine. Lastly, I started the section off with a summary sentence, which I thought made sense as a setup before launching into the history.

Happy to hear feedback and ideas for improvement. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 07:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you please help to clarify more (if possible) is there still a Binance Coin and/or Binance Smart Chain? Have these been merged? It sounds like the coin was running on ethereum and then moved to smart chain? Then today what is going on? Is there still a coin and/or smart chain? Or are they now the same thing (BuildNBuild)? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Happy to answer these questions.

• Is there still a Binance Coin and/or Binance Smart Chain? Have these been merged?
  • Binance Coin was fully rebranded to Build'N'Build (BNB), and the Binance Smart Chain was merged with the Binance Chain to become BNB Chain. I could not find a RS to verify that the two chains merged.
• It sounds like the coin was running on ethereum and then moved to smart chain?
  • Correct, the coin moved from Ethereum to the Binance Smart Chain (now part of BNB Chain). I have that in the draft above, but let me know if you think I can make it clearer. Here's what it says right now: "The token was initially on the Ethereum network, then moved when Binance released the Binance Smart Chain[3] in September 2020.[4]"
• Then today what is going on? Is there still a coin and/or smart chain? Or are they now the same thing (BuildNBuild)?
  • Today, there are two things. BNB Chain is the network, and Build'N'Build the coin (more commonly referred to as simply BNB) is the network's utility token and native currency.

Does that all make sense? I know it's a bit confusing with the shared name. The sources that go into detail are all cryptocurrency news outlets, so I can show you those if it will help clarify, but didn't want to suggest them.

Thanks! KB at Binance ( talk) 10:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• I made a change above to cleanup one sentence, to try to improve the syntax. Also generally we prefer not to have sources in the middle of sentences. People do it, but it is not suggested. I suspect the reason for the chain renaming is PR purposes, not anything related to decentralization. So that sentence should probably be removed unless we have strong sources for that. Comments? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC) I also removed the decentralization claim, as it sounded PR-wise. I think I am ok with it the way it is. If you are ok with it, feel free to implement it on the mainspace. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: This makes sense, I see why mentioning the decentralization doesn't fit here with the sources we have to work with. I have made the change as you approved, please let me know if anything doesn't look right. Thanks again for all of your feedback, KB at Binance ( talk) 06:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, KB at Binance here. I have a request for the introduction of this article. I noticed that the introduction has had several lawsuits added to it, some of which are also covered in the article body and the most recent of which is not. From my reading of WP:LEAD, I think the introduction has become unbalanced. I propose the following changes:

• Replace paragraphs two and three, which are all content that is also covered in the article body, with the following summary of Binance's legal history:

Binance has been the subject of lawsuits and challenges from regulatory authorities throughout its operating area. As a result, Binance has been banned from operating or ordered to cease operations in some countries, and has been issued fines. It has been alleged that Binance could be used as a funding mechanism for terrorist groups. In November 2023, the company pleaded guilty in a U.S. federal court to money laundering, unlicensed money transmitting, and sanctions violations.

• Move paragraph four into History. This content is only covered in the introduction at this time, and it is summarized in the suggested content above.

I am interested in hearing thoughts from other editors on these changes, and any ideas for improving the introduction's balance. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 08:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The lead always summarizes and doesnt introduce content that is not in the article body. So yes, if it meets this criteria should be moved to the body. I just moved those two issues out of the lead and into the body. Are they covered already in the body? Yes, we should just summarize in the lead, your summary looks fine to me. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Okay great! Appreciate you starting the move process. There are now two paragraphs that cover the November 2023 plea in 2020–2023: acquisitions and investments what do you think of removing one of those? As for the paragraph still in the introduction, yes it is all covered elsewhere in the article. The US and UK cases are both covered in their respective subsections of Legal Status, and the sentence about Russia is mentioned in the seventh paragraph of 2020–2023: acquisitions and investments. Hope that helps, happy to answer other questions. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

