与「Governance」相关的搜索结果

CZ said Binance offers "the best liquidity in the world" for consumer protection. He's right. But let's talk about WHERE that liquidity comes from. It comes from retail getting rekt on Binance Launchpad. Since 2019, Binance has launched 60+ projects. The narrative is always the same: Binance vets the project, lists it at launch, and retail piles in. Binance becomes the gatekeeper of "credibility." But here's the part CZ doesn't mention. The Lazio Fan Token (LAZIO) launched October 2021 at $1.00 on Binance Launchpad. Private investors got in at $0.10. Binance announced it. Retail FOMO'd. Price hit $26.75 in 48 hours. Retail thought they were early to something Binance blessed. Fast forward to today. LAZIO trades at $0.65. That's a 97.5% loss from the peak. Retail never stood a chance. Alpine F1 Team (ALPINE)? Same blueprint. Launched Feb 2022 at $1.00. ATH $11.29. Current price: $0.42. Down 96%. The token was delisted from Bitget in Feb 2026 due to zero trading volume just dead weight. But here's where it gets darker. Binance Launchpad isn't a bug. It's the business model. 1) Binance identifies a hype narrative (sports fan tokens, move-to-earn, etc) 2) Binance vets the project (gives it institutional credibility) 3) Private/VC investors get massive allocations at $0.001-$0.10 4) Launchpad subscription creates artificial scarcity ("hard cap" per user) 5) Retail buys at $1.00 thinking Binance wouldn't list garbage 6) Token pumps 10-100x in first week (retail euphoria) 7) Vesting schedule unlocks over 12 months (insiders exit) 8) Token declines 90-99% over next 24 months (retail holds bags) 9) Binance collected trading fees on every step of the decline The liquidity CZ brags about? It's built on retail extraction. Let's look at the pattern across Launchpad: - STEPN (GMT): Launched at $0.01, peaked at $4.11 (411x), now bleeding lower - Open Campus (EDU): 33x peak, now declining - Space ID (ID): 41x peak, now sliding - Hooked Protocol (HOOK): 41x peak, lost 90%+ since ATH - Arkham (ARKM): Only 16x at peak in 2023 (falling returns as the grift gets known) Notice the trend? Earlier projects had bigger peaks (because retail still believed). Recent ones are smaller. Why? Because the market is learning that Binance Launchpad = slow-motion rug pull. But retail is trapped. Binance has 100M+ users. Binance has regulatory licenses. Binance is THE credibility anchor. When Binance lists something, retail thinks "this must be vetted, this must be safe." It's not. It's the opposite. The vetting isn't for retail protection. It's for Binance's protection. Binance ensures the project won't implode in week 1 (that would hurt Binance's brand). But they don't care if it implodes in month 12. The damage is already extracted. Here's what "consumer protection" actually means in the Binance universe: - Deep liquidity pools (so Binance profits from every trade) - IEO credibility (so retail trusts the listing) - Vesting schedules published (so insiders can front-run the dumps) - No accountability for post-launch performance (so Binance faces zero liability) Retail thinks liquidity = safety. It's the opposite. High liquidity on a scarcity pump = maximum extraction efficiency. Compare Binance Launchpad to actual consumer protection: - SEC-regulated IPOs: Lock-up periods for insiders are EQUAL to retail - Traditional venture: Downside protection, governance rights, legal recourse - Binance Launchpad: Insiders get $0.10 pricing, retail gets $1.00, both tokens identical = wealth transfer complete The 60+ projects Binance has launched since 2019 represent billions in retail wealth extraction. LAZIO alone = $26.75 ATH on a $1.00 launch = $26.75B market cap at peak. The fact it's now $0.65 doesn't erase the fact that retail lost 97% while Binance kept the trading fees. CZ's statement about "the best liquidity in the world" is technically true. But it's like bragging about having the best highway system while running tolls that siphon wealth from drivers. The liquidity exists to serve extraction, not protection. The real consumer protection would be: - Identical vesting schedules for all token holders (no insiders first) - Binding lock-up periods (prove you believe in your own project) - Performance clawback clauses (if the token dumps 90%, insiders pay retail back) - Regulatory disclosure (project financials, insider allocations, exit plans) Binance offers none of this. Because that would kill the model. The model is: - Build hype through Binance credibility - Capture retail FOMO - Execute insider exit - Repeat Liquidity is the tool. Extraction is the goal. So when CZ says Binance offers "the best consumer protection," what he means is: Binance offers the most efficient wealth extraction vehicle the crypto world has ever seen. And the liquidity is so good, retail can watch their investment die in real-time on every refresh. That's not protection. That's the grift, just wrapped in institutional packaging. The Lazio Token didn't fail because it was a bad project. It failed because the Binance Launchpad model requires failure. Insiders need to exit. Retail needs to hold bags. Binance needs trading volume on the decline. The ecosystem needs constant new projects to pump and dump because the old ones are dead. It's a machine. And it's working exactly as designed. Binance isn't protecting users from bad liquidity. Binance is using liquidity to protect itself from accountability.

OKX began building its presence in Europe in 2018. Over the past eight years, we have worked closely with regulators and the broader crypto community, operating with integrity and a customer-first philosophy. As a technology company evolving into a regulated fintech company, we have made mistakes along the way, but we have always faced them directly, learned from them, and acted quickly to improve. OKX was the first company in the world to obtain a MiCA license, and we also hold Payment Institution (PI) and MiFID licenses. Today, we offer EUR on-ramp and off-ramp services, zero-fee stablecoin card payments powered by the Mastercard network, hundreds of crypto spot trading pairs, and a wide range of crypto, commodity, and equity derivatives. We have also built a comprehensive Agentic infrastructure, enabling customers to interact with our platform through AI agents. In addition, we have many innovative products in development that will continue to deliver cutting-edge experiences to customers across Europe. We were also the first global platform to continuously publish Proof of Reserves (PoR) for more than 40 consecutive months, helping establish what has now become an industry standard for transparency. In addition, our group financial statements are audited by a Big Four accounting firm, reinforcing our commitment to financial governance and accountability. With hundreds of employees based across Europe, we are committed to providing secure, innovative, and trustworthy crypto and fintech services to users throughout the European Union. We are building not only for today’s financial system, but also for the next generation of on-chain finance and AI-driven financial services.

This is genuinely shocking, and says so much about our approach to China. I decided to check for independent reviews of the English version Xi Jinping's latest book, published a year ago, to see what people had to say about it since I hadn't read it myself. To my surprise, I couldn't find any: not a single thoughtful review about the book out there! Even on Amazon, check it for yourself ( the book has only 3 ratings, that's it. No matter where you stand on China, you’ve got to admit that’s pretty crazy: the sitting president of the world's rising superpower publishes a 700-page book explaining exactly what he's doing and why, and we don’t even care to look. If there ever was a fact that illustrates just how willfully ignorant we are about China, this is it. All the more because we then go spew the usual clichés around how secretive and impenetrable the Chinese system is: the book is on Amazon for $21 for crying out loud! Anyhow, this felt so wrong that I figured I'd fix it. I bought the book, read it attentively and wrote what I hope you'll agree is a thoughtful review of it. The book contains genuinely surprising passages, such as Xi writing that oversight of the Communist Party by "the judiciary, the public, and the media" was not just something the Party must “readily accept,” but something that he framed as historically decisive - an essential component to "escaping the historical cycle of rise and fall" that has doomed every dynasty in China's history. Other passage that I'm sure would surprise many: a common narrative out there is that China blames the West for the century of humiliation and is driven by revenge. Well, Xi explains that's not true at all: the century of humiliation was China's own mistake, originated in the Ming Dynasty's disastrous "policy of national seclusion" that "resulted in China missing out on the opportunities presented by the Industrial Revolution" and "led to China’s decline." All in all, the book is remarkably self-reflective and thoughtful. For instance Xi recognizes that his drive for “full and rigorous internal governance” - including to rid the Party of corruption - risked "instill[ing] fear and apprehension, or intimidate members into inaction.” He emphasizes the need for pragmatism in this regard, codified in a framework called the “Three Distinctions” that separates honest mistakes - made while experimenting, reforming, or operating without precedent - from deliberate violations committed for personal gain. And many other surprises still. I found it a genuinely fascinating read for anyone interested in how the Chinese system works and how Xi thinks - or anyone interested in governance, period, as so much of what he writes is pretty universally applicable. This is the link to my review of the book, an article I titled "The Book the West Refuses to Read":

Let’s see how Binance plays the regulatory arbitrage game again. We saw a similar playbook in the UK in 2022, when its efforts ultimately ran into resistance from the FCA. In my view, the challenge is not about obtaining a license in one jurisdiction or hiring thousands of compliance professionals. The real question is whether compliance is genuinely embedded in the organization’s culture and decision-making. A company can hire 15,000 compliance staff, but if compliance teams lack authority, have limited visibility into key activities, are removed when raising sanctions, AML, or market integrity concerns, or if the organization believes it can rely on political protection, regulatory arbitrage, and complex structures to stay ahead of scrutiny, compliance programs risk becoming paper exercises rather than effective controls. Real compliance effectiveness comes from governance, transparency, accountability, and a willingness to operate within both the letter and the spirit of regulation—not from headcount alone. Regulators are ultimately evaluating outcomes, not organizational charts.

Identity and privacy are critical issues in the future of an agentic economy. We are very happy to have contributed to the latest @ubyx_ paper that examines the governance, liability and regulatory frameworks that agentic commerce requires.

Saturday, Silicon Valley Congressman Ro Khanna sat down with left-wing podcaster Jennifer Welch — who previously cheered on those celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk — to discuss the future of “progressive” governance. In a now viral clip, Khanna claimed Elon Musk “possibly sentenced to death” 4.5 million children by dismantling USAID, and demanded he be subpoenaed once Democrats retake power. The number traces back to a Lancet study published last summer projecting 14 million deaths by 2030 from USAID cuts. But the study assumes a fake world: one where DOGE’s cuts stay frozen through 2030, where the State Department’s lifesaving waiver doesn’t exist (it does), where Congress never refunds AIDS relief (it did), where two decades of clinics and supply chains vanish the second a grant lapses. It also conveniently ignores some former USAID functions (like funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology). Meanwhile, NYU statistician Aaron Brown notes the study credits USAID with preventing 11 million more deaths than the entire global mortality decline over two decades. @planetmaxwell interrogates the claim that Elon and DOGE single-handedly killed millions of children, and explains why Silicon Valley’s congressman is now laundering this as settled fact (when it’s really just propaganda). Full story 👇

😱SpaceX 刚准备冲刺 750 亿美金 IPO，结果被最大的评级机构 MSCI 一枪爆头，直接甩了个最低档的 CCC 差评，跟当年被制裁的俄罗斯一个待遇。 马斯克气得在 X 上疯狂嘲讽。 MSCI评级CCC直接导致spcx股票大跌16%！ 中旬，全球最大的指数与环境、社会和治理（ESG）评级公司之一 MSCI 正式宣布，将商业航天巨头 SpaceX 的 ESG 评级下调至最低级别“CCC”。 这一动作恰逢 SpaceX 传出筹备以约 750 亿美元估值进行首次公开募股（IPO）的关键窗口期。 评级发布后，SpaceX 在二级市场的潜在估值及股权交易价格引发连锁反应，导致股价大跌16%。 根据 MSCI 披露的合规分项数据，SpaceX 在公司治理（Governance）层面的得分仅为 3.2 分（满分 10 分），主要核心扣分项指向首席执行官埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）所拥有的绝对控制权与超级投票权架构。 此外，MSCI 认为其 Starlink 卫星星座产生的轨道光污染、潜在的太空垃圾隐患，以及火箭发射产生的碳排放和传统劳工争议，均构成了高风险暴露且管理不足的典型案例。 这一垫底的 CCC 评级，在评级权重上与 2022 年地缘冲突爆发后的俄罗斯主权评级处于同一信用档次。 这种将意识形态工具化、实施非对称资产重组的动作，在科技与传统金融生态中引发了剧烈反弹。 星链（Starlink）目前承担着全球大量偏远地区以及特定应急基础设施的网络分发权，其可重复使用火箭技术本质上降低了单次航天任务的材料折旧与物理浪费。 然而，在以欧洲网络安全局或华尔街传统资管机构为代表的合规考量中，这类硬核物理资产的实际产出，在资本分发和准入权重上往往不敌死板的数据表格。 面对华盛顿与华尔街联合施加的合规压力，马斯克在社交平台 X 上发表评论，称“可惜电动火箭目前还不可能”，以此直接讽刺现行 ESG 评估体系对前沿重工业的技术无知。 SpaceX 长期面临的高额资本开支和研发折旧，原本需要依赖稳定的机构信贷和公开上市募集资金来对冲。 而评级机构通过剥夺其绿色或可持续资产定性，抬高了其在主流养老金及信托基金中的准入门槛。 这场围绕 SpaceX 信用归类的博弈，本质上是硅谷物理生产力与传统资本市场分发权之间的权力对撞。 当解决人类跨行星生存与全球通信的硬核科技，必须服从于由评级中介主导、追求形式合规的现金流限制时，旧的全球贸易与资本配置规则正在展现出巨大的内在摩擦。 这场评级围剿并未改变 SpaceX 垄断全球 60% 以上商业发射市场的物理事实，却彻底挑明了资本市场中谁才是掌握最终清算权的守门人。