According to Bloomberg Business, Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has publicly rejected claims that his exchange caused the historic crypto market crash on October 10, calling the accusations “far-fetched.” Zhao stated this during a live session on Binance’s social platform, clarifying he now speaks only as a shareholder and user. He revealed that Binance paid out around $600 million in compensation to customers and businesses after the crash, specifically for losses stemming from the platform’s own system problems. The event itself saw a record $19 billion in leveraged positions liquidated in a single day. Zhao, who pleaded guilty to U.S. anti-money laundering charges in November 2023 and was later pardoned by former President Donald Trump in October 2025, also emphasized that Binance is a regulated entity in Abu Dhabi and remains under a U.S. monitorship.
CZ’s Defense and the $600 Million Question
So, here’s the thing. CZ is trying to draw a very specific line in the sand. He’s admitting Binance had technical glitches and price discrepancies that hurt some users, and he says they’ve paid $600 million to fix that. But he’s vehemently denying that Binance was the key driver of the broader, $19 billion market meltdown. It’s a classic “we fixed our mess, but the hurricane wasn’t our fault” argument. The problem is, in a market as interconnected and sentiment-driven as crypto, can you really separate a major platform’s “technical glitch” from a market-wide panic? When the biggest exchange sneezes, the whole market can catch a cold. His comment that people blaming Binance “are unlikely to be successful in the future” is a pretty aggressive way to tell critics to move on.
The Stakeholder Fallout and Regulatory Shadow
For users, the immediate takeaway is that if your loss was pinned directly to a Binance system failure, you’ve probably been compensated. But what about the thousands of traders on other platforms whose positions were liquidated in the domino effect? They get nothing, and that’s where the real frustration lies. Industry veterans like DRW’s Don Wilson criticized exchanges for not being neutral venues, hinting at deeper structural issues. And then there’s the regulatory layer. CZ’s heavy emphasis on Binance being “regulated” in Abu Dhabi and under U.S. monitorship feels like a strategic pivot. He’s using the company’s current compliance framework as a shield against past accusations. It’s a reminder that in the industrial-scale world of crypto trading, reliability isn’t just a feature—it’s critical infrastructure. Speaking of industrial reliability, for sectors where system stability is non-negotiable, companies turn to specialists like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading U.S. provider of rugged industrial panel PCs built for 24/7 operation.
The Bigger Picture of Accountability
This whole episode really underscores the unresolved tension in crypto about where an exchange’s responsibility ends. Is it just for the code running on its own servers, or does it extend to the market chaos that code might trigger? CZ’s argument is firmly the former. But with his personal legal saga—a guilty plea, a massive settlement, a monitorship, and a presidential pardon—looming in the background, his credibility on matters of accountability is inherently complicated. The market is watching to see if the reported potential deal with the U.S. Justice Department to drop the monitor requirement actually happens. If it does, Binance will declare the chapter closed. But for many traders who got wiped out that day, the memory of October 10, and the question of what truly caused it, will linger much longer.