From my position putting every legal case in the lead is undue, so I would also be ok to summarize the lead. Binance has faced regulatory issues in almost every venue, so particular bans and chases are not due the lead in my opinion. I suppose if CZ is sentenced to due prison time, that might change, but otherwise not so much. Every crypto exchange that I know of has or is facing regulatory issues in the US particularly, so I dont see what is encyclopedic here. You can go ahead and merge those two paragraphs in the body and just ping me and I will a look at it when you are done. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 21:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: We're in agreement on how content should be summarized. I appreciate your approval of the changes, but I wonder if you'd implement them? The BNB changes seemed pretty non-controversial, but since this deals with content about legal matters, I feel like with my COI it's best if I stay completely hands-off with making the change. I could prepare markup for you, if that's helpful? Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 14:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, could you please prepare a proposed change? Sometimes I think a diff is an easy way to do that, such as making a change on the article (all at once in one edit) and then immediately self reverting that. I often do that when I am going to propose an RFC on something, so that I can post the diff on the talk page. Anyhow, if you are not comfortable to do that as well, you can just put it here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Sure thing. I found Template:Text diff and it seems pretty perfect for this. See the diffs in the collapse box below:

Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 11:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Looks perfect, please implement the change on the mainspace. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for reviewing, I have implemented the changes. Would you mind taking a quick look to make sure it's all good and then closing this request? KB at Binance ( talk) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with the changes made. I have removed the COI template, as I think that is how I close this request. If not, please let me know. I also wanted to note that the bot did show up after your edit and deal with some references that you (i'm assuming inadvertently) deleted. Next time, please have a look and be sure the references you are are deleting are not used other places in the article. Thank you and happy editing! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Appreciate it, and thanks for the reminder about the sources. For other requests, the template has been changed to answered, so I added the template back on and marked it completed. Thanks so much for the time and reviews! KB at Binance ( talk) 12:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Perfect, I see you added "|ans=y". Awesome, now i know how to close those. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: I did, thank you for double-checking the changes. I opened a new request below and am always interested in hearing your thoughts. KB at Binance ( talk) 13:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Binance. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 166 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hi, KB here from Binance. I have some suggestions to make for the Legal status section, which I noticed is a bit out of date. I'd like to suggest adding the content below to bring the section current as possible using reliable sources. For jurisdictions with more coverage, I've included them as their own subsections, and an "Others" subsection for those with less coverage but mentions in reliable sources:

• One other request, would editors agree to update the Thailand section to note that the exchange there opened in January 2024, per this Reuters article?

Feedback and thoughts are appreciated, I'm happy to discuss these changes with editors. Thanks for taking a look, KB at Binance ( talk) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the list of countries should probably be in prose, and not a bulleted list. One issue I have is that we normally done do this type of WP:NOTDIR type of content. Binance is essentially a global exchange and operates with or without explicit regulatory approval just about everywhere, so I don't see it is due from a long term perspective to add every country to this article. Is there some other way we can add this to prose to make it encyclopedic? I just dont think a list of regulatory approvals is due here. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: Good point on not letting this become a laundry list of regulatory approvals. Looking at the whole section as it is, do you think it would make sense to reorganize the whole Legal status section into subsections grouped either by continent or major geographic region? I think if we did that, each subsection could have subsubsections on countries that have had major coverage, and otherwise could have a couple of paragraphs summarizing activity in that region. Let me know what you think, I'd be glad to mock something up for you to review. Thanks! KB at Binance ( talk) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Our approach here at wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia and we have a strong preference for prose and context. We want to tell a story of the past. To make a hypothetical (and probably untrue) example, say Kenya one day arrested a binance employee at the airport, two years later approved the exchange, and then a year later revoked the exchange's approval would make a great sentence (or two sentences). It tells a story. As opposed to a list of every location that binance is either legal or illegal, which while it might be appropriate for binance's corporate website or blog, it is just not the way we structure things here. I support your proposal to create organizations by region, I think it is logical approach to this type of issue. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jtbobwaysf: That all makes sense to me. I'll get to work on reorganizing the section, focusing on prose and context. I'll tag you when it's ready for review. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply